Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
GabeT said:
Maybe. When I watch I reach a different conclusion.

I was looking at the 1969 finals Laver played and was not impressed at all. And that was supposed to be his best year. Compared to how tennis is played today they looked, to me, significantly less athletic and moved much less.
Click to expand...

I've seen Rosewall and Laver play live, up close. I've also seen Federer, Djokovic and Murray live, and virtually every all time great player in between them. Today's players have nothing on Rosewall and Laver in terms of talent and athleticism.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
gino, I would have many objections to your list. But I only mention two especially strange points:

How the hell can you include a second- or third-class player like Emerson in your top 10? This player was never a No.1 or No.2 player in any year and has won only 12 AMATEUR GS tournaments. In comparison Borg has won 11 Open Era GS tournaments!

And why do you put Rosewall in the 7-8 slam territory even though this man has won 25 majors (8 GS tournaments, 15 pro majors and 2 WCT Finals)?

Rosewall was thrice as good as Emerson!
Click to expand...
You mentioned Emerson won 12 amateur majors which is of course correct.

If you want to be consistent you should mention that Rosewall won four amateur majors also.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
I've seen Rosewall and Laver play live, up close. I've also seen Federer, Djokovic and Murray live, and virtually every all time great player in between them. Today's players have nothing on Rosewall and Laver in terms of talent and athleticism.
Pancho Gonzalez?
Click to expand...
I think Gonzalez was one of the all time great pure athletes in tennis history. He was tall at 6'3 and one half inches tall, fast, agile with great strength and reactions. Probably Lew Hoad, Vines, Sedgman and Perry are up there also for the pre Open Era.
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
I think Gonzalez was one of the all time great pure athletes in tennis history. He was tall at 6'3 and one half inches tall, fast, agile with great strength and reactions. Probably Lew Hoad, Vines, Sedgman and Perry are up there also for the pre Open Era.
Click to expand...

Regrettably, I did not see Gonzalez play live. Sedgman was regarded as the best conditioned athlete in the game in his prime.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
GabeT said:
Maybe. When I watch I reach a different conclusion.

I was looking at the 1969 finals Laver played and was not impressed at all. And that was supposed to be his best year. Compared to how tennis is played today they looked, to me, significantly less athletic and moved much less.
Click to expand...

Gabe T, You should watch the excerpt of the 1969 AO SF (Laver vs. Roche). Fast moving of both players and very impressive!
 
gino

gino

Legend
Limpinhitter said:
Pancho Gonzalez?
Click to expand...

Pancho is a poor omission on my end. I should have put him between Agassi and Emerson @Limpinhitter ....

I stand by Roy even though you claim amateur slams aren't worth anything @BobbyOne ...

Here's a list of finalists he beat in those 12 majors (bold names own a singles major):

1. Rod Laver (US Open)
2. Fred Stolle (US Open)
3.Fred Stolle (Wimby)
4.Fred Stolle (Wimby)
5. Pierre Darmon (French)
6. Tony Roche (French)
7. Arthur Ashe (Aussie)
8. Arthur Ashe (Aussie)
9. Fred Stolle (Aussie)
10. Fred Stolle (Aussie)
11. Ken Fletcher (Aussie)
12. Rod Laver (Aussie)

Clawing your way to to 12 singles major titles is stunning. He beat former major champions 10 TIMES. Not to mention he grabbed two titles over Laver, consistently destroyed Fred Stolle (who is an absolute legend and 2 time major champ - modern murray), took out Arthur twice in Australia, and did this on a VARIETY of surfaces. I think you don't give this man enough credit if you belittle his twelve major titles and the myriad of legendary players he took down along the way. Do the names Laver, Ashe, Stolle, and Roche mean nothing to you @BobbyOne ? Cause they mean a whole hell of a lot to me.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
pc1 said:
Not really I think. There was a WTT match a few years ago where the set came down to one point and Roddick won it.
Click to expand...

I don't consider WTT a fully competitive match tbh. But then again I haven't seen it. Was Roddick retired by then? He was only a top 20-30 player in his last year or two. Shoulder problems really limited his serve.

pc1 said:
I think Gonzalez was one of the all time great pure athletes in tennis history. He was tall at 6'3 and one half inches tall, fast, agile with great strength and reactions. Probably Lew Hoad, Vines, Sedgman and Perry are up there also for the pre Open Era.
Click to expand...

