Gary, I will answer your post (with some wrong claims therein) later (I must leave now). But it's an absurdity to claim that I believe that Bud Collins needs some support from me. How can you get to such an idiotic idea? I just defended him against the unfair accusations against him by some posters ("he echoed" etc). I just reported what Bud said and that he was misinterpreted by some English speaking posters who were not capable of understanding Bud's clear and simple statement on Tennis Channel. It's a shame. Get real!!
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
Gary, I will answer your post (with some wrong claims therein) later (I must leave now). But it's an absurdity to claim that I believe that Bud Collins needs some support from me. How can you get to such an idiotic idea? I just defended him against the unfair accusations against him by some posters ("he echoed" etc). I just reported what Bud said and that he was misinterpreted by some English speaking posters who were not capable of understanding Bud's clear and simple statement on Tennis Channel. It's a shame. Get real!!
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I don't hate Rosewall now, and I won't hate him when he is dead.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ken is only 81...could live another decade. I hope you'll stop with this shtick at some point before then
70sHollywood, Well said. Sorry that I again would like to mention a Rosewall case (my opponents will again beat me for that but I don't know a better example for the moment): When Muscles won that great 1972 Dallas final he was so overwhelmed by his win against his nemesis that he actually forgot to pick up the cheques of 50 000 Dollars. He left it somewhere in the locker room (fortunately found it a bit later)...
By the way, I'm very grateful that you never attack me as a few other posters do even though also we sometimes have different opinions.
I agree with that. And I don't think he cared at all what the old fogeys of the tennis establishment thought were important.
I think it starts off as a passion, an enjoyment. Then, after some success, the realisation that it can be a career. At that point it becomes a job. Nowadays successful players get so much money so quickly they can choose if they want it to be a job or an enjoyment (Nalbandian, Safin, Kafelnikov, etc). Players like Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver did not have that luxury of choosing because the big money came so late in their careers.
Edit: Note how something similar is happening now at the Olympics where many of the top sportsmen and women are competing as parents. That is possible because they can now get so much from sponsorships/endorsements/government funding that they can treat their sporting activity as a career. In the past Olympic champions had to move on and get 'real' jobs because they could not get enough from their chosen sports. That is why comparing eg Phelps with swimmers of the past is pointless, because they simply could not justify continuing in their sports for financial reasons.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Winning becomes less important the more often you´ve won something
Sorry, but that is a strawman. No one said that winning was less important for Laver, Newcombe, et al. The dilemma for them was that the most prestigious titles paid disgracefully low prize money. For them, having already proven their greatness at the low paying majors, they decided that winning the highest paying events was a priority. Fed and Nadal don't have that dilemma because the most prestigious events also pay the highest prize money.
Bobby, Rosewall would surely have told the players that this was a world championship, which apparently did not happen.....no, that was not a "missing link" that Krosero found.
The "missing link" appears to be some of the posters here.
Winning Wimbledon a fourth time would be less interesting than winning a lucrative world pro championship.Winning becomes less important the more often you´ve won something
Bobby, do not misquote what I said...I stated that if Bud claimed that "YOU could make an argument" it was not the same thing as saying "I could make the argument", two different statements.
"YOU could make an argument" is tantamount to saying that "SOMEONE could make an argument"...that was my point, which apparently passed by your understanding.
It does NOT commit Bud himself to subscribing to that point of view. That is where we disagree.
Bobby, I think you mean that in the second movement of Op. 111 there is a "2-3 minute[]" passage of music which sounds JAZZY...jazz was not in existence until another century had passed.
treblings
Hall of Fame
actually that´s an answer to Dan´s post. and if you read his post first, things might start to make sense to you. or maybe not
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
You said:
"Some nice posters blamed me for distorting Bud's words, others claimed that Bud just echoed my words or suggestions because he knew I was a great Rosewall admirer. I considered that as an affront against Bud."
Your words...
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That is an incomplete picture of what went on, but you are correct.
Laver was forced to skip the 1970 AO because of a contract, so your point here is correct. However, the big picture is that Laver and all the other pros who skipped such tournaments did so because of the contracts they signed, to make more money and to push those who were running the slam tournaments to open up.
