Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Your strength is defending Rosewall, a man whose obituary shall appear in news sources around the globe in the not too distant future...
Whats your top 10 of all time right now?
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
Your strength is defending Rosewall, a man whose obituary shall appear in news sources around the globe in the not too distant future...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Agreed 1000% with this post. There is no reason to take this things so personally. A person disagrees with you and he's your enemy? People disagree all the time. And as incredible as this may seen, Bobby can be wrong at times.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Actually yesWas it your intention to agree with me 1000% percent?
NatF, The focus is on Rosewall because we can compare Emerson and Rosewall very good and see who the much better was. It's especially absurd that that poster (who is not a newcomer but a person who should know history) ranks a player with zero big majors higher than a player with 21 big majors. Don't you agree?
It has yet to do with my enemies because they not only hate and belittle Rosewall but also hate me. I don't refer to you though.
NatF
Bionic Poster
gino is hardly an enemy of yours as far as I know.
And yes obviously Rosewall below Emerson is crazy, though I find the most pressing omission is Gonzalez no where near the top 10.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Bobby talks about enemies but honestly he disappoints me because I used to be under the impression he wanted to find and explain the truth about tennis history. Clearly we all know what his main goal is and he intends to keep pounding away until he hopes everyone believes him.Not about Rosewall.
Bobby is not my enemy but I do feel like he is a child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. It bothers me that he does what he does when I feel he distorts information and sometimes even makes up information to achieve his goal. It truly saddens me!
This is why I often approach his posts with annoyance because I feel he has disappointed me again.
And this is done believe it or not because I want the best for that guy.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Gino did the best he could with his top 10. There was no need to attack him. I could also say that someone is incorrect when they have a player who should not be considered the greatest called in this person's mind the greatest when I believe his record does not even come close to pointing toward it.
All we can do here is inform. The poster can make his own decisions based on the information we give.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's the thing. People aren't going to agree with others on every issue in tennis. At least you're very knowledgeable about the history and facts so you can explain your points to the poster you disagree with if you want.Yeah I mean I find it ridiculous seeing lists where Federer is #5 but I stay quiet mostly
I figure there's no use getting upset over all of this so often. I've got better things to do. It's easier said than done however!
NatF, Did not say that gino is my enemy. I referred to Limpin, Phoenix & Co.
gino finally included Gonzalez but not Rosewall, Borg, Tilden.
Yeah I mean I find it ridiculous seeing lists where Federer is #5 but I stay quiet mostly
NatF, I'm more tolerant than you: I don't find it ridiculous seeing lists where Rosewall is No. 5. It's within of reason just as Federer as No.5 is.
NatF
Bionic Poster
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I've seen Laver, Borg, Gonzalez, Tilden and others out of the top ten and sometimes out of the top thirty. I think (again easier said then done) we have to realize people will have their own opinion. Frank Sedgman has Rosewall at number 13. Does it make it correct? Not necessarily but it is Sedgman's opinion. He also has Kramer at number one. Is that correct? Again not necessarily. It's just opinions.I don't think Federer at 5 is within reason tbh
I believe by a point weighted system Laver was number one easily for 1970 yet by the opinions of the time Laver did not have the best year. Yet just about all experts and players did consider Laver to be the best player in 1970.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Alas, I would like to agree with you, but the more I see on here makes me skeptical.
What I see mostly is persons proclaiming opinions, offering one-sided arguments bolstered by carefully selected statistics, and attacking anyone who disagrees. I seldom witness someone answering questions or being receptive to being informed. I never see anyone changing her/his mind.
How often do we see someone saying "I did not know that. Thanks for the information. I may have to reformulate my opinion"?
I think we are each separate monks on separate mountaintops, each believing that he or she has found the one great truth--and it is different from, better than, and contradicts your truth.
Then we just yell at each other across the spacious but empty, foggy, echoing valleys: "My truth is better than your truth. My facts are more complete than your facts. My GOAT is stronger than your GOAT."
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I think a big problem is treating the "top 10" as if those ten are sacred beings and everyone below is a bit of a mug. Like if someone ranks Gonzalez at number 10 that's "fair enough", but if he was number 11 - "oh my god, not in the top 10? Absurd!"
I have to say, I think ranking Emerson above Rosewall is worse than ranking Pancho G. outside the top 10.
Bobby, we went over this before, Rosewall was sharp for that January series, and Laver split his best-of-five set matches with Rosewall in January and for 1963 as a whole.
Emmo was a force, and that was reflected in his earnings, as I said, probably more than Rosewall and Laver combined in the mid-sixties....live with it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The thing about Emerson is that I do wonder if he decided to turn pro around 1960 or so whether Emerson would have improved so much he would have be a top dominant player. I think it's very possible. It's not as if Emerson didn't beat Rosewall often when they played in the Open Era.
What would have happened if Emerson turned Pro early and Rosewall stayed in the amateurs?
Emerson was a very talented player and I believe he did have tremendous room for improvement.
Phoenix1983, And you and your fine friends accuse me for being unfair and insulting...