There were definitely fantastic athletes but to say the Big 3 of today have nothing on Rosewall and Laver (implying the two Aussies are in a different class) is just ridiculous IMO. Borg is the greatest athlete in tennis history IMO.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
You mentioned Emerson won 12 amateur majors which is of course correct.

If you want to be consistent you should mention that Rosewall won four amateur majors also.
Click to expand...

His general point that Rosewall is greater than Emerson is correct though. I think you're being a bit pedantic.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Phoenix1983 said:
His general point that Rosewall is greater than Emerson is correct though. I think you're being a bit pedantic.
Click to expand...

It's important to be fair and not hold double standards though. I find it hypocritical to put down Emerson for having 12 amateur majors and then flaunt Rosewall's major count as 25 over great players from later era's, as is so common from certain posters.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
I don't consider WTT a fully competitive match tbh. But then again I haven't seen it. Was Roddick retired by then? He was only a top 20-30 player in his last year or two. Shoulder problems really limited his serve.



There were definitely fantastic athletes but to say the Big 3 of today have nothing on Rosewall and Laver (implying the two Aussies are in a different class) is just ridiculous IMO. Borg is the greatest athlete in tennis history IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't believe Roddick was retired. Here's an article on it.
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Andy-Roddick,-John-McEnroe-Deliver-Crowd-Pleasing-.aspx

The top four over the last few years of Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are among the greatest athletes in tennis history. I don't think tennis has ever had such great athletes in their top four.

I would say other great athletes in tennis history are Tilden, Perry, Vines, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad, Emerson, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Noah, Nastase, Sampras, Edberg among others. Kramer, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Newcombe, Budge were excellent athletes too but imo below the others.

I would define athletic ability as mobility, agility, racquet speed, reflexes, ability, to hit with power (strength), height and stamina. For example Laver was NOT the tallest player but he overcame that with his great agility so he could hit great overheads and his amazing left wrist which helped with his serve so overall he was a terrific athlete.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
It's important to be fair and not hold double standards though. I find it hypocritical to put down Emerson for having 12 amateur majors and then flaunt Rosewall's major count as 25 over great players from later era's as is so common.
Click to expand...
And that's my point. He never mentions the four amateur majors for Rosewall but always points it out for Emerson. Dan Lobb writes some things I totally disagree with and he knows it but he is consistent over the years. I respect that.

I don't expect that poster to change but I will on occasion point out certain things that was inconsistent and imo perhaps misleading.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
pc1 said:
I don't believe Roddick was retired. Here's an article on it.
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Andy-Roddick,-John-McEnroe-Deliver-Crowd-Pleasing-.aspx

The top four over the last few years of Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are among the greatest athletes in tennis history. I don't think tennis has ever had such great athletes in their top four.

I would say other great athletes in tennis history are Tilden, Perry, Vines, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad, Emerson, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Noah, Nastase, Sampras, Edberg among others. Kramer, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Newcombe, Budge were excellent athletes too but imo below the others.

I would define athletic ability as mobility, agility, racquet speed, reflexes, ability, to hit with power (strength), height and stamina. For example Laver was NOT the tallest player but he overcame that with his great agility so he could hit great overheads and his amazing left wrist which helped with his serve so overall he was a terrific athlete.
Click to expand...

Roddick served at just 48%, not sure I've ever seen a competitive match of his where he served that low. In 2010 Roddick won a masters event beating peak Nadal. I have doubts Roddick went all out. But agree to disagree.

Interestingly both Murray and Djokovic suck with their overheads, Murray especially doesn't have great racquet head speed compared to the rest of the Big 3.

No doubt that anyone who's ever been at the top of the sport was a terrific athlete, the fawning over Laver as the greatest athlete ever in tennis just grates on me :D. Fantastic athlete yes. But the greatest ever in that regard to the point where a guy like Nadal has nothing on him? Give me a break.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Roddick served at just 48%, not sure I've ever seen a competitive match of his where he served that low. In 2010 Roddick won a masters event beating peak Nadal. I have doubts Roddick went all out. But agree to disagree.

Interestingly both Murray and Djokovic suck with their overheads, Murray especially doesn't have great racquet head speed compared to the rest of the Big 3.

