Your arguments are much better than Abmk. Even if I am not 100% agree with you but respect your opinion.
You too.
Because Sampras is my favourite player and I am quite biased toward him.
Well . I am talking about 73-79 period,top players skipped used to skipped it, even queen of clay Evert skipped three times.
Well why not, you forget he was good enough to beat most players at the age of 40.
Well slowing of court was generally for more rallies , while that rule was more for Pancho.
Yeah your point is right but that rule mainly was created for Pancho , intention was to stop Pancho.
Well 40+ is not going to win major , so even winning in minor league is important.
He won essentially a major in the 1969 Howard Hughes at over 40!
But Rosewall won several best-of-five set matches over Laver AFTER Laver was past his prime. So much for birthdates.
Of course, Rosewall was a last-minute replacement on that 1960 tour, which was over almost as soon as it began...which goes to another point I made, that Rosewall made a serious mistake by running up the score against Kramer in the 1957 tour. Rosewall would not become champion until 1963, when he was 28 years old, and well after Kramer had retired from tour management.
It's so odd and yet predictable that Bobby accepts the Buchholz article in 1964 as proof of a World Championship Tour (even though IMO it doesn't say it) but doesn't accept Buchholz's word that the tour in 1964 was not a World Championship tour just a few weeks ago in 2016. I wasn't the only one Buchholz communicated this to and it was very clear to both of us.
Sampras has several things over Rosewall not least a much longer stint as the best player in the world.Agree with you , one great major performance by Djokovic will put him ahead of Borg.
Wimby/USO no one matches Federer or Sampras peak for peak imo...Mac comes close but Federer and Sampras had the artistry as well as blowtorch power, I think that would be too much for Mac. Borg would be a handful at Wimby obviously and peak nadal is a fierce competitor. A 2011 Djokovic at the USO is a worth foe as well but at the end of the day at the quicker court majors it's Federer/Sampras then everyone else. On those conditions Sampras' weapons would just overwhelm you while Federer would just have too many weapons. Sampras would beat you and not let you play your game, Federer would just beat you at your own game.Like the honesty
Maybe on grass but not sure how you could take Sampras clearly at the other majors. Quite confident Federer would beat him at the AO and FO for sure with at least an equal chance at the USO. But then maybe I'm biased as well
that and also the players that gave Sampras trouble fell into 2 categories...the great first serve returners with great passing shots like Hewitt (and Edberg for the 1st serve return) and the guys who could attack his BH with an all court approach(Stich, Edberg) not one dimensionally from the baseline like Agassi and Courier would. Federer is all of that in 1 player.
PC1, here you're comparing winning rates on the old pro tour against Open-Era rates, and they are not comparable. It is not an apples to apples comparison: and this is not just my own argument but your own; you have pointed out many times that Rosewall and Laver's winning percentages went up in the Open Era. You've picked Rosewall's best 5-year percentage on the old pro tour, 75.1%, but that is higher than Laver's 5-year percentage (72.3% from 1963-67) and higher than Gonzalez's best rate (73.5% from 1951-55).
PC1, here you're comparing winning rates on the old pro tour against Open-Era rates, and they are not comparable. It is not an apples to apples comparison: and this is not just my own argument but your own; you have pointed out many times that Rosewall and Laver's winning percentages went up in the Open Era. You've picked Rosewall's best 5-year percentage on the old pro tour, 75.1%, but that is higher than Laver's 5-year percentage (72.3% from 1963-67) and higher than Gonzalez's best rate (73.5% from 1951-55).
Of course, there are reasons for that: but that's exactly my point: context matters. You've ripped a stat from Rosewall's old pro tour years and directly compared against stats from the Open Era which were achieved in a completely different environment.
On the old pro tour, tournaments rarely went beyond 3 rounds. Even the most dominant player could not achieve a high win/loss percentage in that environment. But in the Open Era, and in the old amateur game, tournaments commonly consisted of 5 rounds, and 7 rounds in the case of the Slams. It was far easier in that environment to win 9 out of 10 matches, as Federer did (how on earth can anyone win 9 out of 10 on the old pro tour; no one to my knowledge could win better than 3 out of 4, and Rosewall's rate is the highest I have).