There was a huge tug-of-war going on between the corrupt establishment that was very happy with the way things used to be. They got all the money, the players got nothing. The pros were fighting to change that, and the amateurs joined in the same fight.
There was a different kind nonsense going re the boycott of Wimbledon. That was a matter of honor, so I will readily admit that skipping that one Wimbledon was the right thing to do.
However, the larger point: Laver did no play at Wimbledon from 72-76. He never played at RG after 69. He only played the AO in 71 after 69. The only slam he regularly in was the USO.
You continue to claim that slams were tremendously important to players like Laver, while the rest of us suggest that they (perhaps) cared more about big money tournaments.
That's my only disagreement with you on the subject of the majors.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
What happened to that "pride" after 1971?
I am not in any way insulting Laver. I'm simply saying that he went where the money was, which is exactly what players have done for the most part - just think about how many players skipped the Olympics this year.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Correction: He seemed to have WON around 5 WTC tournaments in 72 - which by the way is even more impressive.
By the way, Rosewall's records outside of majors was also amazing in 72.
My point remains the same: Laver and Rosewall at least put in the same amount of effort to win tournaments like those of the WTC as they did to win slams. And probably more.
I'd also wager that most people here would agree with me.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Anyway on a different note there is still a chance imo that Andy Murray could be number one for 2016!. If he wins the US Open he would then have three huge tournaments in his pocket with Wimbledon and the Olympics also. Djokovic must be a little nervous. I was very impressed with the variety Murray showed in that final. Some of his heavily slice backhands were awesome and his defense was beautiful. Murray and del Potro for that matter are incredible talents. If only del Potro didn't have those wrist injuries.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Murray could become No 1, but the problem is Djokovic's supreme consistency.
In the summer of 2013, Murray held the USO, W and Olympics titles, while Djokovic held the AO and WTF titles, but Djokovic was still a clear No 1 by ranking points, as he had been finalist/semi-finalist in virtually everything else. Maybe he'll begin to lose his consistency now as he gets older (but then, Murray is the same age...)
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Seems like Laver cared greatly about winning all four majors in 1969 to prove it could be done. After that, he cared more about the big money events - he needed to feed his family, after all!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes, that's the big problem. Murray tends to be very erratic but he does have coach Lendl back now so perhaps that will allow him to become more consistent. I believe before he was the Olympic Gold they said he won 28 of 29 matches recently so I guess it's 29 of 30 now.
It's amazing to me how gifted the big four is and has been over the years. Murray has accomplished the least of the big four and yet he is one of the most gifted tennis players I've ever seen. His variety of shot in the final against del Potro was stunning to me. Drop shots, super heavy slice backhands, excellent volleys and super defense.
But you're right, Djokovic level of play is also always super high. He seems to always reach the final while Murray can have lapses.
Gary, I'm not sure exactly what you meant when you said that Bud needs no support. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to convey that Bud was a great man whose reputation is not going to genuinely suffer no matter what a few posters might say or not say about him on a tennis forum, so why pick a fight about it? Just say your peace if you have to, and let it go.
I agree that Bud needs no defense in that sense. And I'm sure Bobby agrees with you. That's what he's saying above when he protests that he does not believe that Bud needs his (BobbyOne's) support.
I strongly suspect you two are making that same point (in agreement about that one point).
Certainly Bud needs no defense in an objective sense. But if one of his friends is told something about Bud that he knows is not true, is there some reason he should not defend Bud?
Background to all this is that I recall that exchange about BobbyOne's phone call to Bud and I noted how BobbyOne took offense, not just for himself, but for his friend. That's what he found most appalling about the suggestion that Bud was merely telling him what he wanted to hear. He took offense for himself of course, but not just himself. He said explicitly -- with emotion that I recognized as genuine (and I say that after two years of talking to the man at length about everything) -- that Bud was not the type of person to say something he didn't believe, merely to mollify someone.
I just think this particular case -- about Bud -- is not the best example of a needless fight (if you were making a point about needless or senseless fights). I thought the way he defended his friend was one of his better moments -- and besides all else, it was a good counter-argument. It deserves to be elaborated on.