No doubt that anyone who's ever been at the top of the sport was a terrific athlete, the fawning over Laver as the greatest athlete ever in tennis just grates on me :D. Fantastic athlete yes. But the greatest ever in that regard to the point where a guy like Nadal has nothing on him? Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Who is the greatest athlete in chess? ;)

I don't think it was Wilhelm Steintz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Steinitz
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Yes, it is my opinion, but, no, not just my opinion. As for proof, it seems that you are conflating proof with conclusive proof. Is an eye witness account proof according to your definition?
Click to expand...
Sidebar: psychologists have demonstrated that eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Opposing psychologists have demonstrated that psychological opinions are notoriously unreliable. :p
Click to expand...
Ho ho. Good one. :cool:o_O:D

The psychologists I mentioned were not offering opinions. They were offering statistical conclusions. They demonstrated how eye-witness accounts consistently differed from actual recorded occurrences.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
gino said:
Pancho is a poor omission on my end. I should have put him between Agassi and Emerson @Limpinhitter ....

I stand by Roy even though you claim amateur slams aren't worth anything @BobbyOne ...

Here's a list of finalists he beat in those 12 majors (bold names own a singles major):

1. Rod Laver (US Open)
2. Fred Stolle (US Open)
3.Fred Stolle (Wimby)
4.Fred Stolle (Wimby)
5. Pierre Darmon (French)
6. Tony Roche (French)
7. Arthur Ashe (Aussie)
8. Arthur Ashe (Aussie)
9. Fred Stolle (Aussie)
10. Fred Stolle (Aussie)
11. Ken Fletcher (Aussie)
12. Rod Laver (Aussie)

Clawing your way to to 12 singles major titles is stunning. He beat former major champions 10 TIMES. Not to mention he grabbed two titles over Laver, consistently destroyed Fred Stolle (who is an absolute legend and 2 time major champ - modern murray), took out Arthur twice in Australia, and did this on a VARIETY of surfaces. I think you don't give this man enough credit if you belittle his twelve major titles and the myriad of legendary players he took down along the way. Do the names Laver, Ashe, Stolle, and Roche mean nothing to you @BobbyOne ? Cause they mean a whole hell of a lot to me.
Click to expand...

gino, I'm very disappointed by your stubborness. You are an ignoramus as you neglect all the discoveries of modern experts who finally ended that absurd counting majors and ignoring the important pro majors!

You still rank Emerson in your top ten even though he is not a top 20 player. As told, Borg has won 11 open era Grand Slam tournaments while Emerson has never won any and also no pro major. Open majors are more important than amateur majors as also pro majors mostly are.

NatF might be right that I should not count Rosewall's 4 amateur majors (or not count them as important as his other majors) but then Rosewall still has won 21 majors while Emerson has won 0 majors (ZERO majors). How the hell can you rank a player with zero majors ahead of a player with 21 majors and at No.7????

Emerson never beat a top three player! When he beat Laver, Rod was not a top three player. Laver was immature at that time. Laver improved significantly afterwards while Emerson never improved anymore.

How can you rank a player at place 7 who never was a top three player, not even in his best year, 1964??? Please explain that to your readers!

I have not claimed that amateur majors are nothing. I just have put them in perspective.

You are the only poster since years who gives Emerson a top ten place. Even some Rosewall haters like Limpinhitter rate Rosewall ahead of Emerson, as far as I know. Emmo was a second-class player if not a third class player.

Stolle was not really a great player. Roche and Ashe were far away from their top form when they lost to Emmo. They improved only in open era!

Get serious and real!

Stolle is not comparable with Murray. The latter has won two majors where all top players participated. When Stolle won, the best players (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno) were absent!

Emerson did not destroy Stolle consistently. In the 1966 US Championships he was destroyed totally by journeyman, Stolle...

You count: Emerson 12 GS tournaments, Borg 11 GS tournaments. Thus Emerson must be stronger than Borg. Absurd!!!
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
gino, I'm very disappointed by your stubborness. You are an ignoramus as you neglect all the discoveries of modern experts who finally ended that absurd counting majors and ignoring the important pro majors!

