WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Gary, Laver did play the AO and Wimbledon in 1971 even before he entered the Dallas Finals.
For the record, and for the rest of the forum, I wrote:

"What happened to that "pride" after 1971?

Repeating for everyone else....

Between 1971 and 1976:

Laver played once at the AO,in 1971.
He did not play at RG at all.
He played at Wimbledon in 71 and 72.
He only made regular appearances at the USO.

Laver was still ranked very high as late as 1974.

Please explain to us why he chose to play zero majors that year.

The answer is quite obvious. Today majors play huge amounts of money. In the early 70s they did not.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
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...
Bobby, you may have got the wrong impression from Krosero's remarks...I did not get the impression that Krosero disagreed with this interpretation.
Bud seems to support my interpretation of what his criteria are to support Rosewall...LONGEVITY...that supports my understanding of Bud's position.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, Please use your brain when discussing with me! What sense would it make for Bud if he says:" Somebody (maybe Yeti) cold 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).
Bobby, Bud used the terms "YOU" in the sense of "SOMEONE" who could make an argument for Rosewall, and it would have to be on the basis of longevity, it could not be on the basis of level of play...most people think of greatness in sport in terms of level of play, tennis or any other sport.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
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.
"YOU could make an argument" is definitely weaker than "I believe", or " I would argue".
In the second usage, the speaker identifies himself with the argument, in the first case "YOU could argue" does not tie the speaker into the argument...no doubt about this issue, my friend.
 

KG1965

Legend
For the record, and for the rest of the forum, I wrote:

"What happened to that "pride" after 1971?

Repeating for everyone else....

Between 1971 and 1976:

Laver played once at the AO,in 1971.
He did not play at RG at all.
He played at Wimbledon in 71 and 72.
He only made regular appearances at the USO.

Laver was still ranked very high as late as 1974.

Please explain to us why he chose to play zero majors that year.

The answer is quite obvious. Today majors play huge amounts of money. In the early 70s they did not.
1 ) the Emerson "record " was not interested to Laver and .. to nobody .
2 ) Laver had been the number one for many years but ... he had not enriched .
3 ) the slam tournamente had ... a prize money laughable
4 ) even after 1973 ATP does not give many points to slam compared to other tournaments
5 ) the slam had prestige ( less than now ) but Laver had such prestige that could skip them.
6 ) it was coming from a period where slam were amateurs ... then were cheap (to me zero)
 
Last edited:

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
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. ;)

It is, I suppose, a "pet issue" of mine - and not to get into a debate about this, but it's only the repressed Western way of thinking which states that talking about death and mortality is "in very poor taste".

I wonder what BobbyOne would make of rituals such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famadihana ?
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
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.

LOL......dude is now writing essays to support his best chum BobbyOne.

How anyone on this forum can maintain that 'Saint Krosero' is an objective poster, when most of his existence these days is defending the most biased fanboy on this site, is beyond me.

Of course Saint Krosero will refuse to acknowledge me, since he is a coward.
 

KG1965

Legend
Seems easy..
must see Fedalovic win a little money to slam & Master if they accept a circuit or exhibitions or invitationals that gives them 1,000,000.00 dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

treblings

Hall of Fame
treblings, Thanks. I also had thought that krosero's remarkable input would bring the whole discussion to a friendly end.

A friendly end was certainly more than i was daring to hope. after all, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, even in the light of new evidence.
the new material presented a test for some posters, to show whether they are flexible enough to overthink and maybe even change their position.

by now we know that didn´t happen. my conclusion is, that there is probably too much ego involved, and that prevented a friendly discussion of the new material.

btw, you get a "like" from me for changing from "enemies" to "opponents" . i think that´s a good decision from you.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
A friendly end was certainly more than i was daring to hope. after all, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, even in the light of new evidence.
the new material presented a test for some posters, to show whether they are flexible enough to overthink and maybe even change their position.

by now we know that didn´t happen. my conclusion is, that there is probably too much ego involved, and that prevented a friendly discussion of the new material.

btw, you get a "like" from me for changing from "enemies" to "opponents" . i think that´s a good decision from you.