Bud was obviously an intelligent man, not just with "book smarts" but obviously with people. I think that he knew, especially after long experience, how to read people who were asking him questions -- how to read what was on their minds, what they wanted to talk about, what kind of answers they might like to hear -- and what they might do with that information. A lifetime of talking to journalists, if no one else, would have given him rich experience with all that. I personally find it completely unpersuasive that Bud would say something he didn't believe merely to mollify a friend -- but even more so because Bud would have been wise at all times about how he should give out his opinions. He's not going to say something he's really against, when he knows the likelihood that his opinions are greatly sought after and easily used/misused.
Agree to disagree, if necessary, but that's my take on this.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That's it exactly. Bud has an exemplary reputation, both among tennis fans and among professionals. I personally have huge respect for the man.
No reason whatsoever.
I certainly do not think that Bud would do that. He was far too outspoken, far too much "his own man".
Full agreement, but BobbyOne does not help his own cause by naming people "enemies" in an internet forum. People can and do argue unreasonably about anything under the sun. It is the nature of the beast. BobbyOne needs to learn to pick his battles.
I don't disagree with one word you have said.
There was some question about "one might say", "one could say", "you could say" and so on. There is no transcript of the phone conversation, but I would make only a line between:
"one/you/some could/might say:
AND
"I would say."
That's the only real strong line in English. The rest is "register", meaning formality of speech. Bud was a pretty informal guy and so would, most likely, use something relaxed.
So the big difference would be between saying "I" or not. For instance, if I'm making an argument that it is reasonable to support an idea, I'm not going to express myself the same way as if I PERSONALLY strongly support an idea.
"Some/many/one/you could might say that Federer is that GOAT": (Not my opinion, but I'm not against the idea either. He is certainly one of the top players on the list.)
"I would say that Federer is the GOAT": (He is #1 on my list, above all others.)
That's the kind of thing that seems to be going on.
And my own personal stance, one more time:
Laver was the most famous player in the world from the middle of the 60s until around the time of Connors. If Rosewall was below him - I won't get into that argument - it was not by much, and that makes Rosewall hugely important as his greatest rival during the end of the pre-Open era and into the beginning of the Open era.
Fair enough?
Gary, I must contradict several times. But thanks for your fine analysis of Rosewall's greatness. Hope that Limpinhitter has read it.
I think that some of my opponents would need a time out, at least those who attack me since months without reason and those who want me to be banned again and for the last time. I was upset that you yesterday joint them.
Your words about enemies look reasonable but yet they are a bit ridiculous. We all know that all of us don't want to shoot bombs to each other or that we have done so at any time. Maybe you have recognized that I have written "enemies" instead of enemies in my last few posts. But you will wonder: I yet have or had enemies in this forum: those who want me be banned ( I repeat) and those who said bad words. I don't mean "idiot" or similary but worse things: One poster once wrote a bad threat against me ("be glad that I'm far from you" or similary words, he afterwards has apologized, I must add) and our friend Limpinhitter (I still don't know if he/ she is male or female) who in 2012 compared me with Günter Parche who stabbed Steffi Graf. Because of that insult he/she was banned with the help of pc1 who at time was my good friend. Limpin has not improved since but at least he/she does not compare me yet with a criminal...
At the moment at least four posters want me to be banned (without reason). Should I love them???
By the way, I yet can consider a few posters my friends even though I never met them (but I will meet one of them still this year). I also had a good friendship with Bud Collins even though we never met. We had several phone calls and e-mails. Bud managed that my name was printed in New York Times (online version) and that I'm one of 150 journalists who judge about former players if they are worthy to be included in Hall of Fame.
Today I reflected about the eternal accusation against me that I write too much about Rosewall. By the way, it's a lie that I post only about that player. But a keen reader of my posts will realize that my opponents are writing at least as often about Muscles. If they find it's not worth to write so much about Rosewall they could refuse to anwer my statements. But it seems that they are eager to answer me every time and to disprove my claims and remarks. Their problem just is that I mostly have good answers and arguments to their arguments. The best example was that absurd discussion about who was acknowledged No.1 in 1964: Even though the sources clearly said that Rosewall was the pro king in 1964, especially the "crystal clear" Buchholz article and the numerous sources provided by krosero, my opponents yet tried to "disprove" the historical facts and brought many absurd "counter-arguments". The funniest was probably Dan Lobb's who actually claimed that Rosewall was called the No.1 player AT THE END OF 1964 because he won the 1963 (sic) tour!! It was hard for me to refuse calling Dan what I really thought about him (because of a possible ban)....