You still rank Emerson in your top ten even though he is not a top 20 player. As told, Borg has won 11 open era Grand Slam tournaments while Emerson has never won any and also no pro major. Open majors are more important than amateur majors as also pro majors mostly are.

NatF might be right that I should not count Rosewall's 4 amateur majors (or not count them as important as his other majors) but then Rosewall still has won 21 majors while Emerson has won 0 majors (ZERO majors). How the hell can you rank a player with zero majors ahead of a player with 21 majors and at No.7????

Emerson never beat a top three player! When he beat Laver, Rod was not a top three player. Laver was immature at that time. Laver improved significantly afterwards while Emerson never improved anymore.

How can you rank a player at place 7 who never was a top three player, not even in his best year, 1964??? Please explain that to your readers!

I have not claimed that amateur majors are nothing. I just have put them in perspective.

You are the only poster since years who gives Emerson a top ten place. Even some Rosewall haters like Limpinhitter rate Rosewall ahead of Emerson, as far as I know. Emmo was a second-class player if not a third class player.

Stolle was not really a great player. Roche and Ashe were far away from their top form when they lost to Emmo. The improved only in open era!

Get serious and real!

Stolle is not comparable with Murray. The latter has won two majors where all top players participated. When Stolle won, the best players (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno were absent!

Emerson did not destroy Stolle consistently. In the 1966 US Championships he was destroyed totally by journeyman, Stolle...

You count: Emerson 12 GS tournamnets, Borg 11 GS tournaments. Thus Emerson must be stronger than Borg. Absurd!!!
Click to expand...

Just a quick note Bobby, Murray has won 3 majors now - he captured Wimbledon last month.

Bit quick to call gino an ignoramus too...:eek:
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
gino, I'm very disappointed by your stubborness. You are an ignoramus as you neglect all the discoveries of modern experts who finally ended that absurd counting majors and ignoring the important pro majors!

You still rank Emerson in your top ten even though he is not a top 20 player. As told, Borg has won 11 open era Grand Slam tournaments while Emerson has never won any and also no pro major. Open majors are more important than amateur majors as also pro majors mostly are.

NatF might be right that I should not count Rosewall's 4 amateur majors (or not count them as important as his other majors) but then Rosewall still has won 21 majors while Emerson has won 0 majors (ZERO majors). How the hell can you rank a player with zero majors ahead of a player with 21 majors and at No.7????

Emerson never beat a top three player! When he beat Laver, Rod was not a top three player. Laver was immature at that time. Laver improved significantly afterwards while Emerson never improved anymore.

How can you rank a player at place 7 who never was a top three player, not even in his best year, 1964??? Please explain that to your readers!

I have not claimed that amateur majors are nothing. I just have put them in perspective.

You are the only poster since years who gives Emerson a top ten place. Even some Rosewall haters like Limpinhitter rate Rosewall ahead of Emerson, as far as I know. Emmo was a second-class player if not a third class player.

Stolle was not really a great player. Roche and Ashe were far away from their top form when they lost to Emmo. The improved only in open era!

Get serious and real!

Stolle is not comparable with Murray. The latter has won two majors where all top players participated. When Stolle won, the best players (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno were absent!

Emerson did not destroy Stolle consistently. In the 1966 US Championships he was destroyed totally by journeyman, Stolle...

You count: Emerson 12 GS tournamnets, Borg 11 GS tournaments. Thus Emerson must be stronger than Borg. Absurd!!!
Click to expand...

This is a highly aggressive post, Bobby.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
gino, I'm very disappointed by your stubborness. You are an ignoramus as you neglect all the discoveries of modern experts who finally ended that absurd counting majors and ignoring the important pro majors!

You still rank Emerson in your top ten even though he is not a top 20 player. As told, Borg has won 11 open era Grand Slam tournaments while Emerson has never won any and also no pro major. Open majors are more important than amateur majors as also pro majors mostly are.

NatF might be right that I should not count Rosewall's 4 amateur majors (or not count them as important as his other majors) but then Rosewall still has won 21 majors while Emerson has won 0 majors (ZERO majors). How the hell can you rank a player with zero majors ahead of a player with 21 majors and at No.7????

Emerson never beat a top three player! When he beat Laver, Rod was not a top three player. Laver was immature at that time. Laver improved significantly afterwards while Emerson never improved anymore.

