Ken Rosewall

thrust

Legend
I might be thinking of someone/something else. Hopefully someone can tell me what I'm thinking of!
A couple of years ago Ken was receiving an award in Italy, when he had a mild stroke. At that time the stroke was blamed on the long trip from Australia to Italy in a short period of time. Glad to hear Ken is at Wimbledon this year, they always show Laver on ESPN, especially when McEnroe is announcing.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I've seen his draws, lots of fellow Aussies and shorter round tournaments. It absolutely is not the same standard compared to modern draws.
Rosewall is an all time great, no doubt, but honestly the way you hype him up, and Dan hypes up Lew Hoad is ridiculous. You just cannot justify your hype for them, facts say otherwise.

You err totally: I yet can justify my "hype" for Rosewall as I have done so often since exactly five years. You must have overlooked all my hundreds serious arguments that prove that Muscles is a GOAT candidate. He has a resume second to NONE! Please tell us the "facts" which prove the contrary! Thanks.

"Lots of fellow Aussies" is a weak argument because Australia has produced dozens of great champions and Rosewall has beaten them very often, from Crawford to Newcombe, from Sedgman to Roche...

Don't blame Australia that it was by far the strongest tennis nation from 1950 to 1975!

I agree regarding Dan's claims about Hoad.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Your point is only valid if you rely on looking at those long lists of 4 and 6 man tournament results, which really look like a small travelling circus.

What I am concerned about is something more significant, evaluating the level of play attained by these older greats in absolute terms, and we have very good contemporary evaluations by the players themselves to work with.

Dan Lobb, There never was a long list of 4-man tournaments.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I think that in an open tennis world, Gonzales and Rosewall would have won more than one Wimbledon each, but not as many as some commentators assume.
Wimbledon was not the best venue for either player. I give Gozales four (1950, 1952, 1954, 1955) and Rosewall two (1963, 1965) in an open Wimbledon world.

Dan Lobb, 1950 Wimbledon for Pancho is very strange. If you give Rosewall 1963, why not 1962 when Laver was weaker than in 1963?
 

thrust

Legend
I have read that Rosewall and Margret Court had serious allergy problems which affected their play that time of year at Wimbledon. Court did win three Wimbledon's but she was not banned for 11 years. I, and most other experts are pretty sure that Ken and Pancho would have won a few Wimbledon's had they been able to play compete there, in their peak years.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I have read that Rosewall and Margret Court had serious allergy problems which affected their play that time of year at Wimbledon. Court did win three Wimbledon's but she was not banned for 11 years. I, and most other experts are pretty sure that Ken and Pancho would have won a few Wimbledon's had they been able to play compete there, in their peak years.
I would give Gonzales the Wimbledon singles titles in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955, and Rosewall the Wimbledon singles titles in 1963 and 1965.

I would pencil in other great players for the other years.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I have read that Rosewall and Margret Court had serious allergy problems which affected their play that time of year at Wimbledon. Court did win three Wimbledon's but she was not banned for 11 years. I, and most other experts are pretty sure that Ken and Pancho would have won a few Wimbledon's had they been able to play compete there, in their peak years.

thrust, Yes, Rosewall was handicapped at the 1969 Wimbledon. But I don't think there was a problem in most other years. Otherwise Rosewall would not have won so many matches against top players from Seixas to Smith including several five-set matches.

I would "give" Rosewall four Wimbledons and Gonzalez even 5 to 7.
 
Last edited:

NonP

Legend
Limpin, Yes, we "can make a reasonable argument". Even more: Rosewall was a clear No. 1 without any doubt. You once claimed he was No.1 only for 18 months even though Muscles was No.1 for many (seven) years...

You must have slept the "sleep of the unjust" for many weeks last year when krosero proved (by providing many contemporary sources) that Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 pro by end-1964.

By the way, "unjust": It's proper time now for you to apologized finally for your bad lies! How is the sleep of a notorious liar, Limpin?

You really should quit regurgitating every single real and perceived slight from your past in this forum. It's tiresome as hell to just about everyone not directly involved in your melodrama.

And in case you haven't noticed Limpin has no interest whatsoever in interacting with you. It's well past time for you to accept that. Nobody can be liked by everyone. That's a simple fact of life.