For such long-time quarrels you mostly need TWO sides. And we have two sides. But there is a difference between them: One side tries to show how underrated Rosewall still is. You could say BobbyOne tries to make p.r. for his favourite player. You can find that reasonable or not. But the other side always tries to put down and belittle that great player and to present his "advocate" as a silly fanboy and a unreliable poster. That's nasty in any case!
I can say that I have studied Rosewall's career since about 1970 and probably more meticulously than any other poster here. Therefore it saddens me when my opponents (to avoid the "horrible" word enemies) attack me so often and try to belittle the Little Master.
As told I was upset by your words about my English vs. the English of native English speakers because that case was a mega scandal. The whole affair was NOT a case of opinions, NOT a case of agreement and disagreement! It was a case of correct reading a clear sentence from Bud Collins versus a nasty distorting of that Collins remark. I got and get furious that some posters who are native English speakers (from USA and Canada) distorted Bud's words against truth and their own knowledge just in order to annihilate them and to "prove" that Bud never rated Rosewall as GOAT candidate (even though he did it at least four times in his life)! I saw in a quick glimpse that intelligent Dan in a later post still distorts Bud's clear statement and that even though I have told my readers that krosero has confirmed my "version"...
If a friend of mine is misinterpreted and insulted ("Bud echoed BobbyOne") I feel it's my duty to defend him. That does NOT mean he needs support from me!
krosero, Thanks for this post. I could not have formulated it better. The point is that Bud's words toward me on the phone correspond with his two official statements on Tennis Channel. Altogether he twice said (directly or indirectly) that Rosewall could be the GOAT and twice that he is a GOAT candidate.
World would be a bit better if people would not try to make problems where no problems properly are at all, in big things (politics) and little things (tennis forums)...
Thanks, Gary, for your like to krosero's post.
first of all, i don´t know that Bobby had to convince Bud Collins. maybe you know more than me.
i also don´t know what you and Butch Buchholz talked about on the phone. Maybe he wanted to get rid of you, and gave you the answer you wanted for that reason?
i choose to believe that both phone conversations went exactly as Bobby and you reported.
i would have tried to use the opportunity to talk to Buchholz by asking him more than one question, but that´s another story.
my point is, Bobby has the right to be sceptical about your phone conversation. without that being used as evidence against him.
i understand about your frustration with some of these discussions. that´s why i was glad when krosero presented these articles.
because i thought, perhaps foolishly, that the endless cycle that you talk about could be broken.
treblings, Thanks. I also had thought that krosero's remarkable input would bring the whole discussion to a friendly end.
Ken is only 81...could live another decade. I hope you'll stop with this shtick at some point before then
NatF, I hope for Phoenix that Muscles will not follow his old opponent of 1952 Gardnar Mulloy (who beat 17 years old Ken in five sets at Forest Hills) who this year might turn 103...
Limpin, Also top players have some pride and want to succeed in the most prestiguous events.
Start at 14:24.
Then let people make up their own minds.
Gary, Thanks for that music video. I must listen to it. But I confess I never was impressed by Richter.
Dan, Why do you know that Rosewall has not told his fellow participants of the tour that the tour was a world championship.? Have you spoken with them?? If Rosewall would not have told it, then why and how was Buchholz able to write his crystal clear article where he gave the tour's final standings and the clear statement that "Rosewall is the undisputed No.1 player" ???
Dan, "You could make" is virtually tantamount with "One could make". That may not commit Bud to subscribing that point of view but it also does NOT mean that Bud insinuates that, whoever would make such an argument, he himself would NOT agree with that person or those persons or even protest against such a version. Bud left the question without a fixing meaning that both possibilities would be reasonable. Bud meant absolutely that he would not contradict such a claim that Rosewall could be the GOAT!! What sense would his words have if he would have meant: Others could make such an argument but I would never agree with it? Only an idiot would think so and speak that way, and Bud was all but not an idiot. My (and krosero's) "version" is also backed by the fact that Bud a few years before that video has told me on the phone that my (Bobby's) claim that Rosewall could be the greatest would have some reason "because of Rosewall's longevity and because of the two wins over Laver at Dallas". Also Bud's two other remarks about Rosewall as GOAT CANDIDATE show in which direction he he really thought. I don't see any logic in your argumentation. If you don't trust that idiot, BobbyOne, why don't you trust serious poster, krosero? Or do you think that you are rather able to understand a simple and clear English sentence than krosero?? Or do you think that krosero has just echoed me just as Bud Collins has done????