I'm not sure what the issue truly is at this point. I think it's obvious that generally the majority regarded Rosewall as #1. In hindsight though that does not seem correct. For me the nature of the tour that year etc...is just a side point.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
OK, I will make a deal with BobbyOne.

I will stop mentioning Rosewall's impending death, if he concedes that Rosewall isn't the GOAT.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
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.

I can't believe that you really believe that. In my view, you must know, and the more likely scenario is, that Bobby was being such a persistent pest about Rosewall (as he demostrates he is able and willing to be nearly every single day on TW boards), that Bud Collins was willing to tell him what he wanted to hear so that he would just go away, or at least change the subject.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I can't believe that you really believe that. In my view, you must know, and the more likely scenario is, that Bobby was being such a persistent pest about Rosewall (as he demostrates he is able and willing to be nearly every single day on TW boards), that Bud Collins was willing to tell him what he wanted to hear so that he would just go away, or at least change the subject.

Yes, it's so obvious that this was the case.

Krosero is either the ultimate diplomat (willing to overlook the possibility of a friend - in this case BobbyOne - ever doing anything wrong); or he is an active collaborator in promoting the Rosewall GOAT myth.
 

NonP

Legend
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).

OK, now you're either being willfully obtuse or just plain confused. Since this seems possibly a language-barrier issue I'll cut you some slack and go with the latter. Here's what I said:

Apart from a couple Graf fanatics I've certainly never seen another groupie who's so obsessed with fending off any perceived slight to his hero. I'm beginning to think it might be better for everyone involved if he stayed banned or at least took a long leave of absence, but then the forum would need a new bag to punch. :D

Again, I never called for your ban but simply wondered whether everyone might be better off if you stayed away from this forum either permanently or for an extended period of time. This wasn't an assertion, but a mere questioning of the current state of affairs. And note I never called for everyone else to be banned. That's another misreading or "lie" on your part.

But as for the others I'm going to be less generous, because I don't see how anyone who like you speaks passable English can get this wrong:

But if you continue to attack people because they do not agree with you, you deserve to be banned and should be banned.

Again, Gary said you should be banned IF you keep personally attacking people who don't agree with you (mostly regarding your hero). That's not the same thing as "pleading" for your ban.

And here's what your "enemy" Limpin said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but, in my view, although Bobby's incessant insults and personal attacks should be grounds for banning (if they aren't already), that is TW's problem.

This time I'll grant that he did say you deserve to be banned, but implicit even here is the general distaste about your personal attacks in response to the slightest slight you perceive with respect to your darling and your obsessive advocacy for him. He didn't say you should be gone forever even if you somehow managed to change your ways.

That's the overall point I was trying to make, not this textual hairsplitting you're too quick to use in an effort to prove others wrong. You have said before you like disproving wrong claims made by others. Well, that's the very mentality you need to ditch if you want to get along with people in life. Again it's not healthy for everyone involved. Be more secure in your opinions and know when to let things go. I'm almost certain I'm not the first to tell you this.

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!

This is another one of your paranoid fantasies. FYI when I said "Graf fanatics" I was thinking of the banned poster Joe Pike (who was even more obsessive than you, if that were possible) and several others I've seen here, not the literally deranged fanboy who committed that despicable crime against his goddess' rival for something as trivial as tennis. And while I don't remember exactly what Limpin said (in fact I don't recall seeing it) I'm pretty sure he was being somewhat facetious as usual about the Parche comparison and you chose to take it in the most negative way.

Which brings me to another main point: you shouldn't be too quick to assume the worst intentions from the people you meet. While I share your stated misanthropy about our species in general I do think most individuals try to do the right thing even if they don't necessarily succeed (actually reality tends to be quite the opposite). And your insistence on your use of the term "hate" to describe your "enemies" shows a childish impulse to paint the "other side" in the worst possible light. That's something you expect from 12-year-olds, not near 70-somthings like you, and though the media share much of the blame in fanning these tribal tensions by adopting this very infantile terminology (everyone seems to be a "hater" these days) that's no excuse for grown-ups like us who should know better.

And one last thing. If I really "hated" you I wouldn't be bothering to tell you all this. Indifference is in many ways worse than hate if not synonymous with it, and you should be thankful there are still some people who try to set you on the right course of action.