NatF, You are right: A poster is entitled to claim that Laver is the all-time 27th and Federer the all-time 56th. But is this "just an opinion" we should accept?? I'm sure all my critics who blame me for being aggressive and unfair would shout and probably insult such a poster!
hoodjem, I agree.
Dan, Rosewall was NOT sharp as he did not see any danger by Laver and therefore did not practice for the series.
Prize money does not correlate to strength of a player!
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Limpin, If I am obsessed, you are double obsessed: in diminishing Rosewall and in attacking all what I say. I never got a "like" from you while you got some from me even though you mocked me with your 40 majors lie...
Limpin, I agree! Therefore please apologize for your mean lie about the 40 majors where you tried to present me as a village idiot (I know you like that term, see 2012). Maybe we even can become "friends" on the board.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Well I used to know the guy before he was on this website. And yes perhaps my expectations are/were too high.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's in his recent book copyright 2014. It's called Game Sedge and Match, the Frank Sedgman story: Making of a tennis dynasty.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Well, there is this by gino, for all the good it did him on TW:
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I have no enemies on an internet forum...
Limpin, Astounding (EDIT
memory!! You are right: the Laver losses to Rosewall at Dallas were considered big upsets because Laver dominated the point standings before Dallas. But by losing these two so important events he lost the "title" of best player and was ranked behind Rosewall in both years by Collins and in 1972 by Tingay. In tennis it's very important to succeed at the big ones, more than at the regulary tournaments. Laver after 1969 seldom succeeded at the big ones. I only would see exceptions at the 1970 Dunlop, the 1971 TCC and at the 1973 Davis Cup. No shame at all.
Last edited:
You behave like an enemy ("lackey", by the way, was not only an insult against krosero but of course also against the "master of the lackey"). At least I consider posters like you as enemies who are not able to discuss without unreasonable hate.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Just when you think you know somebody . . .
...you realize it's yourself...
The old Greeks said: "Gnothi s'auton" which means "recognize yourself". I would be glad if you would do so. No pun intended. I'm really convinced that you would do a favour to this forum if you would realize that your behaviour was not right in the last few months and if you would be more constructive.
Last edited:
gino
Legend
You sound like one conceited fella. While you continue to pound away at my assertions you can hide behind the veil of this internet forum. I'll keep in light-hearted and back my claims with facts that demonstrated the Emmo's 10/12 major final wins were against QUALITY opponents. If you think Ashe, Laver, and Roche were not at the top of their games during those final runs then use the internet, cause they were peaking relative to their competitors. You can make this personal. I will not. I am proud of the player I am, the knowledge of the game I have developed, and the history of the game I have studied
gino
Legend
Just a quick note Bobby, Murray has won 3 majors now - he captured Wimbledon last month.
Bit quick to call gino an ignoramus too...
Thanks @NatF ... Pretty ambitious of @BobbyOne to call a former NCAA player and coach an ignoramus person. That's a synonym for stupid, in case anyone was wondering. I know tennis
gino
Legend
Borg was on my original list. Always has been. Rosewall too. Read more carefully, please
Rosewall was sharp and looked great in his first several matches against Laver...he saw no need to spend many practice matches against Laver and help Laver prepare to beat Rosewall's game, of course.
Yes, prize money is closely correlated to success on the tennis court.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
This statement I do not understand. It must be a strange subtlety of translation.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Don't worry about it. Just state your opinions and if people disagree they will hopefully give reasons why. You can take their reasons into account or not. I live in New York and people tend to be very straightforward here to say the least so I'm used to it. Your views are just as good as anyone else's.All I get is criticism, man! I actually considered someone giving me advice and get bashed for it! Bummer. I'd like to see @BobbyOne strike a few tennis balls and give him my constructive criticism without making it personal or offensive
Are you a Warrior's fan? With Durant they look almost unbeatable on paper.
gino, You cannot have studied tennis history seriously. If you would have you would not rank Emerson (a non-top 20 player) at place 7 or 8. You are the only poster since years who rate Emerson ahead of giants like Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Newcombe, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl (I probably forgot a few).
EVERY serious tennis fan does know that Laver, Roche and Ashe were not at the top of their games during those finals! Just an example: Roche was about No.10 in the world when he lost to Emmo. Two years later he was mature and got to No.2 of ther world. In 1967 he was too young.
Ashe in 1966 and 1967 was not even a top ten player. After he matured he got to No.2 in 1968. Please don't reply by bringing me the amateur rankings of the 1960's. They are irrelevant in comparison with the "mixed" rankings of amateurs PLUS pros.
If you don't believe me and the other posters here, please ask Rod Laver and Tony Roche if they were tops when losing to Emerson.
gino, Having been a NCAA player and coach does NOT nevcessarily mean that such a person is an expert in tennis history. I'm sure that even Bollettieri does not know the half about playing strength of Tilden, Gonzalez and Roche of what most posters here are knowing. He surely has not studied the results of those players as meticulously as our best posters here have done and especially great experts like Collins and McCauley have done.
Be proud of what you have done as a player and coach but please don't try to rewrite tennis history!
gino, It's about Emerson being ahead of at least 15 GIANTS of tennis history. I referred to your Top 10.
Similar threads