How can you rank a player at place 7 who never was a top three player, not even in his best year, 1964??? Please explain that to your readers!

I have not claimed that amateur majors are nothing. I just have put them in perspective.

You are the only poster since years who gives Emerson a top ten place. Even some Rosewall haters like Limpinhitter rate Rosewall ahead of Emerson, as far as I know. Emmo was a second-class player if not a third class player.

Stolle was not really a great player. Roche and Ashe were far away from their top form when they lost to Emmo. The improved only in open era!

Get serious and real!

Stolle is not comparable with Murray. The latter has won two majors where all top players participated. When Stolle won, the best players (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno were absent!

Emerson did not destroy Stolle consistently. In the 1966 US Championships he was destroyed totally by journeyman, Stolle...

You count: Emerson 12 GS tournamnets, Borg 11 GS tournaments. Thus Emerson must be stronger than Borg. Absurd!!!
Click to expand...
Laver was awesome in 1961 and reached the same form that would blow Rosewall away at Kooyong and Adelaide in January 1963.
Emmo showed better form than Gimeno at Wimbledon, clobbered Gimeno at Wimbledon in 1959, blew past Laver at Forest HIlls in 1961, and had Laver on the ropes and on toast in the 1962 Roland Garros final...Laver acknowledged this.
Emerson was a far bigger star than either Laver or Rosewall in the mid-1960's, and probably earned more money than Laver and Rosewall put together...they could only envy Emmo's bankroll at that time.
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
Just a quick note Bobby, Murray has won 3 majors now - he captured Wimbledon last month.

Bit quick to call gino an ignoramus too...:eek:
Click to expand...

Read better: "Stolle is not comparable with Murray. The latter has won two majors where all top players participated."

So BobbyOne doesn't do any mistake here o_O
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
I don't consider WTT a fully competitive match tbh. But then again I haven't seen it. Was Roddick retired by then? He was only a top 20-30 player in his last year or two. Shoulder problems really limited his serve.

There were definitely fantastic athletes but to say the Big 3 of today have nothing on Rosewall and Laver (implying the two Aussies are in a different class) is just ridiculous IMO. Borg is the greatest athlete in tennis history IMO.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood the proverb "have nothing on." It means no better than, not that the latter are in a different class. It seems you are just looking for an argument.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Limpinhitter said:
You misunderstood the proverb "have nothing on." It means no better than, not that the latter are in a different class. It seems you are just looking for an argument.
Click to expand...

It can often mean "not nearly as good as". You've been talking a lot of nonsense recently so it didn't seem out of place. For example a serious Federer losing to 5 years retired Sampras it bollocks when he just tore through several top 10 players not long ago in Shanghai. Maybe he was suffering the early effects of mono :D
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
It can often mean "not nearly as good as". You've been talking a lot of nonsense recently so it didn't seem out of place. For example a serious Federer losing to 5 years retired Sampras it bollocks when he just tore through several top 10 players not long ago in Shanghai. Maybe he was suffering the early effects of mono :D
Click to expand...

If you think my comments are nonsense, maybe you just misunderstood them, again.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Just a quick note Bobby, Murray has won 3 majors now - he captured Wimbledon last month.

Bit quick to call gino an ignoramus too...:eek:
Click to expand...

NatF, I'm sorry about Murray's number.

I wonder about your last sentence. If ever there was an ignoramus on this board it is a person who still is barely counting GS tournaments (with Laver an exception) and therefore ranking Emerson ahead of Borg, Rosewall, (originally Gonzalez), Kramer, Tilden, Budge, Hoad, Newcombe, Perry, McEnroe etc...

In my recent post I have shown how wrong his claims are. Even my worst enemies don't rank Emerson higher than Rosewall and on place seven!!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
TheFifthSet said:
Guy is a sight to behold, especially when he talks to people in the way he does, then bemoans other posters talking down to him, lol. 10/10 pomposity.
Click to expand...

Which guy??

It's really funny that you get likes from three posters who use to insult other posters ("village idiot" etc.). Have not insulted that way since my return ;-)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Flash O'Groove said:
Read better: "Stolle is not comparable with Murray. The latter has won two majors where all top players participated."

So BobbyOne doesn't do any mistake here o_O
Click to expand...