Dan, You are wrong: Beethoven wrote that sonata in the same century as Jazz was "officially" invented (1822 and 1895). And a genius artist is able to anticipate decades or even centuries. Bach composed Romantic music, Beethoven invented Jazz and "atonal" music (as Schönberg once has conceded), Hieronymus Bosch anticipated expressionism which was "invented" 3 centuries later, Albrecht Dürer (died 1528) painted impressionistic and abstract pictures (sic) as I have seen on Austrian TV.
Similary in science. Albert Einstein 100 years ago prognosticated things that were proved only in our time even though he then did not have any instruments for examining and proving his mathematically found theories.
A visionary can see things that are not seen by most other people.
Gary, Yes, I wrote these words. So what? There was an insult (or more than one) against Bud and I got upset and I protested against that insult and found it to be an affront and I don't like if and when a friend of mine is insulted. Are not you upset if one of your friends, your wife, your son is insulted? Don't you try to defend them? But does that mean they need your support? Bud was a sovereign man. But not so famous people yet need sometimes some support. We all need support from time to time. That's the reason why I gladly support posters who write in a reasonable way but who are attacked. And therefore I'm grateful by any support I can get from fellow posters when I'm attacked in an unfair way. To say it clear: If I would not get some support from some posters from time to time, I probably would finally end my "career" in this forum... Being attacked every day is not very funny, believe me...
Gary, I don't see "BobbyOne against the rest of the (forum's) world".
Exactly because the pros signed the pro contracts it resulted in the fact that they could not play many GS tournaments. They got the opposite of what they wanted (to play also the GS majors).
Gary, Laver did play the AO and Wimbledon in 1971 even before he entered the Dallas Finals.
Gary, At least regarding Rosewall I doubt your claim. Muscles would eagerly have won Wimbledon even more than Dallas. I do know that he was very disappointed f. i. that he could not enter the 1973 Wimbledon where he would have been seeded No. 5.
NonP
Legend
I don't "hate" anyone, and trust me, if I really hated you I would be simply ignoring you and doing everything in my power to get you banished from my sight. As usual you misread people's intentions when you say they are pleading for your ultimate ban, or at least that's not true about me. I only said it might be better for everyone involved (yes, including you) if you stayed away from the forum or at least took a timeout.
Again you're trying to defend your behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. As several posters have told you personally you really need to start acting your age if you wish to be taken seriously.
But since you bring it up let me tell you why Dan's Hoad worship doesn't bother me and others nearly as much as your boosting of your own hero: he spends far less time and space droning on and on about his favorite player, and he's much less likely to take any perceived downgrading or even disparagement of his hero as a personal affront. In some ways Dan is even more stubborn than you are (which BTW is a truly frightening state of affairs--I feel for his probably long-suffering wife), but he's telling the truth about himself when he boasts that he feels secure in his opinion of Hoad and sees no need to defend him 24/7. And he obviously likes talking to himself a lot, which you don't, and also can take a joke or two about himself without getting offended, which again you generally don't.
You and Dan might share a similar level of fandom when it comes to your darling, but the difference between you two in attitude and perspective is night and day. That's why people usually don't get on Dan's case, not because they "hate" you and/or your boy Rosewall but because he has done far less to annoy them.
I was teasing you about that old exchange of ours because you couldn't help but bring it up several times afterwards to satisfy your obsessive need to be right. That's another thing that separates you and Dan. When most people (yes, including Dan) "agree to disagree" they don't refer back to the point of contention to try to convince people you were right and the other side was wrong, but you're obviously not most people. And this is far from an isolated example, as one can see in this very ongoing "discussion" about 1964 (guess who revived it), which again shows a profound insecurity on your part. You really need to learn how to let go of things sometimes. This constant craving to be proven right is not healthy, not only for yourself but certainly for everyone else involved.
