As a matter of fact does somebody know what methods of extrapolations Rod has made to assess Budge's game 20-25 years ago. He should be not a professor but the new Einstein. Remarkable.
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
- Thread starter granddog29
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
Please stop with Metreveli. Very very boring. Please.
I agree
And this was Mr, Clown again having cried many times from the bell tower that he dislikes the number of majors and number of titles. WOW! The biggest HYPOCRISY ever!
I mean he is #1 all time since 2003.Disagree >>> he's #1 after that beatdown of Hewitt in the USO 2004 final
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I got that. I corrected you saying he's #1 all time since that beatdown of Hewitt in the USO 2004 final.
He could not have.
In fact the most interesting part of the list is not the list itself (we could run a list too, me and you, and it would be as arguable as his) but the places of the players he faced: Hoad, Gonzales and Rosewall.
Even if he didn’t play peak Hoad and peak Gonzales but he played peak Rosewall, he still rates the formers above the latter
abmk
Bionic Poster
Can you read :
1. Let say for a fun excercise, we put 1 amateur slam and the depleted open era slam as 0.5*major
2. Nadal has won 30 masters titles and some other smaller titles as well. So he has that part covered as well along with Rosewall (given the context of their respective times).
--------
3. and now coming to the more important point. why does rating have to be based on achievements only ? There are other factors like peak play, consistency, longevity, dominance etc. etc
Guess those went above your head, as usual.
I don't dislike number of majors and number of titles. I said they have to be put in the context of their respective times.
The biggest hypocrite ever!
I corrected you - since 2003 even mid-2002.I got that. I corrected you saying he's #1 all time since that beatdown of Hewitt in the USO 2004 final.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yup. I've discussed this before. My conclusion: Laver is not as good as many say he is, or Rosewall is better than Laver rates him.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I rank Rosewall top 15 of all time, a high insult according to some.
I don’t think it’s an insult.
I rate him lots better though.
I agree.
But still it’s something that makes me think.
Even Pancho, in 1960 after his first retirement, stated that his toughest opponents were Kramer, Sedgman and Hoad.
I think that in 1960 Rosewall were already a level above Sedgman, but it seems Pancho didn’t agree
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
You cam do a forum search for a closed thread entitled Is Rosewall a GOAT Candidate? for my analysis of Rosewall’s all time ranking. I’m tired of reinventing the wheel.
Very simple. What to thinking? In 58 and 59 Hoad and Sedgman had better H2H to Gonz than Rosewall. Pancho makes this conclusion based on their direct matches.I agree.
But still it’s something that makes me think.
Even Pancho, in 1960 after his first retirement, stated that his toughest opponents were Kramer, Sedgman and Hoad.
I think that in 1960 Rosewall were already a level above Sedgman, but it seems Pancho didn’t agree
Re Kramer he had a negative stats, also clear why he thinks that.
Hoad and Kramer ok, it's understandable.
No so much Sedg.
Anyway in 1959 Pancho leads Sed 5-3 and is 4-8 vs Kenny.
What about 57, 58 and 60? Pancho doesn't have a short memory.
Everything has an explanation. A player remembers the most wins and most losses ... and finally makes the wrong conclusions.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
No idea
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I think I have read it.
Still, I rate him higher than 15
I don’t have a problem with that. Top 5? Not a chance, IMO!
I think Pancho was not impressed by the level a mature Rosewall showed in the WS60.What about 57, 58 and 60? Pancho doesn't have a short memory.
He found very fast the next several years that he was wrong.
Pancho was 6 years older.
At 32 years old Pancho was still better than Rosewall (25 and half). Not good.
At 26/27 Laver was already better than Rosewall (30/31). Not good.
Edit : second one is not bad for itself, it’s bad compared to the first one
Don't escape! At 32 old?????????? But at 25 mature???????? You could talk these fairy-tales to your friend abmk.
abmk
Bionic Poster
said the clueless, delusional guy !
Already starting confusing? Normal. Figuring out hundreds of ways to present R not an excellent player leads to many many confusions in your head. Than you can tell you respect him. No way. Very very visible.
Nope, Just showing one of the thousands confusions and contradictions in your head. That speaks of a confused, misguided and blind tennis fan. Simple.
Change mature with not rookie anymore, if you prefer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
there is no confusion in my head. My post was clear.
You can't read properly and you have the IQ of a hammer, so that's why you think that way.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I would say that a player being 5 to 7 all time is beyond excellent. I don’t know what is excellent for you. To me excellent is even a lot less than 5-7.
And there is no confusion.
An over 30 years old Pancho (Apr 1960 is almost 32 for Gonzales) was still better than Rosewall.
An over 30 years old Rosewall (let’s say mid-1965, Rosewall still 30) was not better than Laver anymore.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Really!? That would give him eight years.
This post is perhaps clear to me.
I try to sum it up:
1) with the current parameters (Gold Standard) none of Pre OE champions is comparable to Federer (OE Top Dog), not even Rosewall;
2) as the former Pro players can not compete because there are no Majors = slam;
3) since Rosewall I (Bobby) think he is GOAT Contender;
4) the only system is ... to give importance to Wembley, US Pro and French Pro declaring that they are Pro Majors.
I really like the premise, "I (Bobby) think that Rosewall is GOAT Contender" (I understand it even if I do not agree), but I do not like the final result (equating Pro Majors = Majors).
Pro Majors do not exist, they never existed.
The road to identifying the greatness of Rosewall (and the other old players) is another.
