To Chaognosis:
I have read your posts on Budge, and agree that he was one of the all-time greats, but I do not think it is clear that he was the best even of the 1930s. In Budge's own testimony, Vines surpassed him at his best and was the true 'Champion of the Decade.' Vines is the first player whose greatness cannot be appreciated without reference to the early pro tours. He was a strong number one in 1932, as dominant as Budge in '37. After falling a bit in '33, Crawford's great year, he turned pro in '34 and it could be argued remained the world number one until his NARROW defeat by Budge in '39, when Vines was no longer fully dedicated to tennis, becoming more interested in golf, and on top of that suffering from physical problems. Budge on the other hand was only clearly the number one in 1939 & '40, also '42, after falling in '41. Tilden, Budge and Kramer, and many others, players and writers alike, agreed that Vines was the best ever on his day. Kramer maintains this opinion even after seeing Federer. The later generation of Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver, among others, called Hoad the greatest, but I rate the opinion of Budge and Kramer higher as they witnessed both Vines and Hoad at their best. So Vines > Hoad. Gonzales, toward the end of his life in 1995, ranked Sampras on a level with Hoad, so I am inclined to agree, with Vines still ahead. Laver now calls Federer the best he has seen, so balancing the opinions of Laver and Kramer, we have Vines > Federer > Hoad/Sampras. These four in my opinion represent the first class, with Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver, Borg, Agassi, et al, behind them at a distance. I have seen both McEnroe and Agassi at their best, and maintain that Agassi was superior. McEnroe was a sublime touch player, but he lacked the power. On the subject of Vines, there is an excellent book by his son, 'The Greatest Athlete of All Time' (2004), which provides a lot of source material from Vines's career and private life.