I say I understand more about music than you because, well, I wanted to see if you could take a joke for once, and also because I can tell you lack formal training and have a rather limited range of interests. One or the other doesn't necessarily preclude a listener from nearly full appreciation, but a combination of both is a dead giveaway he/she is a dilettante. (Strictly speaking I'm a dilettante myself, but I say my postings over the years show that I'm closer to being one in the Shavian sense.) Your musicological understanding of this matter or lack thereof is another.
Ken is only 81...could live another decade. I hope you'll stop with this shtick at some point before then
TBF mortality seems to be a pet issue of Phoenix's. Don't think he means actual malice here. But yes, it's still in very poor taste.
Start at 14:24.
Then let people make up their own minds.
Trust me, Bobby meant exactly what he said.
I tried to explain to him jazziness does not equal jazz and new musics develop more organically than out of a single individual's imagination, but let's just say I might well told him Rosewall doesn't belong up there with the best of the best. Anyway thanks for the Richter clip. I recently saw Schiff play the sonata live as part of his two-year-long "Last Sonatas" program (that is, the last three sonatas by the First Viennese School), but fine as his performance was he didn't reach his great predecessor's heights. There's no question which guy would be better at improv if you pitted these two against each other, and you need that "swing" to carry this piece beyond the point of mere reverence.
Another performance, though, that did match if not surpass Richter's was Perahia's magisterial Hammerklavier. Believe it or not this was my first time seeing the great man live, and though I've heard accounts of his concerts being alarmingly less note-perfect than his presumably heavily edited recordings I can report that was not the case here. And despite my somewhat muted expectations (I've never cared as much for his Bach as many of the critics) he truly brought the great fugue into sharp relief, and if my personal metronome is correct almost up to Ludwig's excessively optimistic markings! No less than Brendel and Pollini would've been impressed.
Told you so.
Phoenix, Was Laver a beggar after 1969?
krosero, I just found another strange point in Dan's post that you quoted. Dan says that Bud knew why the call was made. It's absurd. I did not call Bud to tell him that my GOAT is Rosewall and to get a "Yes, he is the GOAT"! He knew my opinion even earlier from my letters. When calling Bud I mostly had a "to do" list with several questions for him such as when the new issue of his encyclopedia would come out, which tournaments he will cover in the near time, if he would meet Rosewall or Laver, if he would meet Australian historian, Paul Metzler, a Rosewall and BobbyOne friend, if he has known Frank Sinatra personally (when Sinatra died) and so on. If I remember well, I never asked Bud who his GOAT is but I knew that he is a great Laver admirer. IIRC, Bud one day (or night as I called him mostly late in the night, i.e after midnight in Vienna) in the middle of a phone call rather surprisingly said that sentence that my choice of Rosewall as the GOAT has some reason because of longevity and Dallas. Years later, as earlier told, I once said to Bud: "I guess that Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver are your GOAT candidates". Bud immediately replied: "And Kenny".
That's it exactly. Bud has an exemplary reputation, both among tennis fans and among professionals. I personally have huge respect for the man.
No reason whatsoever.
I certainly do not think that Bud would do that. He was far too outspoken, far too much "his own man".
Full agreement, but BobbyOne does not help his own cause by naming people "enemies" in an internet forum. People can and do argue unreasonably about anything under the sun. It is the nature of the beast. BobbyOne needs to learn to pick his battles.
I don't disagree with one word you have said.
There was some question about "one might say", "one could say", "you could say" and so on. There is no transcript of the phone conversation, but I would make only a line between:
"one/you/some could/might say:
AND
"I would say."
That's the only real strong line in English. The rest is "register", meaning formality of speech. Bud was a pretty informal guy and so would, most likely, use something relaxed.
So the big difference would be between saying "I" or not. For instance, if I'm making an argument that it is reasonable to support an idea, I'm not going to express myself the same way as if I PERSONALLY strongly support an idea.
"Some/many/one/you could might say that Federer is that GOAT": (Not my opinion, but I'm not against the idea either. He is certainly one of the top players on the list.)