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. ;)

Yes, I'm sure you already know even recordings of "live" performances undergo extensive edits before being released to the public. But it's impossible to completely ignore the technical aspects of the Hammerklavier as they're very much part of what makes it a worthwhile endeavor on the part of both the performer and the listener, and I daresay Perahia handled them as well as his mentor probably ever did, if not even better.

And I don't usually fuss over definitions or categories myself, as the best music tends to incorporate various elements from different periods or genres, much like the best films tend to straddle both fiction and documentary. What really galled me about this particular case, though (well, apart from who I was dealing with), is that jazz is essentially an African-American music and Bobby's denial of its rightful origins (in another one of his attempts to be proven right, go figure) struck me as an especially egregious instance of cultural appropriation. (Though I don't know Bobby personally I take it that he's an old white dude living in a posh community of Vienna.) I mean, have some respect for history. That's almost as bad as the college kids wailing about "wage slavery" just because they've read some Chomsky and think they know how the world economy works.

BTW one of the things I'd like to do before leaving this earth is to work as an ethnomusicologist and travel around the world collecting samples while meeting different peoples and cultures. Another is to coach a basketball team in a quasi-competition and preferably lead them to a title. ;)
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
For the record, and for the rest of the forum, I wrote:

"What happened to that "pride" after 1971?

Repeating for everyone else....

Between 1971 and 1976:

Laver played once at the AO,in 1971.
He did not play at RG at all.
He played at Wimbledon in 71 and 72.
He only made regular appearances at the USO.

Laver was still ranked very high as late as 1974.

Please explain to us why he chose to play zero majors that year.

The answer is quite obvious. Today majors play huge amounts of money. In the early 70s they did not.

Gary, We did not talk about 1974. We talked about 1970 to 72 or 73. In 1974 Laver might have been too old to participate in GS tournaments. Too much stress.

Laver did not play 1972 Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

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 re-read what krosero has written to me in early May in an e-mail about the Bud's formulation on TV (Tennis Channel) "You could make an argument..."

krosero then wrote, as I posted yesterday, that "I can make" is hardly used and is weaker than "You could make". He adds: "You can make is a general, inclusive formulation meaning "one" or "everyone" (not literally everyone, of course, but people in general). So krosero supported my "version" which is not a version but clear English understanding, and I wondered that he yesterday gave you a "like" to your post where you, like Dan and others, brought a wrong version of Bud's statement. I told krosero, who I hold in high esteem because of his intelligence and his fantastic researching abilities and his friendly manner, my disappointment.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I don't want to be mean to Krosero but he's not an English teacher or grammarian. He's smart but not the final cited authority in terminology. Nor would I be.


Perhaps we should discuss this with Henry Higgins. Does Henry Higgins know anything about tennis?


This is actually quite funny because we are discussing what is more forceful as far as grammar is concerned.

I'm not stating my views here. Just wanted to make that point.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Gary, I re-read what krosero has written to me in early May in an e-mail about the Bud's formulation on TV (Tennis Channel) "You could make an argument..."

krosero then wrote, as I posted yesterday, that "I can make" is hardly used and is weaker than "You could make". He adds: "You can make is a general, inclusive formulation meaning "one" or "everyone" (not literally everyone, of course, but people in general). So krosero supported my "version" which is not a version but clear English understanding, and I wondered that he yesterday gave you a "like" to your post where you, like Dan and others, brought a wrong version of Bud's statement. I told krosero, who I hold in high esteem because of his intelligence and his fantastic researching abilities and his friendly manner, my disappointment.
Bobby, just simple English..."YOU could argue" is similar to "it could be argued", which, as you admitted, is a general statement and does not commit the speaker to the evaluation.
If you wanted to make a personal statement of belief, you would use an entirely different construction, such as, "It seems to me.." or "I would argue..", which are the common forms of expressing personal belief.

End of story.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I think it's fairly obvious that Bud believed Laver was the GOAT, so obviously he wouldn't personally argue that Rosewall was the GOAT - though he obviously thought an argument could be made. What is there to discuss?
Absolutely true. This way we don't have to go through all these English lessons.