Here, something that should be a better use of your time:

https://www.br-klassik.de/aktuell/b...p-schubert-impromptus-michael-endres-100.html

Just got the CD this week and while not convinced by all of it (especially the D. 935 set which suffers from occasional reticence) still think it's the best Schubert Impromptus since Perahia's (though it's a close call between this and Pires' or Lupu's among modern versions). Give it a shot. I'm checking out Endres' other Schubert recordings as we speak.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I would give Gonzales the Wimbledon singles titles in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955, and Rosewall the Wimbledon singles titles in 1963 and 1965.

I would pencil in other great players for the other years.
I will include a comprehensive "open" tennis list for Wimbledon champs...a work in progress.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I would give Gonzales the Wimbledon singles titles in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955, and Rosewall the Wimbledon singles titles in 1963 and 1965.

I would pencil in other great players for the other years.

I wouldn't characterize it as giving titles to anyone. But, on an open tour, assuming no hiatuses, in my view, Gonzalez would be favored to win Wimbledon from about 1950 through 61.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
You really should quit regurgitating every single real and perceived slight from your past in this forum. It's tiresome as hell to just about everyone not directly involved in your melodrama.

And in case you haven't noticed Limpin has no interest whatsoever in interacting with you. It's well past time for you to accept that. Nobody can be liked by everyone. That's a simple fact of life.

Here, something that should be a better use of your time:

https://www.br-klassik.de/aktuell/b...p-schubert-impromptus-michael-endres-100.html

Just got the CD this week and while not convinced by all of it (especially the D. 935 set which suffers from occasional reticence) still think it's the best Schubert Impromptus since Perahia's (though it's a close call between this and Pires' or Lupu's among modern versions). Give it a shot. I'm checking out Endres' other Schubert recordings as we speak.

NonP, I don't listen to a man (or woman) who is not able to recognize Beethoven's Jazz variation in his opus 111 even when he/she has played it several times!

Thanks for your insulting words. Thus you almost reach Limpinhitter's level...

I'm optimistic and I use to have the hope that even bad characters like Limpin are able to improve and to apologize for their lies one day. That's why I remind him/her of his/her worst lie and ask him/her to apologize.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't characterize it as giving titles to anyone. But, on an open tour, assuming no hiatuses, in my view, Gonzalez would be favored to win Wimbledon from about 1950 through 61.
I think that in an exercise of this sort, you have to look at what actually happened in the years in question, then extrapolate to a mythical open Wimbledon.
Thus, Gonzales would not get every year in that era.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't characterize it as giving titles to anyone. But, on an open tour, assuming no hiatuses, in my view, Gonzalez would be favored to win Wimbledon from about 1950 through 61.
I think that in an exercise of this sort, you have to look at what actually happened in the years in question, then extrapolate to a mythical open Wimbledon.
Thus, Gonzales would not get every year in that era.

Hard to say. Clearly Gonzalez would be at worst one of the favorites to win and I believe Jack Kramer said if you are the favorite and I would guess it would hold true if you are one of the top favorite that Wimbledon is the easiest major to win. It's quite possible that Gonzalez would be top seed from 1950 to 1961 although I do think Kramer may have been top seed for a few years in the early 1950s.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Hard to say. Clearly Gonzalez would be at worst one of the favorites to win and I believe Jack Kramer said if you are the favorite and I would guess it would hold true if you are one of the top favorite that Wimbledon is the easiest major to win. It's quite possible that Gonzalez would be top seed from 1950 to 1961 although I do think Kramer may have been top seed for a few years in the early 1950s.
Gonzales and Rosewall, would, from what I see in actuality, underperform at Wimbledon, so I would not give them as many Wimbledon titles as most commentators.
Gonzales appeared to lose interest in Europe after that 1956 Wembley final against Sedgman, and Rosewall played below form in four of the five Wimbledon finals he reached, so I give them a limited success there.

I will provide a comprehensive list of Wimbledon champions in a mythical open world in my thread, "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports".
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Gonzales and Rosewall, would, from what I see in actuality, underperform at Wimbledon, so I would not give them as many Wimbledon titles as most commentators.
Gonzales appeared to lose interest in Europe after that 1956 Wembley final against Sedgman, and Rosewall played below form in four of the five Wimbledon finals he reached, so I give them a limited success there.