"I would say that Federer is the GOAT": (He is #1 on my list, above all others.)
That's the kind of thing that seems to be going on.
And my own personal stance, one more time:
Laver was the most famous player in the world from the middle of the 60s until around the time of Connors. If Rosewall was below him - I won't get into that argument - it was not by much, and that makes Rosewall hugely important as his greatest rival during the end of the pre-Open era and into the beginning of the Open era.
Fair enough?
Gary, I again must contradict: That "you could make..." was not spoken in any phone call but officially in the "100 best tennis players" series of Tennis Channel. You can hear the original speaking of Bud.
Bud did not say "I would say" (it would not make sense in this context) but he also did not say "I could make an argument" because that would sound a bit pathetic or arrogant. He said "You could make an argument" and that means what I have said several time, now also in a long post on this page.
I don't think that Bud would use something relaxed in an official interview on TV. Again: It was not in a phone call with me.
You make hair-splitting. Please stop all those trials to blame my statements. You are not better than Limpin, Phoenix and Dan. I surrender!!!
I don't "hate" anyone, and trust me, if I really hated you I would be simply ignoring you and doing everything in my power to get you banished from my sight. As usual you misread people's intentions when you say they are pleading for your ultimate ban, or at least that's not true about me. I only said it might be better for everyone involved (yes, including you) if you stayed away from the forum or at least took a timeout.
Again you're trying to defend your behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. As several posters have told you personally you really need to start acting your age if you wish to be taken seriously.
But since you bring it up let me tell you why Dan's Hoad worship doesn't bother me and others nearly as much as your boosting of your own hero: he spends far less time and space droning on and on about his favorite player, and he's much less likely to take any perceived downgrading or even disparagement of his hero as a personal affront. In some ways Dan is even more stubborn than you are (which BTW is a truly frightening state of affairs--I feel for his probably long-suffering wife), but he's telling the truth about himself when he boasts that he feels secure in his opinion of Hoad and sees no need to defend him 24/7. And he obviously likes talking to himself a lot, which you don't, and also can take a joke or two about himself without getting offended, which again you generally don't.
You and Dan might share a similar level of fandom when it comes to your darling, but the difference between you two in attitude and perspective is night and day. That's why people usually don't get on Dan's case, not because they "hate" you and/or your boy Rosewall but because he has done far less to annoy them.
I was teasing you about that old exchange of ours because you couldn't help but bring it up several times afterwards to satisfy your obsessive need to be right. That's another thing that separates you and Dan. When most people (yes, including Dan) "agree to disagree" they don't refer back to the point of contention to try to convince people you were right and the other side was wrong, but you're obviously not most people. And this is far from an isolated example, as one can see in this very ongoing "discussion" about 1964 (guess who revived it), which again shows a profound insecurity on your part. You really need to learn how to let go of things sometimes. This constant craving to be proven right is not healthy, not only for yourself but certainly for everyone else involved.
I say I understand more about music than you because, well, I wanted to see if you could take a joke for once, and also because I can tell you lack formal training and have a rather limited range of interests. One or the other doesn't necessarily preclude a listener from nearly full appreciation, but a combination of both is a dead giveaway he/she is a dilettante. (Strictly speaking I'm a dilettante myself, but I say my postings over the years show that I'm closer to being one in the Shavian sense.) Your musicological understanding of this matter or lack thereof is another.
TBF mortality seems to be a pet issue of Phoenix's. Don't think he means actual malice here. But yes, it's still in very poor taste.
Trust me, Bobby meant exactly what he said.
Anyway thanks for the Richter clip. I recently saw Schiff play the sonata live as part of his two-year-long "Last Sonatas" program (that is, the last three sonatas by the First Viennese School), but fine as his performance was he didn't reach his great predecessor's heights. There's no question which guy would be better at improv if you pitted these two against each other, and you need that "swing" to carry this piece beyond the point of mere reverence.
Another performance, though, that did match if not surpass Richter's was Perahia's magisterial Hammerklavier. Believe it or not this was my first time seeing the great man live, and though I've heard accounts of his concerts being alarmingly less note-perfect than his presumably heavily edited recordings I can report that was not the case here. And despite my somewhat muted expectations (I've never cared as much for his Bach as many of the critics) he truly brought the great fugue into sharp relief, and if my personal metronome is correct almost up to Ludwig's excessively optimistic markings! No less than Brendel and Pollini would've been impressed.