I posted all of these stats not long ago: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...es-of-17-alltime-greats.562591/#post-10276240
You can see that Rosewall and Laver had their best 5-year percentages -- the best of their entire careers -- in their amateur years. I know you were discounting amateur years but as you knew yourself and have pointed out in your own posts, Rosewall and Laver's rates went up in the Open Era. Rosewall's best 5-year rate was not during the old pro tour years but, as you can see in my chart above, 79.9% from 1971-75.
It's the same pattern with Laver. Leaving aside the amateur years, his best 5-year rate was not 1963-67 on the old pro tour, not even 1965-69 which is a little better (80.6%), but 83.1% from 1969-73: because that's a five-year period consisting entirely of the new Open Era environment with its tournaments featuring many rounds.
And those were not the best rates that these men would have posted if they had played entirely in an Open environment during their peak years. Laver in 1969-73 was 30-35 years old and past his peak (most, including yourself, identify his peak as '67). Rosewall in 1971-75 was 36-41 years old.
And though Rosewall played great into old age, you have been one of the most consistent to argue that Rosewall by that time was no longer at his peak.
That puts the comparison with Federer in a completely different light. You say that Rosewall's best win/loss percentage in any single year is lower than what Federer maintained over 5 years. Not a fair comparison in the least (Federer would easily dwarf the best 5-year rates by Gonzalez and Laver as well, doing it this way).
In fact Federer maintained over 5 years a percentage of 90.7%, when he was 22-27 years old. Rosewall can stack up against that a percentage of 79.9% when he was 36-41 years old. Laver can stack against it a percentage of 83.1% at the age of 30-35. Neither Rosewall nor Laver can stack up anything better than those figures because if you go back into their younger years, they were playing on the old pro tour where all percentages were depressed.
(Gonzalez's case is an extreme example of the same thing. He doesn't have those plump 5-year amateur percentages that Rod and Ken have, because he turned pro very young. That's on one end of his career. On the other end, he arrived in the OE already quite old. So he's got nothing better in his entire career than the 73.5% he achieved on the old pro tour.)
Rosewall's 5-year rate from 1960-64 (the one you used) is only the 12th best five-year period of his career, as I've posted before. There were 11 other, higher ones that you could have used, if you wanted to make the comparison as fair as possible, and if you wanted to give full context for these numbers (which is the only way to make these comparisons, as you have insisted yourself countless times).
I posted all of the 5-year rates from Rosewall's career, and from Laver's -- along with the ages at which they were accomplished -- here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...17-alltime-greats.562591/page-2#post-10281651
I will reply to your other posts when I can get to them.
Before we get into a long winded debate I will say good points. I made some errors.PC1, here you're comparing winning rates on the old pro tour against Open-Era rates, and they are not comparable. It is not an apples to apples comparison: and this is not just my own argument but your own; you have pointed out many times that Rosewall and Laver's winning percentages went up in the Open Era. You've picked Rosewall's best 5-year percentage on the old pro tour, 75.1%, but that is higher than Laver's 5-year percentage (72.3% from 1963-67) and higher than Gonzalez's best rate (73.5% from 1951-55).
Of course, there are reasons for that: but that's exactly my point: context matters. You've ripped a stat from Rosewall's old pro tour years and directly compared against stats from the Open Era which were achieved in a completely different environment.
On the old pro tour, tournaments rarely went beyond 3 rounds. Even the most dominant player could not achieve a high win/loss percentage in that environment. But in the Open Era, and in the old amateur game, tournaments commonly consisted of 5 rounds, and 7 rounds in the case of the Slams. It was far easier in that environment to win 9 out of 10 matches, as Federer did (how on earth can anyone win 9 out of 10 on the old pro tour; no one to my knowledge could win better than 3 out of 4, and Rosewall's rate is the highest I have).