I will provide a comprehensive list of Wimbledon champions in a mythical open world in my thread, "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports".
Dan,

I'm not sure if you could say that because Gonzalez was a little young when he played Wimbledon the first time and too old later. You could say the same about Rosewall. In their primes I think they'd play at a top level. Whether it would have won the tournament is debatable but I think they would have been okay.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan,

I'm not sure if you could say that because Gonzalez was a little young when he played Wimbledon the first time and too old later. You could say the same about Rosewall. In their primes I think they'd play at a top level. Whether it would have won the tournament is debatable but I think they would have been okay.
They both seemed to be more "up " for Forest Hills.
Gonzales played well at age 21, when he defended at Forest Hills successfully, but played off form at Wimbledon. After 1967, Gonzales looked better at Forest Hills. I think that his showing at the 1969 Wimbledon is somewhat overrated.
Rosewall played some good matches at Wimbledon, he was a mature 21 when runnerup in 1956, and still at prime in 1967, played well below form at 1968 and 1969 Wimbledon, much better at Forest Hills in 1970 than at Wimbledon.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
They both seemed to be more "up " for Forest Hills.
Gonzales played well at age 21, when he defended at Forest Hills successfully, but played off form at Wimbledon. After 1967, Gonzales looked better at Forest Hills. I think that his showing at the 1969 Wimbledon is somewhat overrated.
Rosewall played some good matches at Wimbledon, he was a mature 21 when runnerup in 1956, and still at prime in 1967, played well below form at 1968 and 1969 Wimbledon, much better at Forest Hills in 1970 than at Wimbledon.

Dan Lobb, Mature at 21? Maybe for driving a car but not at highest level in tennis! Rosewall declined between 1966 and 1967.

He did not play much better at FH than at Wimbledon. I have posted the huge difference in the schedules but obviously you have not read it as I'm maybe on your ignore list.
 

BTURNER

Legend
NonP, I don't listen to a man (or woman) who is not able to recognize Beethoven's Jazz variation in his opus 111 even when he/she has played it several times!

Thanks for your insulting words. Thus you almost reach Limpinhitter's level...

I'm optimistic and I use to have the hope that even bad characters like Limpin are able to improve and to apologize for their lies one day. That's why I remind him/her of his/her worst lie and ask him/her to apologize.

I never associated Beethoven with jazz variations before.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
StanTheMan, Your confusion is very justified because it's really a shame that one of the greatest players ever is so little known or so much under-rated.

Rosewall has won more majors than any other male player (25 in singles and 25 in doubles) if we include the pro majors prior to open era (Wembley, French Pro and US Pro plus the important WCT finals at Dallas).

Many "experts" belittle "Muscles" because he never has won Wimbledon (he "only" reached the final four times) but they "forget" that he was not allowed to participate from 1957 till 1967 (including his prime years 1960 to 1966) and also 1972 and 1973 when he still was a top player. The great Jack Kramer once "gave" Rosewall four Wimbledon titles if open era would have come earlier.

Rosewall might also be under-estimated because he was a small player and did not have a power game. But with his skills and superb technique he was able to beat top players from Kramer and Segura till Connors and Vilas.

I rank Rosewall, together with Laver, as the true GOAT. I'm aware that not many people will follow my estimation though...
I'm with you, just think if you're putting them together, at least an honorable mention to Federer because he's hot on their tails
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
I've just taken a look at his numbers and career. It's astonishing.

Why isn't he widely regarded as one of the best players ever? I'm confused.

I have him ranked 4th all time in pre open era!!

Keep in mind the 60s was a very weak era in tennis !!!
The 50s and 70s was far far stronger
 

thrust

Legend
It depends on how you define dominance. If by dominance you mean being the best player in the world, then, certainly, Chris Evert was the best player in the world for much longer than Rosewall. In my view, Rosewall only dominated during the two year gap between the decline of Gonzalez and the rise of Laver. Other than that, he was never the best player.

PS: Having said that, Rosewall was very close to the best players for an extraordinarily long time.
According to Tennisbase, Ken was ranked #2 8 different years.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
According to Tennisbase, Ken was ranked #2 8 different years.

thrust, In order to forget ARFED's heavy insults against me in the other thread, I contribute something of possible interest for you and the other SERIOUS posters.

I considered all big wins of Rosewall in his career and counted not less than 60 (!) such big achievements. I have not looked for the exact data of Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden and Federer (Rosewall's toughest rivals in the all-time GOAT discussion, at least in my opinion) but it's evident that all of them are far, far behind Muscles (about 30 to 40 big wins).

I'm sure the several Rosewall haters here will not be impressed at all by my compilation though... Most of them even don't consider Muscles a GOAT candidate...