Told you so.
NonP, You begin with a lie: You yet have written that I (and others) should be banned. And for me it would mean an eternal ban as I was banned before and I was pardonized only by a generous administrator.
I react to aggression often with aggression. That's my fault. The senseless attacks of my opponents (including) you are their big faults. That's all, arrogant musician!
NonP
Legend
It's not a "lie" (again your decision to use this loaded term is telling). I said it might be better for everyone if you stayed away from the forum either for a long while or permanently, and Gary for another said you deserve to be banned if you don't change your obnoxious behavior. That's quite different from all of us "pleading" for your ban.
Since you and your buddies (sorry, "enemies") have been duking it out over your preferred interpretation of certain blocks of text I'm guessing you don't want people to misrepresent someone's statements. Maybe you should start practicing what you preach.
Bobby, I did not "distort" Bud's words, you are going off there...we have a disagreement about what is meant by "YOU could argue" , which I claim is the same as "SOMEONE could argue", and which does not amount to saying "I would argue".
All of us who speak English understand the distinction here, but you cannot claim that we are "distorting" the meaning of Bud's words, there is no basis for you to say that.
Again, Bobby, that is not what "YOU could argue that.." actually means. It is just an acknowledge that someone COULD make an argument...that does not commit the speaker to agreeing with the argument.
And in Rosewall's case, again, we are talking about LONGEVITY, not level of play. It is important to specify which criteria are being used to assess the ranking.
NonRealisticP, You made a lie because you yet have written in post 2833 that I and others should be better banned for a while. Please don't lie again!
As told I cannot get a temporary ban anymore. Within of the last few days, three friendly posters have suggested that I should be banned: LImpinhitter very clearly, than Gary Duane and now you (I concede: together with others).
You surely hate me as you insult me in an especially mean way: comparing me directly or indirectly with the "Graf fanatics" and calling me a groupie!!! Every reader who reads the Graf remark knows what this insinuation means as only one Graf fanatic is known, Günter Parche. You make the same or almost the same what Limpinhitter in 2012 did and for what he was banned!! Reflect about that and about your arrogance in music!
Dan, Please ask krosero why he during the hot days of that discussion told me that my "version" is right and your wrong!
One could argue might not be the exactly same as I could argue both both versions don't mean that Bud meant he would contradict if another person would make such an argument! Most of all we know that Bud has said to me personally that my choice of Rosewall the GOAT is a reasonable one because of his longevity and his two wins at Dallas. This last statement supports my "version" of the Tennis Channel statement. Bud also said twice that Rosewall is a GOAT CANDIDATE. How often must I repeat all that till you realize it?? And my enemies blame ME for saying always the same...
Dan, Please use your brain when discussing with me! What sense would it make for Bud if he says:" Somebody (maybe Yeti) could make such an argument but I would think that's nonsense"?? If Bud just thought that Rosewall is an all-time great he would have said that and not have spoken about a possible GOAT Rosewall equal who ever would make such an argument.
Your second part is a typical Dan Lobb part and has nothing to do with the Collins statement.
Note: Bud (as most expertes) don't agree with your version that (only) peak level determines th all-time rankings!! He refered to Rosewall as possible GOAT just because of his marvellous longevity (and Dallas).
Last edited:
Dan, I just found krosero's e-mail to me of May 1st. He says that the formulation "I could make an argument" is rarely used and it's WEAKER than "You could make an argument". Hope this clarifying helps.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Well, it is true that Wimbledon was a hole in his resume.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Briefly: Somehow Perahia has managed to fly under the radar, but obviously Horowitz was impressed with him. I don't care much about wrong notes. Today recordings are so "cleaned up" that we have a totally unrealistic idea of what players normally do live.
About the "jazzy" section: I don't much care for definitions of musical periods. They can be a trap. But the syncopation in that section is pretty extreme and the way the offbeat is hammered over and over again, it seems eerily like things we mostly did not hear until almost a century later.
As a teacher I simply point out how unusual it is for its time and let students draw their own conclusions.