Do you get the feeling recently that this forum is now looking at interpretations of articles and how to decided who terminology is more forceful. Sound a bit like something you would study in a Law School. By the way I was silly enough to have a lawyer buddy of mine look at said article for his interpretation of it in case I missed something. Being that I play tennis with him he didn't mind.

We should start a seminar call Law+Tennis 101.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Absolutely true. This way we don't have to go through all these English lessons.

Do you get the feeling recently that this forum is now looking at interpretations of articles and how to decided who terminology is more forceful. Sound a bit like something you would study in a Law School. By the way I was silly enough to have a lawyer buddy of mine look at said article for his interpretation of it in case I missed something. Being that I play tennis with him he didn't mind.

We should start a seminar call Law Tennis 101.

I prefer to look at the big picture on these big points of contention, trying to argue what an article written 50 years ago meant for this long is crazy, especially it has no real barring on our opinions. The crux of it is that many of us believe Laver has the more compelling case to #1 in 1964 than Rosewall going off what both achieved that year. I should think all these same people are aware that Rosewall was considered #1 at the time. No amount of news paper clippings from the time will sway us because the fundamentals of our opinions are the results.

Regarding Bud's words, again obviously he thought Rosewall had a case for GOAT primarily due to his longevity (as said on the Tennis Channel and to Bobby) and also his big wins in Dallas (just to Bobby). However recognising that an argument can be made is not the same as supporting the argument and you've made it clear yourself pc1 that Bud considering Laver #1 - much less the writing from Bud on the matter says the same thing. Bud considered Laver the GOAT but that a case could be made for Rosewall and presumably others.

Honestly have no clue what is left to discuss on these 2 issues.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Bobby, you may have got the wrong impression from Krosero's remarks...I did not get the impression that Krosero disagreed with this interpretation.
Bud seems to support my interpretation of what his criteria are to support Rosewall...LONGEVITY...that supports my understanding of Bud's position.

Dan, I'm able to understand clearly spoken English words: by Buchholz, Collins, krosero. If I would not be able I would not dare to post in a tennis forum where English is the common language. Also you have an ability: distorting English words and sentences.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I prefer to look at the big picture on these big points of contention, trying to argue what an article written 50 years ago meant for this long is crazy, especially it has no real barring on our opinions. The crux of it is that many of us believe Laver has the more compelling case to #1 in 1964 than Rosewall going off what both achieved that year. I should think all these same people are aware that Rosewall was considered #1 at the time. No amount of news paper clippings from the time will sway us because the fundamentals of our opinions are the results.

Regarding Bud's words, again obviously he thought Rosewall had a case for GOAT primarily due to his longevity (as said on the Tennis Channel and to Bobby) and also his big wins in Dallas (just to Bobby). However recognising that an argument can be made is not the same as supporting the argument and you've made it clear yourself pc1 that Bud considering Laver #1 - much less the writing from Bud on the matter says the same thing. Bud considered Laver the GOAT but that a case could be made for Rosewall and presumably others.

Honestly have no clue what is left to discuss on these 2 issues.
There is nothing to discuss as you and I well know. Bud told me when he was still lucid a few years ago that he still considered Laver the GOAT. It was clear. There was no doubt about what he meant.

By the way. The part of your post that I put in bold and underlined summarizes everything. Really superb wording.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Bobby, Bud used the terms "YOU" in the sense of "SOMEONE" who could make an argument for Rosewall, and it would have to be on the basis of longevity, it could not be on the basis of level of play...most people think of greatness in sport in terms of level of play, tennis or any other sport.

No comment.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
"YOU could make an argument" is definitely weaker than "I believe", or " I would argue".
In the second usage, the speaker identifies himself with the argument, in the first case "YOU could argue" does not tie the speaker into the argument...no doubt about this issue, my friend.

You funny guy have the ability to distort EVERY statement made by krosero and myself. When I will end to post in this forum I will not miss Limpinhitter or Phoenix, but I will miss YOU very strongly. You made me laugh so often...
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, I'm able to understand clearly spoken English words: by Buchholz, Collins, krosero. If I would not be able I would not dare to post in a tennis forum where English is the common language. Also you have an ability: distorting English words and sentences.
I have not "distorted" English words, only made an attempt to educate you as to proper English phrases and word usage...you are not my most successful student.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
LOL......dude is now writing essays to support his best chum BobbyOne.