Flash, Thanks. I confess I don't know if at the 2012 Olympics all top players participated. At this year's Wimbledon not. But generally I meant that Stolle won two majors against the likes of Emerson and Santana as the best players ( in the absence of Laver, Rosewall & Co.) while Murray won three in the open era of today when mostly all top players participate (if not ill or injured).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
I did consider that but then again Nadal was missing in 2 of Murrays slam wins. So maybe it should be 1 major? ;)



No comment :D I'll assume it was a simple error
Click to expand...

NatF, Yes it was an error maybe also caused by my emotion about the nonsense I had to read.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Laver was awesome in 1961 and reached the same form that would blow Rosewall away at Kooyong and Adelaide in January 1963.
Emmo showed better form than Gimeno at Wimbledon, clobbered Gimeno at Wimbledon in 1959, blew past Laver at Forest HIlls in 1961, and had Laver on the ropes and on toast in the 1962 Roland Garros final...Laver acknowledged this.
Emerson was a far bigger star than either Laver or Rosewall in the mid-1960's, and probably earned more money than Laver and Rosewall put together...they could only envy Emmo's bankroll at that time.
Click to expand...

Dan, Your hint to prize money and stardom is senseless; and you know it in this context.

Ask Mr.Laver and he will assure you that he was much weaker in 1961 than in 1963. That's history...

And you do know that Rosewall did virtually not practice for the January, 1963 series.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
It's important to be fair and not hold double standards though. I find it hypocritical to put down Emerson for having 12 amateur majors and then flaunt Rosewall's major count as 25 over great players from later era's, as is so common from certain posters.
Click to expand...

NatF, There is a great difference (among other great differences) between Rosewall and Emerson: Rosewall won "only" four amateur Gs tournaments whilst Emerson won 12 amateur GS tournaments. Emmo won NOTHING outside of them whilst Rosewall won 21 bigger majors than his 4 amateur ones. The latter were a little minority among his great majors' resume.

Hope you and a few other always critical posters will understand.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
NatF, Yes it was an error maybe also caused by my emotion about the nonsense I had to read.
Click to expand...
Bobby,

This is meant in all good will. You have to take it easy sometimes. If people disagree with you (like me or others), well that's going to happen and it will continue to happen. Yes I understand you feel that you have certain things to say but it's not worth it to get so upset.

I have told you this numerous times over the years. It's actually more frustrating to me that you don't take my advice in this area. It's better if you stay calm. You do have a lot to contribute.

In the meantime I'm going to sleep so I can rest up for some tennis tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
NatF, I'm sorry about Murray's number.

I wonder about your last sentence. If ever there was an ignoramus on this board it is a person who still is barely counting GS tournaments (with Laver an exception) and therefore ranking Emerson ahead of Borg, Rosewall, (originally Gonzalez), Kramer, Tilden, Budge, Hoad, Newcombe, Perry, McEnroe etc...

In my recent post I have shown how wrong his claims are. Even my worst enemies don't rank Emerson higher than Rosewall and on place seven!!
Click to expand...

I don't agree with his ranking list but you seem to be taking it personally. It's nothing to do with being your enemy or not. As you say there are great many players being underrated compared to Emerson yet the focus is almost exclusively on Rosewall...

BobbyOne said:
NatF, There is a great difference (among other great differences) between Rosewall and Emerson: Rosewall won "only" four amateur Gs tournaments whilst Emerson won 12 amateur GS tournaments. Emmo won NOTHING outside of them whilst Rosewall won 21 bigger majors than his 4 amateur ones. The latter were a little minority among his great majors' resume.

Hope you and a few other always critical posters will understand.
Click to expand...

It's the principle. If you're going to downplay Emerson's majors (as you should IMO) then you should speak fairly about Rosewall's majors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

granddog29
Whats your top 10 all time now (women)
Replies
21
Views
1K
DMP
D
tennisaddict
Top 10 in 5 years time
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
Nadalgaenger
Nadalgaenger
granddog29
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
280 281 282
Replies
14K
Views
437K
borg number one
borg number one
90's Clay
List your top 10 all time for both men and women at this point in time
5 6 7
Replies
304
Views
22K
DSH
DSH
S
  • Poll
Who are the final 2 top 10 female players of all time
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
PDJ
PDJ
Top