Here the list:

1953: Australian and French Champion in singles; Australian, French and Wimbledon champion in doubles; Davis Cup

1955: Australian champ in singles; Davis Cup

1956: US Champ in singles; Australian Wimbledon and US Champ in doubles; Mixed champion at US championships; Davis Cup

1957: Wembley champion in singles; Wembley champion in doubles; US Pro champ in doubles

1958: Singles Champ of French Pro; doubles champion at Wembley

1960: French Pro champ in singles; Wembley champ in singles; Wembley champ doubles

1961: French Pro champ in singles; Wembley champ in singles; Wembley champ in doubles; French Pro champ in doubles; Kramer Cup

1962: French Pro champ in singles; Wembley champ in singles; French Pro champ doubles; Wembley champ doubles; Kramer Cup

1963: US Pro champ singles; French Pro champ singles; Wembley champ singles; doubles champ of French Pro; doubles champ at US Pro; Kramer Cup; winner world tour against Laver; winner of world series against 5 men; winner against Laver in the play off, thus 9 big titles in one year. Best year of a player behind Laver's 1969.

1964: French Pro champ singles; Wembley champ doubles; French Pro champ doubles

1965: US Pro champ singles; French Pro champ singles; French Pro champ doubles

1966: French Pro singles; Wembley champ doubles

1967: US Pro champ doubles

1968: French Open champ singles; French Open champ doubles

1969: US Open champ doubles

1970: US Open champ singles

1971: AO champ singles; WCT finals champ singles

1972: AO champ singles; WCT finals champ singles; AO champ doubles

1973: World Cup (Australia vs. USA); without Rosewall's wins over Riessen and Smith (6-7, 6-0, 6-4) Australia would have lost the 1973 encounter.

I did not consider the 1973 Davis Cup because Rosewall played only doubles (not in the Challenge Round).
 
Last edited:

treblings

Hall of Fame
thrust, In order to forget ARFED's heavy insults against me in the other thread, I contribute something of possible interest for you and the other SERIOUS posters.

I considered all big wins of Rosewall in his career and counted not less than 60 (!) such big achievements. I have not looked for the exact data of Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden and Federer (Rosewall's toughest rivals in the all-time GOAT discussion, at least in my opinion) but it's evident that all of them are far, far behind Muscles (about 30 to 40 big wins).

I'm sure the several Rosewall haters here will not be impressed at all by my compilation though... MOst of them even don't consider Muscles a GOAT candidate...

Here the list:

1953: Australian and French Champion in singles; Australian, French and Wimbledon champion in doubles; Davis Cup

1955: Australian champ in singles; Davis Cup

1956: US Champ in singles; Australian Wimbledon and US Champ in doubles; Mixed champion at US championships; Davis Cup

1957: Wembley champion in singles; Wembley champion in doubles; US Pro champ in doubles

1958: Singles Champ of French Pro; doubles champion at Wembley

1960: French Pro champ in singles; Wembley champ in singles; Wembley champ doubles

1961: French Pro champ in singles; Wembley champ in singles; Wembley champ in doubles; French Pro champ in doubles; Kramer Cup

1962: French Pro champ in singles; Wembley champ in singles; French Pro champ doubles; Wembley champ doubles; Kramer Cup

1963: US Pro champ singles; French Pro champ singles; Wembley champ singles; doubles champ of French Pro; doubles champ at US Pro; Kramer Cup; winner world tour against Laver; winner of world series against 5 men; winner against Laver in the play off, thus 9 big titles in one year. Best year of a player behind Laver's 1969.

1964: French Pro champ singles; Wembley champ doubles; French Pro champ doubles

1965: US Pro champ singles; French Pro champ singles; French Pro champ doubles

1966: French Pro singles; Wembley champ doubles

1967: US Pro champ doubles

1968: French Open champ singles; French Open champ doubles

1969: US Open champ doubles

1970: US Open champ singles

1971: AO champ singles; WCT finals champ singles

1972: AO champ singles; WCT finals champ singles; AO champ doubles

1973: World Cup (Australia vs. USA); without Rosewall's wins over Riessen and Smith (6-7, 6-0, 6-4) Australia would have lost the 1973 encounter.

I did not consider the 1973 Davis Cup because Rosewall played only doubles (not in the Challenge Round).

i particularly like that you include doubles achievements and Davis Cup. that is of course correct for those times
 
Top