Thing is that Budge's testimony on this issue is worthless. For whatever reason, he characterized his Grand Slam campaign as something he did in secret until it was finished. But in truth he told the press, in May 1938, that he was setting out to do it -- in contrast to Laver who as far as I know did not speak openly about the Grand Slam in '69, because he didn't want to heap pressure on himself.
I agree that Budge faced less pressure than did later players trying for the Grand Slam. But there is other evidence for that argument. Budge's own testimony on that matter is not good evidence, because he obviously wanted to recall, or claim, against the actual facts, that he accomplished the Slam in secret, with no pressure at all.
I've always thought of Budge's result against Tilden as overwhelming. A 46-7 record is a winning rate of .868. Later in that same year Perry went 20-3 against Tilden, a rate of .870. It's nearly the same thing, and it could be that Budge actually did better than Perry did, because Perry lost at least two more matches to Tilden (in August,
per Bowers).
And that is striking because Perry was in great form during that stretch in '41; as you know he ended up #1 for the year. Budge was probably #3 for that year, largely due to his surgery in June.
Tilden being able to beat Budge (and Perry) at the age of 48 has never struck me as a notable result -- except as great evidence of Tilden's longevity. In that category Tilden might be second to none. If Tilden had won only 3 or 4 matches against Budge, instead of 7, I would find that surprising, considering how well Tilden had done at the age of 41 against Vines.
Was the Vines-Tilden margin 41-26? I have seen a figure of 41-19, based on a mid-tour report from American Lawn Tennis (see Tilden's Wikipedia page and
Bowers).
Budge at his peak certainly did not lose any tours. He lost only after the war, and though it's debated how good or bad Budge was by then, no one has called that time Budge's peak.
Budge went 15-10 against Riggs, but Budge started the tour badly and was pulling away the longer it continued. As mentioned he had that surgery in '41, and seems not to have played much at all for the rest of the year. When he started the tour in early '42
he was observed to be out of shape; he lost his first three matches. But slowly his form picked up and he started pulling away from everyone.
As you know the tour was canceled prematurely, which raises the possibility that Budge's edge over Riggs (and everyone else) would have been even greater if it had gone to its conclusion.
When Budge met Riggs in the final at the US Pro Grasscourt in July, he overwhelmed him 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. Riggs played his best but there was little he could do. Joe McCauley thought that Riggs in '42 was not yet in Budge's class, as shown by that match.
And even the tour results show a huge gap between them. Budge finished 52-18 against everyone else in the troupe. Riggs finished 36-36, the second-best record among the five men (by a small margin), but nowhere near Budge.
Riggs did get better in later years, you're right. And Budge only got worse.
Not invincible, but hardly an ambiguous result when compared to Laver who lost 16 matches in '69.
I have also read that Budge was not defeated in '38 until after he completed the Grand Slam.
Kramer said that Vines developed shoulder problems late in his career; Bowers mentions serious shoulder trouble even as early as '36. Vines seems to have often had trouble with his shoulder. And yet in the first tour against Budge he continually served aces
as I documented in the other thread. With those serving performances, there are not many dates left over on which Vines could have been playing injured; and the aces also imply that if he was injured, he recovered quickly. But then it could not have been a serious injury -- at least, not one more serious than the shoulder issues he commonly dealt with.