Laver #2

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
Carsamyr, the video game junky, is completely out of material!

Which is the name of the college Carsomyr

attends? I´ll make sure NOT to bring my kids there, since their Semantics teacher is a very lousy one...and I also have serious doubts about his amths teacher, too...

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

abmk said:
Agassi won the AO in 2003, the same year in which federer won his first one at Wimbledon. He was a contender at every single one of the hard court GS from then on as well till 2005

2003 USO - loses to ferrero in SF
2004 AO - loses to Safin in SF
2004 USO QF - loses to federer in QF
2005 AO - loses to federer in QF
2005 USO - loses to federer in F

He also lost to finalist phillippousis in 2003 wimbledon.

was playing well in the other events as well ...

Agassi was MUCH MUCH closer to his best than gonzales was to his. Yet you mention Gonzales as Laver's competition but not Agassi as federer's , LOL !!!!!!

Kuerten did win his last FO in 2001, but he did knock out federer in 2004 FO, which was significant as it prevented federer from winning the calendar GS that year ...

its not being unfair to Gonzales ( post 60 ) because peak Djoker is WAYYYY better than a past his prime Gonzales. Remember that this is not a peak to peak comparison at all ....

Regarding Emmo, a direct comparison with Djoker becomes more difficult. Would he have won 5 slams or more with Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno etc around , i.e. a full field ?

jeez, really ? who else will win slams apart from djoker, nadal, federer,murray, delpo etc ?? even if they do, they will still be part of the competition that federer faced , won't they ????? Another logic fail from you, again .....

calendar Grand Slam??? there is only one GRANDS SLAM, and, yes, it is what you call CALNEDAR GRAND SLAM (this is a term invented by *******s, who in thie way want to disguisse their hero´s failure at winning the only GS )

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

abmk said:
I think Laver-Gonzales was something like 40+ wins for Laver and slightly less than 20 wins for Gonzales. Not exactly sure of the nos, though ...

Federer-Agassi was 8-3 in favour of Federer. So ? It doesn't change the fact that Agassi was still playing well from 2003-2005 .. not that far away from his best.

OTOH, Gonzales wasn't even close to his best in the 60s. Just flashes of brilliance here and there ...

He was a top 5-6 pro even in the 60´s.That puts him in the top 10 if you mix up pros and ams.

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

abmk said:
oh jeez, so Kuerten ( who Nalbandian beat in 2004 FO ) , nadal, djokovic, safin, hewitt, roddick, Agassi don't count as good-great players ?

Edmondson beat an old old Rosewall and affected by injuries Newk ( who was also well past his best ) , duh !

Beating Vilas at Wimbledon isn't anything to brag about. He didn't even make it past the QF even once there ...

Gerulatis is a decent scalp. I'll give you that.

Clerc, Pecci on grass ???? really ...... ha ha ha
Lendl still wasn't that good on grass - he was young ....
The others weren't great either ....

Davydenko would take down any of them on HC easily .... (except Lendl ) and it won't be pretty ...would be a good contest on clay vs several of them as well ...

They are great players, I am not denying that.But they shouldn´t be at their best if some middle class journeyman like Haas surpasses them and moves to nº 2...

On grass, Pecci reached a Queen´s Club final, beating great A Ashe and pulling off a set from John Mc Enroe.Davidenkho wouldn´t even in his wet dreams...and he, of course, wouldn´t even dream of beating Gerulaitis in any court if Vitas just played 60% of his best tennis.

He would be a joke against all of those guys, well, I´ll give to you that he would beat Mc namara,Clerc and Gottfried on hard, they were never good hard courters, but never on grass.

and 1980 Lendl, at age 20 reached the Masters finals and won the Davis Cup, beating argentinian´s Clerc and Vilas at their soil...he had scored a big win over Borg at Basle ( and a second one at Toronto , but I don´t count it after Borg retiresd in the second set)...WOULD DAVIDENKHO, EVEN AT HIS PEAK EVER DREAM OF BEATING BORG?

Again, I have dismantled one by one all your aguments.Keep trying tough, it´s fun.

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

Carsomyr, the perfect tennis clueless, is posting on this forum to improve his semantics as well as his maths.Given his pathetic level at those subjects and the obvious unability of his rookie college teacher to do the job, he has given him some homework to do, which he is fulfilling over here.

abmk · Apr 7, 2012

kiki said:
They are great players, I am not denying that.But they shouldn´t be at their best if some middle class journeyman like Haas surpasses them and moves to nº 2...