How anyone on this forum can maintain that 'Saint Krosero' is an objective poster, when most of his existence these days is defending the most biased fanboy on this site, is beyond me.

Of course Saint Krosero will refuse to acknowledge me, since he is a coward.

If at any time a poster should have been banned forever, it's Phoenix1983. I find Limpinhitter and a few others mean and nasty but you are of a special category. Shame on you!!!
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I have not "distorted" English words, only made an attempt to educate you as to proper English phrases and word usage...you are not my most successful student.
To say I understand is an understatement. I have tried to give him some advice in the past which wasn't used to put it nicely.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
A friendly end was certainly more than i was daring to hope. after all, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, even in the light of new evidence.
the new material presented a test for some posters, to show whether they are flexible enough to overthink and maybe even change their position.

by now we know that didn´t happen. my conclusion is, that there is probably too much ego involved, and that prevented a friendly discussion of the new material.

btw, you get a "like" from me for changing from "enemies" to "opponents" . i think that´s a good decision from you.

treblings, In those discussions much bias (anti-Rosewall bias) and much hate against one poster are involved.

As for me, I have accepted that Laver deserves a No.1 place for 1964. I have suggested this in times when other posters and "experts" did not even know who Gimeno or Nüsslein are and that Rosewall won 25 majors in singles and 25 in doubles...
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure what the issue truly is at this point. I think it's obvious that generally the majority regarded Rosewall as #1. In hindsight though that does not seem correct. For me the nature of the tour that year etc...is just a side point.

NatF, Rosewall was the official No.1 player in 1964. But at least I'm glad that you accept truth of 1964/65 more than my opponents do.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NatF, Rosewall was the official No.1 player in 1964. But at least I'm glad that you accept truth of 1964/65 more than my opponents do.
I'm glad you'll using the term opponent instead of your old term. Keep this up and I'll set you up as a diplomat.

Now if you can eliminate the word "hate" and use "disagree" or "dislike" or "don't care for" instead it would help.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I can't believe that you really believe that. In my view, you must know, and the more likely scenario is, that Bobby was being such a persistent pest about Rosewall (as he demostrates he is able and willing to be nearly every single day on TW boards), that Bud Collins was willing to tell him what he wanted to hear so that he would just go away, or at least change the subject.

Mrs. or Mr. Limpin, I do hope that there is no heaven and that Bud is not able to read your obnoxious insult against him. Shame on you!!!
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NatF, Rosewall was the official No.1 player in 1964. But at least I'm glad that you accept truth of 1964/65 more than my opponents do.
Bobby, we are not your "opponents", we are trying to interpret the evidence to the best of our ability.
There is no need to attempt to distract attention from the main issues by introducing a personal angle into the discussion.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Yes, it's so obvious that this was the case.

Krosero is either the ultimate diplomat (willing to overlook the possibility of a friend - in this case BobbyOne - ever doing anything wrong); or he is an active collaborator in promoting the Rosewall GOAT myth.

Phoenix1983, Hope you have a longer life than Rafael Osuna but I do hope you stop producing such crap!
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Bobby, we are not your "opponents", we are trying to interpret the evidence to the best of our ability.
There is no need to attempt to distract attention from the main issues by introducing a personal angle into the discussion.
What I would like Bobby to do on occasion is if he knows the disagreement is not going anywhere is to just let it be and drop it.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
What I would like Bobby to do on occasion is if he knows the disagreement is not going anywhere is to just let it be and drop it.
That would be great, I am not really interested in someone's personal pique, what we are trying to do here is to share information and research.
Personal animosities have no place here, they are merely a distraction from the purpose of the threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
OK, now you're either being willfully obtuse or just plain confused. Since this seems possibly a language-barrier issue I'll cut you some slack and go with the latter. Here's what I said:



Again, I never called for your ban but simply wondered whether everyone might be better off if you stayed away from this forum either permanently or for an extended period of time. This wasn't an assertion, but a mere questioning of the current state of affairs. And note I never called for everyone else to be banned. That's another misreading or "lie" on your part.