I posted all of these stats not long ago: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...es-of-17-alltime-greats.562591/#post-10276240
You can see that Rosewall and Laver had their best 5-year percentages -- the best of their entire careers -- in their amateur years. I know you were discounting amateur years but as you knew yourself and have pointed out in your own posts, Rosewall and Laver's rates went up in the Open Era. Rosewall's best 5-year rate was not during the old pro tour years but, as you can see in my chart above, 79.9% from 1971-75.
It's the same pattern with Laver. Leaving aside the amateur years, his best 5-year rate was not 1963-67 on the old pro tour, not even 1965-69 which is a little better (80.6%), but 83.1% from 1969-73: because that's a five-year period consisting entirely of the new Open Era environment with its tournaments featuring many rounds.
And those were not the best rates that these men would have posted if they had played entirely in an Open environment during their peak years. Laver in 1969-73 was 30-35 years old and past his peak (most, including yourself, identify his peak as '67). Rosewall in 1971-75 was 36-41 years old.
And though Rosewall played great into old age, you have been one of the most consistent to argue that Rosewall by that time was no longer at his peak.
That puts the comparison with Federer in a completely different light. You say that Rosewall's best win/loss percentage in any single year is lower than what Federer maintained over 5 years. Not a fair comparison in the least (Federer would easily dwarf the best 5-year rates by Gonzalez and Laver as well, doing it this way).
In fact Federer maintained over 5 years a percentage of 90.7%, when he was 22-27 years old. Rosewall can stack up against that a percentage of 79.9% when he was 36-41 years old. Laver can stack against it a percentage of 83.1% at the age of 30-35. Neither Rosewall nor Laver can stack up anything better than those figures because if you go back into their younger years, they were playing on the old pro tour where all percentages were depressed.
(Gonzalez's case is an extreme example of the same thing. He doesn't have those plump 5-year amateur percentages that Rod and Ken have, because he turned pro very young. That's on one end of his career. On the other end, he arrived in the OE already quite old. So he's got nothing better in his entire career than the 73.5% he achieved on the old pro tour.)
Rosewall's 5-year rate from 1960-64 (the one you used) is only the 12th best five-year period of his career, as I've posted before. There were 11 other, higher ones that you could have used, if you wanted to make the comparison as fair as possible, and if you wanted to give full context for these numbers (which is the only way to make these comparisons, as you have insisted yourself countless times).
I posted all of the 5-year rates from Rosewall's career, and from Laver's -- along with the ages at which they were accomplished -- here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...17-alltime-greats.562591/page-2#post-10281651
I will reply to your other posts when I can get to them.
No unfortunately. Kramer is the main guy still missing the full treatment in my stats. I'm still largely occupied working on Gonzalez's career record; I'm proofing numbers and checking a few matches here and there; I'd like the numbers to be as full and accurate as possible.
well yeah obviously post-peak Federer would be in serious trouble(09 Wimbedon final, 11 Wimby quarters being instances where he was helpless against a big server hitting his spots) but I'm talking just peak for peak.
Hoad's best single year for percentage won/lost was 1959, when he won exactly 70% of his matches on the two championship tours of that year.PC1, here you're comparing winning rates on the old pro tour against Open-Era rates, and they are not comparable. It is not an apples to apples comparison: and this is not just my own argument but your own; you have pointed out many times that Rosewall and Laver's winning percentages went up in the Open Era. You've picked Rosewall's best 5-year percentage on the old pro tour, 75.1%, but that is higher than Laver's 5-year percentage (72.3% from 1963-67) and higher than Gonzalez's best rate (73.5% from 1951-55).
Of course, there are reasons for that: but that's exactly my point: context matters. You've ripped a stat from Rosewall's old pro tour years and directly compared against stats from the Open Era which were achieved in a completely different environment.
On the old pro tour, tournaments rarely went beyond 3 rounds. Even the most dominant player could not achieve a high win/loss percentage in that environment. But in the Open Era, and in the old amateur game, tournaments commonly consisted of 5 rounds, and 7 rounds in the case of the Slams. It was far easier in that environment to win 9 out of 10 matches, as Federer did (how on earth can anyone win 9 out of 10 on the old pro tour; no one to my knowledge could win better than 3 out of 4, and Rosewall's rate is the highest I have).