On grass, Pecci reached a Queen´s Club final, beating great A Ashe and pulling off a set from John Mc Enroe.Davidenkho wouldn´t even in his wet dreams...and he, of course, wouldn´t even dream of beating Gerulaitis in any court if Vitas just played 60% of his best tennis.

ha ha ha, what a JOKE .....

kiki said:
He would be a joke against all of those guys, well, I´ll give to you that he would beat Mc namara,Clerc and Gottfried on hard, they were never good hard courters, but never on grass.

and 1980 Lendl, at age 20 reached the Masters finals and won the Davis Cup, beating argentinian´s Clerc and Vilas at their soil...he had scored a big win over Borg at Basle ( and a second one at Toronto , but I don´t count it after Borg retiresd in the second set)...WOULD DAVIDENKHO, EVEN AT HIS PEAK EVER DREAM OF BEATING BORG?

I said except Lendl , can't you even read ?????? I also mentioned Lendl on grass specifically. He was already good on other surfaces in 1980, but had to improve quite a bit on grass .....

If davydenko at his peak can beat federer , his worst matchup, twice in a row , YEC 2009, doha 2010, he sure can beat borg on HC (since borg wasn't even close to federer on HC ) .... Davydenko is 6-1 vs nadal on HC as well .... But your highness, the Clueless doesn't know that ....... he's also beaten the likes of Djoker, Murray, delpo on HC .....

kiki said:
Again, I have dismantled one by one all your aguments.Keep trying tough, it´s fun.

again, all you are doing is showing us all time and again, how clueless you are and that you are a hypocrite .... providing a shining example of how the limits of stupidity can be stretched

Limpinhitter · Apr 7, 2012

TMF said:
(SIGH...)Just because you scream WRONG doesn't change the fact that oher people use the term the way you wanted. I gave you the google link and there's nearly 3.5 millions hits. Stop being imature with the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. They are going to use it the words Grand Slam the way they feel like it. Tough luck !

Last year, the Texas Rangers won the pennant, or you can say they won the American League Championship Series. Everyone understood clearly ! If you are a baseball fan, are you going to be disgruntle too? I don't hear any baseball fans complaining about either way.

TMF, surely, by now, it's clear that I don't care how other people use the term. If other people use it in incorrectly, then they are "wrong." BTW, I didn't scream, you did.

Mustard · Apr 7, 2012

abmk said:
its not being unfair to Gonzales ( post 60 ) because peak Djoker is WAYYYY better than a past his prime Gonzales.

Even a past his prime Gonzales could beat the very best. In February 1970, with Laver at the peak of his powers, a 41 year old Gonzales beat Laver 7–5, 3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–2 in a $10,000 winner takes all match in Madison Square Garden. It's like Agassi today beating Djokovic by the same score in a winner takes all money match. Of course, Agassi is long retired while Gonzales was still in the top 10 when he beat Laver in 1970.

abmk said:
Regarding Emmo, a direct comparison with Djoker becomes more difficult. Would he have won 5 slams or more with Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno etc around , i.e. a full field ?

We have no way of knowing really, since Emerson constantly turned down the chance to turn professional until finally doing so in early 1968. When players like Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver turned professional, their games went up to another level. By the time Emerson turned professional, he was already slightly past his prime, his prime being around 1961-1965.

abmk said:
I think Laver-Gonzales was something like 40+ wins for Laver and slightly less than 20 wins for Gonzales. Not exactly sure of the nos, though ...

I believe Laver won 38 and Gonzales won 21.

abmk said:
OTOH, Gonzales wasn't even close to his best in the 60s. Just flashes of brilliance here and there ...

Gonzales was the best player in 1952, and was utterly dominant from 1954-1959, barring a scare from Hoad on their 1958 tour, where Hoad led 18-9 at one stage before Gonzales came back to win 51-36.

Gonzales hugely scaled back his tournament play in 1960, but dominated the World Series tours before going into semi-retirement. Gonzales played a few more tournaments in 1961 (including winning the US Pro for the 8th time in 9 years). In 1962, I don't think Gonzales played at all as he was in retirement and Rosewall became the top player. Gonzales started returning in a few tournaments in 1963 and increased his schedule a lot in 1964, but was past his prime by this stage, although still capable of rolling back the years on his day.

pc1 · Apr 7, 2012

Mustard said:
Even a past his prime Gonzales could beat the very best. In February 1970, with Laver at the peak of his powers, a 41 year old Gonzales beat Laver 7–5, 3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–2 in a $10,000 winner takes all match in Madison Square Garden. It's like Agassi today beating Djokovic by the same score in a winner takes all money match. Of course, Agassi is long retired while Gonzales was still in the top 10 when he beat Laver in 1970.