But as for the others I'm going to be less generous, because I don't see how anyone who like you speaks passable English can get this wrong:



Again, Gary said you should be banned IF you keep personally attacking people who don't agree with you (mostly regarding your hero). That's not the same thing as "pleading" for your ban.

And here's what your "enemy" Limpin said:



This time I'll grant that he did say you deserve to be banned, but implicit even here is the general distaste about your personal attacks in response to the slightest slight you perceive with respect to your darling and your obsessive advocacy for him. He didn't say you should be gone forever even if you somehow managed to change your ways.

That's the overall point I was trying to make, not this textual hairsplitting you're too quick to use in an effort to prove others wrong. You have said before you like disproving wrong claims made by others. Well, that's the very mentality you need to ditch if you want to get along with people in life. Again it's not healthy for everyone involved. Be more secure in your opinions and know when to let things go. I'm almost certain I'm not the first to tell you this.



This is another one of your paranoid fantasies. FYI when I said "Graf fanatics" I was thinking of the banned poster Joe Pike (who was even more obsessive than you, if that were possible) and several others I've seen here, not the literally deranged fanboy who committed that despicable crime against his goddess' rival for something as trivial as tennis. And while I don't remember exactly what Limpin said (in fact I don't recall seeing it) I'm pretty sure he was being somewhat facetious as usual about the Parche comparison and you chose to take it in the most negative way.

Which brings me to another main point: you shouldn't be too quick to assume the worst intentions from the people you meet. While I share your stated misanthropy about our species in general I do think most individuals try to do the right thing even if they don't necessarily succeed (actually reality tends to be quite the opposite). And your insistence on your use of the term "hate" to describe your "enemies" shows a childish impulse to paint the "other side" in the worst possible light. That's something you expect from 12-year-olds, not near 70-somthings like you, and though the media share much of the blame in fanning these tribal tensions by adopting this very infantile terminology (everyone seems to be a "hater" these days) that's no excuse for grown-ups like us who should know better.

And one last thing. If I really "hated" you I wouldn't be bothering to tell you all this. Indifference is in many ways worse than hate if not synonymous with it, and you should be thankful there are still some people who try to set you on the right course of action.



Yes, I'm sure you already know even recordings of "live" performances undergo extensive edits before being released to the public. But it's impossible to completely ignore the technical aspects of the Hammerklavier as they're very much part of what makes it a worthwhile endeavor on the part of both the performer and the listener, and I daresay Perahia handled them as well as his mentor probably ever did, if not even better.

And I don't usually fuss over definitions or categories myself, as the best music tends to incorporate various elements from different periods or genres, much like the best films tend to straddle both fiction and documentary. What really galled me about this particular case, though (well, apart from who I was dealing with), is that jazz is essentially an African-American music and Bobby's denial of its rightful origins (in another one of his attempts to be proven right, go figure) struck me as an especially egregious instance of cultural appropriation. (Though I don't know Bobby personally I take it that he's an old white dude living in a posh community of Vienna.) I mean, have some respect for history. That's almost as bad as the college kids wailing about "wage slavery" just because they've read some Chomsky and think they know how the world economy works.

BTW one of the things I'd like to do before leaving this earth is to work as an ethnomusicologist and travel around the world collecting samples while meeting different peoples and cultures. Another is to coach a basketball team in a quasi-competition and preferably lead them to a title. ;)

NonP, Just a short answer (I'm too tired to react to all you wrote): Sorry regarding Graf fanatics. I did not know Joe Pike at all. Possible only a few know him. However, it's dangerous making comparisons between posters and Graf fanatics because most people might have the association of Günter Parche. As told Limpinhitter once compared me with him.

I'm not a fanatic. Neither regarding Rosewall nor regarding any other person or thing.

Jazz is not an issue of different cultures. There are black, white and Chinese Jazz musicians. And Beethoven was white and nevertheless invented Jazz. FYI: I consider Boogie-Woogie a kind of Jazz. It is not classic nor popular music (traditional). I agree with Strawinsky.