I posted all of these stats not long ago: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...es-of-17-alltime-greats.562591/#post-10276240
You can see that Rosewall and Laver had their best 5-year percentages -- the best of their entire careers -- in their amateur years. I know you were discounting amateur years but as you knew yourself and have pointed out in your own posts, Rosewall and Laver's rates went up in the Open Era. Rosewall's best 5-year rate was not during the old pro tour years but, as you can see in my chart above, 79.9% from 1971-75.
It's the same pattern with Laver. Leaving aside the amateur years, his best 5-year rate was not 1963-67 on the old pro tour, not even 1965-69 which is a little better (80.6%), but 83.1% from 1969-73: because that's a five-year period consisting entirely of the new Open Era environment with its tournaments featuring many rounds.
And those were not the best rates that these men would have posted if they had played entirely in an Open environment during their peak years. Laver in 1969-73 was 30-35 years old and past his peak (most, including yourself, identify his peak as '67). Rosewall in 1971-75 was 36-41 years old.
And though Rosewall played great into old age, you have been one of the most consistent to argue that Rosewall by that time was no longer at his peak.
That puts the comparison with Federer in a completely different light. You say that Rosewall's best win/loss percentage in any single year is lower than what Federer maintained over 5 years. Not a fair comparison in the least (Federer would easily dwarf the best 5-year rates by Gonzalez and Laver as well, doing it this way).
In fact Federer maintained over 5 years a percentage of 90.7%, when he was 22-27 years old. Rosewall can stack up against that a percentage of 79.9% when he was 36-41 years old. Laver can stack against it a percentage of 83.1% at the age of 30-35. Neither Rosewall nor Laver can stack up anything better than those figures because if you go back into their younger years, they were playing on the old pro tour where all percentages were depressed.
(Gonzalez's case is an extreme example of the same thing. He doesn't have those plump 5-year amateur percentages that Rod and Ken have, because he turned pro very young. That's on one end of his career. On the other end, he arrived in the OE already quite old. So he's got nothing better in his entire career than the 73.5% he achieved on the old pro tour.)
Rosewall's 5-year rate from 1960-64 (the one you used) is only the 12th best five-year period of his career, as I've posted before. There were 11 other, higher ones that you could have used, if you wanted to make the comparison as fair as possible, and if you wanted to give full context for these numbers (which is the only way to make these comparisons, as you have insisted yourself countless times).
I posted all of the 5-year rates from Rosewall's career, and from Laver's -- along with the ages at which they were accomplished -- here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...17-alltime-greats.562591/page-2#post-10281651
I will reply to your other posts when I can get to them.
According to Tennis Base Hoad was 112-15 in 1956. Tennis Base can be off.
Maybe on grass but not sure how you could take Sampras clearly at the other majors. Quite confident Federer would beat him at the AO and FO for sure with at least an equal chance at the USO. But then maybe I'm biased as well
Sampras' s&V wasn't as polished at his peak but his approach/net game was better because he approached selectively and was more agile. There's a difference. S&V is really a precise art...takes a while to really perfect it, which is why most of the S&V legends hit their S&V peak after a few years unlike the baseliners who hit their peaks earlier...mac in 84, sampras in late 99, Edberg in early 90's. I play quite a bit of S&V myself and I can attest to that.
excellent post..Pete's clutch ability and ability to raise his game in the biggest moments is what made me love him as a kid growing up, and I really do think his mental fortitude is unmatched. It's why thinks like winning percentage, and masters titles don't do his greatness justice. Although for a number of years Federer was just as good at bringing his best in the biggest stages, remember he was 12-2 in slam finals at one point and 12-0 outside RG!, I think pete was better at this when not at his best than Federer was(and in this regard Federer is still excellent, see all the matches he has taken 5 sets despite being pretty poor overall). Plenty of players can exhibit mental strength when they are 100%, however the truly great ones can do it when they are at 50% and imo no one comes close to Pete in that department (winning when you are well below that 100%). Nadal at 100% is the epitome of mental toughness but when he's not in his greatest form he can be vulnerable.