We have no way of knowing really, since Emerson constantly turned down the chance to turn professional until finally doing so in early 1968. When players like Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver turned professional, their games went up to another level. By the time Emerson turned professional, he was already slightly past his prime, his prime being around 1961-1965.

I believe Laver won 38 and Gonzales won 21.

Gonzales was the best player in 1952, and was utterly dominant from 1954-1959, barring a scare from Hoad on their 1958 tour, where Hoad led 18-9 at one stage before Gonzales came back to win 51-36.

Gonzales hugely scaled back his tournament play in 1960, but dominated the World Series tours before going into semi-retirement. Gonzales played a few more tournaments in 1961 (including winning the US Pro for the 8th time in 9 years). In 1962, I don't think Gonzales played at all as he was in retirement and Rosewall became the top player. Gonzales started returning in a few tournaments in 1963 and increased his schedule a lot in 1964, but was past his prime by this stage, although still capable of rolling back the years on his day.

In 1964 Gonzalez was very strong, not the level of Laver and Rosewall but still excellent. He may have been the third best pro in 1964 and possibly the third best in the world. Gonzalez lost to Laver in a fantastic match in horrible weather conditions in the final of the US Pro that year. They said the shotmaking was amazing in that match.

TMF · Apr 7, 2012

LOL. Some of this posts are hilarious. A 41 yr old Gonzalez is some type of a geek god while Agassi at 35 is old, broken down man.

I can't imagine any player at 41 yr old competing against the top players today. It could be murder !

abmk · Apr 7, 2012

Mustard said:
Even a past his prime Gonzales could beat the very best. In February 1970, with Laver at the peak of his powers, a 41 year old Gonzales beat Laver 7–5, 3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–2 in a $10,000 winner takes all match in Madison Square Garden. It's like Agassi today beating Djokovic by the same score in a winner takes all money match. Of course, Agassi is long retired while Gonzales was still in the top 10 when he beat Laver in 1970.

of course, but you'd take prime Djoker on an average over Gonzales of the mid to late 60s, right ? My point ....

Mustard said:
We have no way of knowing really, since Emerson constantly turned down the chance to turn professional until finally doing so in early 1968. When players like Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver turned professional, their games went up to another level. By the time Emerson turned professional, he was already slightly past his prime, his prime being around 1961-1965.

which is why I said comparison becomes difficult

Mustard · Apr 7, 2012

TMF said:
I can't imagine any player at 41 yr old competing against the top players today. It could be murder !

With the amount of tennis played on hardcourts these days, you're probably right. If players were playing on grass, clay, indoor carpet or indoor wood and much less on hardcourt, like they did in Gonzales' day, players' careers would last longer.

TMF · Apr 7, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
TMF, surely, by now, it's clear that I don't care how other people use the term. If other people use it in incorrectly, then they are "wrong." BTW, I didn't scream, you did.

You're just different from everyone else so speak for yourself, OK?

TMF · Apr 7, 2012

Mustard said:
With the amount of tennis played on hardcourts these days, you're probably right. If players were playing on grass, clay, indoor carpet or indoor wood and much less on hardcourt, like they did in Gonzales' day, players' careers would last longer.

It required more athleticism, speed, stamina, fitness, reflex. I don't believe a player at 41 can keep up with players in their 20s. Maybe it's fine in the old days when the game was less demanding.

Mustard · Apr 7, 2012

TMF said:
It required more athleticism, speed, stamina, fitness, reflex. I don't believe a player at 41 can keep up with players in their 20s. Maybe it's fine in the old days when the game was less demanding.

Less demanding? Maybe on the joints due to much less hardcourts, but tennis players weren't even permitted to sit down at the change of ends in matches until 1973-74. A 41 year old Gonzales was also involved in that legendary match with Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon, which saw demands for tiebreaks to be introduced into tennis. Yes, prior to the early 1970s, every single set had to be played on at 5-5 until a player won by 2 clear games. Is this less demanding?

treblings · Apr 7, 2012

TMF said:
Maybe it's fine in the old days when the game was less demanding.

if you believe that tennis in the 60´s was less demanding than just get out of this discussion quietly. you don´t know nothing of the history of our sport

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

abmk said:
ha ha ha, what a JOKE .....