I dislike your arrogance and your patronizing me.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
That would be great, I am not really interested in someone's personal pique, what we are trying to do here is to share information and research.
Personal animosities have no place here, they are merely a distraction from the purpose of the threads.
Dan,

You and I disagree on many things but at least we are willing to look at what the other one writes and keep an open mind. You have changed my mind on a number of matters in tennis over the years. This is what we want. The world would be so boring if we just agreed with everyone else and acted like sheep.

Yes we do share information and I think we have to have independent thought. Just because one may not hold one player in as high esteem as another poster or doesn't have exactly the same opinion does not mean that poster is bad.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Bobby, just simple English..."YOU could argue" is similar to "it could be argued", which, as you admitted, is a general statement and does not commit the speaker to the evaluation.
If you wanted to make a personal statement of belief, you would use an entirely different construction, such as, "It seems to me.." or "I would argue..", which are the common forms of expressing personal belief.

End of story.

Dan, Don't insult krosero anymore. He has explained that "difficult" English matter and yet you distort his words and Bud's statement. It's disgusting!!!
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, Don't insult krosero anymore. Her has explained that "difficult" English matter and yet you distort his words and Bud's statement. It's disgusting!!!
Bobby,, I have attempted to introduce a note of sanity into our discussions...this discussion is not about your personal feelings of outrage or whether or not Krosero is a master of the English language.
You should accept that people will disagree with your assessment of Rosewall in good faith after a reasoned examination of the evidence...that is reality, and it is not intended to challenge your status or self-respect.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I think it's fairly obvious that Bud believed Laver was the GOAT, so obviously he wouldn't personally argue that Rosewall was the GOAT - though he obviously thought an argument could be made. What is there to discuss?

NatF, Your best post since a longer while. Thanks. But please tell that to my opponents, especially to Dan, who are not willing to accept facts and who distort Bud's clear words.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NatF, Your best post since a longer while. Thanks. But please tell that to my opponents, especially to Dan, who are not willing to accept facts and who distort Bud's clear words.
I agree with NatF's post, as do you. What is there for you to feel outraged about?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I prefer to look at the big picture on these big points of contention, trying to argue what an article written 50 years ago meant for this long is crazy, especially it has no real barring on our opinions. The crux of it is that many of us believe Laver has the more compelling case to #1 in 1964 than Rosewall going off what both achieved that year. I should think all these same people are aware that Rosewall was considered #1 at the time. No amount of news paper clippings from the time will sway us because the fundamentals of our opinions are the results.

Regarding Bud's words, again obviously he thought Rosewall had a case for GOAT primarily due to his longevity (as said on the Tennis Channel and to Bobby) and also his big wins in Dallas (just to Bobby). However recognising that an argument can be made is not the same as supporting the argument and you've made it clear yourself pc1 that Bud considering Laver #1 - much less the writing from Bud on the matter says the same thing. Bud considered Laver the GOAT but that a case could be made for Rosewall and presumably others.

Honestly have no clue what is left to discuss on these 2 issues.

NatF, You are wrong: The crux was or is that some ignorant people did not accept nor do it now that Rosewall was considered No.1 at the time! Have you forgotten all those hot debates about Buchholz article, krosero's contributions etc. between Dan, LImpinhitter and others vs. BobbyOne? I got not furious for nothing! I'm not an idiot!

Every serious reader knows what the old Buchholz article meant. It was written in a "crystal clear" way as treblings rightly has written several times.

Yes, Bud probably rated Laver the GOAT. But as most experts, he had a list of GOAT candidates: Laver, Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Federer, Borg, Sampras. We all know what the term "GOAT" means: I have my favourite (or two favourites as in my case) but I would not be upset if another person would pick another of my candidates. I just would contradict if the other person would pick none of my candidates.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Bobby,, I have attempted to introduce a note of sanity into our discussions...this discussion is not about your personal feelings of outrage or whether or not Krosero is a master of the English language.
You should accept that people will disagree with your assessment of Rosewall in good faith after a reasoned examination of the evidence...that is reality, and it is not intended to challenge your status or self-respect.

Stop teasing krosero and me!!!
 
Top