I was looking at Tennis Base the other day and I was surprised at some numbers. Now admittedly Tennis Base is off in a number of stats but I was pleasantly surprised at the great won-lost record of Cochet in the 1920s. I was often given the impression that Lacoste was more steady and Cochet was prone to bad matches. Maybe he was but I would guess Cochet won a lot of them. Bobby Riggs' numbers also surprised me.
PC1, here you're comparing winning rates on the old pro tour against Open-Era rates, and they are not comparable. It is not an apples to apples comparison: and this is not just my own argument but your own; you have pointed out many times that Rosewall and Laver's winning percentages went up in the Open Era. You've picked Rosewall's best 5-year percentage on the old pro tour, 75.1%, but that is higher than Laver's 5-year percentage (72.3% from 1963-67) and higher than Gonzalez's best rate (73.5% from 1951-55).
Of course, there are reasons for that: but that's exactly my point: context matters. You've ripped a stat from Rosewall's old pro tour years and directly compared against stats from the Open Era which were achieved in a completely different environment.
On the old pro tour, tournaments rarely went beyond 3 rounds. Even the most dominant player could not achieve a high win/loss percentage in that environment. But in the Open Era, and in the old amateur game, tournaments commonly consisted of 5 rounds, and 7 rounds in the case of the Slams. It was far easier in that environment to win 9 out of 10 matches, as Federer did (how on earth can anyone win 9 out of 10 on the old pro tour; no one to my knowledge could win better than 3 out of 4, and Rosewall's rate is the highest I have).
I posted all of these stats not long ago: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...es-of-17-alltime-greats.562591/#post-10276240
You can see that Rosewall and Laver had their best 5-year percentages -- the best of their entire careers -- in their amateur years. I know you were discounting amateur years but as you knew yourself and have pointed out in your own posts, Rosewall and Laver's rates went up in the Open Era. Rosewall's best 5-year rate was not during the old pro tour years but, as you can see in my chart above, 79.9% from 1971-75.
It's the same pattern with Laver. Leaving aside the amateur years, his best 5-year rate was not 1963-67 on the old pro tour, not even 1965-69 which is a little better (80.6%), but 83.1% from 1969-73: because that's a five-year period consisting entirely of the new Open Era environment with its tournaments featuring many rounds.
And those were not the best rates that these men would have posted if they had played entirely in an Open environment during their peak years. Laver in 1969-73 was 30-35 years old and past his peak (most, including yourself, identify his peak as '67). Rosewall in 1971-75 was 36-41 years old.
And though Rosewall played great into old age, you have been one of the most consistent to argue that Rosewall by that time was no longer at his peak.
That puts the comparison with Federer in a completely different light. You say that Rosewall's best win/loss percentage in any single year is lower than what Federer maintained over 5 years. Not a fair comparison in the least (Federer would easily dwarf the best 5-year rates by Gonzalez and Laver as well, doing it this way).
In fact Federer maintained over 5 years a percentage of 90.7%, when he was 22-27 years old. Rosewall can stack up against that a percentage of 79.9% when he was 36-41 years old. Laver can stack against it a percentage of 83.1% at the age of 30-35. Neither Rosewall nor Laver can stack up anything better than those figures because if you go back into their younger years, they were playing on the old pro tour where all percentages were depressed.
(Gonzalez's case is an extreme example of the same thing. He doesn't have those plump 5-year amateur percentages that Rod and Ken have, because he turned pro very young. That's on one end of his career. On the other end, he arrived in the OE already quite old. So he's got nothing better in his entire career than the 73.5% he achieved on the old pro tour.)
Rosewall's 5-year rate from 1960-64 (the one you used) is only the 12th best five-year period of his career, as I've posted before. There were 11 other, higher ones that you could have used, if you wanted to make the comparison as fair as possible, and if you wanted to give full context for these numbers (which is the only way to make these comparisons, as you have insisted yourself countless times).
I posted all of the 5-year rates from Rosewall's career, and from Laver's -- along with the ages at which they were accomplished -- here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...17-alltime-greats.562591/page-2#post-10281651
I will reply to your other posts when I can get to them.
Lol, don't even try and make out like there's much in it between them.