More tortuous.
IMHO is the right way, very tiring but just.
I don't know how many road companions will follow you though.
I can agree, this often occurs though.
With the passage of time, history can not "carry on all", it cancels the importance of others. How many musicians or actors or NBA players or other artists have been deleted. Have the myths really been much higher than the canceled ones?
IMHO the difference between the probable GOAT (assuming the right parameters ...) with the twenty-fifth is little likely, or anyway between the 5th excluded from Mount Rushmore (Federer, Tilden, Laver, Gonzalez) and the twenty-fifth the distance is probably laughable.
Last edited:
IMHO does not have to be an insult because ... the ranking is short (if the first 4 are included).
NatF
Bionic Poster
From Vines book the last paragraph in the Riggs chapter-
When asked to volunteer his All-Time-First Ten, Riggs replied, "I'd put Kramer, one; Budge, two; Vines (a nod), three; Tilden, four; Gonzalez, five; Perry, six; Laver, seven; Segura, eight; Sedgman, nine..." The he paused. "Ten is tough---probably Rosewall. He's been winning major tournaments for over twenty years." Then a pause...followed by a smile. "But I agree with you, I was better than Rosewall. Better serve. Better balance off both sides...his forehand was always a little suspect."
Seems odd to me that Riggs would reassess his evaluation so much especially considering most of the guys in front peaked before Rosewall anyway. Commies and ex-players say a lot of stuff to hype the game. Wilander once said Djokovic was playing the best clay court tennis of all time (back in 2015 at the French) - he went on to lose to Wawrinka in 4 in the final. There's all sorts of examples of this. I wouldn't take 'in the moment' comments or statements at face value.
Alexander most recently called Federer the GOAT as well
And I didn't insult you. As far as no single point of yours ever being debunked - just lol - I guess we can trust you on that because you're so objective right?
I really trust Riggs except when he lost v King.From Vines book the last paragraph in the Riggs chapter-
When asked to volunteer his All-Time-First Ten, Riggs replied, "I'd put Kramer, one; Budge, two; Vines (a nod), three; Tilden, four; Gonzalez, five; Perry, six; Laver, seven; Segura, eight; Sedgman, nine..." The he paused. "Ten is tough---probably Rosewall. He's been winning major tournaments for over twenty years." Then a pause...followed by a smile. "But I agree with you, I was better than Rosewall. Better serve. Better balance off both sides...his forehand was always a little suspect."
Seems odd to me that Riggs would reassess his evaluation so much especially considering most of the guys in front peaked before Rosewall anyway. Commies and ex-players say a lot of stuff to hype the game. Wilander once said Djokovic was playing the best clay court tennis of all time (back in 2015 at the French) - he went on to lose to Wawrinka in 4 in the final. There's all sorts of examples of this. I wouldn't take 'in the moment' comments or statements at face value.
Alexander most recently called Federer the GOAT as well
And I didn't insult you. As far as no single point of yours ever being debunked - just lol - I guess we can trust you on that because you're so objective right?
LOLFrom Vines book the last paragraph in the Riggs chapter-
When asked to volunteer his All-Time-First Ten, Riggs replied, "I'd put Kramer, one; Budge, two; Vines (a nod), three; Tilden, four; Gonzalez, five; Perry, six; Laver, seven; Segura, eight; Sedgman, nine..." The he paused. "Ten is tough---probably Rosewall. He's been winning major tournaments for over twenty years." Then a pause...followed by a smile. "But I agree with you, I was better than Rosewall. Better serve. Better balance off both sides...his forehand was always a little suspect."
Seems odd to me that Riggs would reassess his evaluation so much especially considering most of the guys in front peaked before Rosewall anyway. Commies and ex-players say a lot of stuff to hype the game. Wilander once said Djokovic was playing the best clay court tennis of all time (back in 2015 at the French) - he went on to lose to Wawrinka in 4 in the final. There's all sorts of examples of this. I wouldn't take 'in the moment' comments or statements at face value.
Alexander most recently called Federer the GOAT as well
And I didn't insult you. As far as no single point of yours ever being debunked - just lol - I guess we can trust you on that because you're so objective right?
Even behind Segura.
Very high rated by other players.
Oh yeah
NatF
Bionic Poster
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
From Vines book the last paragraph in the Riggs chapter-
When asked to volunteer his All-Time-First Ten, Riggs replied, "I'd put Kramer, one; Budge, two; Vines (a nod), three; Tilden, four; Gonzalez, five; Perry, six; Laver, seven; Segura, eight; Sedgman, nine..." The he paused. "Ten is tough---probably Rosewall. He's been winning major tournaments for over twenty years." Then a pause...followed by a smile. "But I agree with you, I was better than Rosewall. Better serve. Better balance off both sides...his forehand was always a little suspect."
Seems odd to me that Riggs would reassess his evaluation so much especially considering most of the guys in front peaked before Rosewall anyway. Commies and ex-players say a lot of stuff to hype the game. Wilander once said Djokovic was playing the best clay court tennis of all time (back in 2015 at the French) - he went on to lose to Wawrinka in 4 in the final. There's all sorts of examples of this. I wouldn't take 'in the moment' comments or statements at face value.
Alexander most recently called Federer the GOAT as well
And I didn't insult you. As far as no single point of yours ever being debunked - just lol - I guess we can trust you on that because you're so objective right?
I suspect that Riggs might have offered a slightly different list if, say, Laver or Gonzalez had asked him the same question.