I said except Lendl , can't you even read ?????? I also mentioned Lendl on grass specifically. He was already good on other surfaces in 1980, but had to improve quite a bit on grass .....

If davydenko at his peak can beat federer , his worst matchup, twice in a row , YEC 2009, doha 2010, he sure can beat borg on HC (since borg wasn't even close to federer on HC ) .... Davydenko is 6-1 vs nadal on HC as well .... But your highness, the Clueless doesn't know that ....... he's also beaten the likes of Djoker, Murray, delpo on HC .....

again, all you are doing is showing us all time and again, how clueless you are and that you are a hypocrite .... providing a shining example of how the limits of stupidity can be stretched

I understand your rage.I´d also feel like you if any factual data is refused by
stroner factual data...

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

TMF said:
LOL. Some of this posts are hilarious. A 41 yr old Gonzalez is some type of a geek god while Agassi at 35 is old, broken down man.

I can't imagine any player at 41 yr old competing against the top players today. It could be murder !

Not just that.At 45 Gonzales was beating the likes of Connors and Borg...

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

Mustard said:
Less demanding? Maybe on the joints due to much less hardcourts, but tennis players weren't even permitted to sit down at the change of ends in matches until 1973-74. A 41 year old Gonzales was also involved in that legendary match with Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon, which saw demands for tiebreaks to be introduced into tennis. Yes, prior to the early 1970s, every single set had to be played on at 5-5 until a player won by 2 clear games. Is this less demanding?

Not to mention travel conditions ( players themshelves rented cars and crossed the US back and forth to make it in time at the many pro stops), training conditions, court conditions ( wood, roads - yes roads-, parkings) and many other things.

If Fed or Nadal were asked to do that, they would certainly quit tenis.

kiki · Apr 7, 2012

treblings said:
if you believe that tennis in the 60´s was less demanding than just get out of this discussion quietly. you don´t know nothing of the history of our sport

I thought it was already clear to seasoned tv fans that HE DOESN´T ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPORT.

Dan Lobb · Apr 7, 2012

Mustard said:
The 1972 French Open was a major. Plenty of majors in the early open era were affected by withdrawals, bannings and boycotts, but they are still majors.

I should note that Budge won his grand slam in 1938 without playing a really tough opponent. His toughest match was against an 18 year-old Jar Drobny in the Czechoslovakian final, not a slam event at all.

abmk · Apr 7, 2012

kiki said:
I understand your rage.I´d also feel like you if any factual data is refused by
stroner factual data...

rage ? I'm laughing time and again at your cluelessness.

Factual data says davydenko beat federer, his worst matchup , on HC twice. Factual data says federer won 9 HC slams to Borg's zero.

Factual data says nadal won 2 HC slams to borg's zero
Factual data says davydenko leads him 6-1 on HC

=> davydenko has every chance of beating borg on HC

yet clueless kiki's logic suggests davydenko can't beat borg on HC :roll:

Mustard · Apr 7, 2012

abmk said:
rage ? I'm laughing time and again at your cluelessness.

Factual data says davydenko beat federer, his worst matchup , on HC twice. Factual data says federer won 9 HC slams to Borg's zero.

Factual data says nadal won 2 HC slams to borg's zero
Factual data says davydenko leads him 6-1 on HC

=> davydenko has every chance of beating borg on HC

yet clueless kiki's logic suggests davydenko can't beat borg on HC :roll:

Borg only played 4 majors on hardcourt, and reached the final in 3 of them, losing to Connors and McEnroe in those 3 finals, while Tanner beat Borg in the quarter finals in the other one.

abmk · Apr 7, 2012

Mustard said:
Borg only played 4 majors on hardcourt, and reached the final in 3 of them, losing to Connors and McEnroe in those 3 finals, while Tanner beat Borg in the quarter finals in the other one.

Mustard , I know that very well ..... I was just ridiculing kiki.

Borg of course was the better HC player than davydenko ...

But to suggest that davydenko would have no chance vs him on HC is well purely laughable ....especially when he leads the lefty version of borg 6-1 on HC

Chopin · Apr 7, 2012

Amazing that this thread could produce 24 pages and counting.

treblings · Apr 7, 2012

Chopin said:
Amazing that this thread could produce 24 pages and counting.

what would be amazing about it? people endlessly debating the same old points without ever adding something new or original to the discussion?
that´s not amazing, that´s simply human nature

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
rage ? I'm laughing time and again at your cluelessness.

Factual data says davydenko beat federer, his worst matchup , on HC twice. Factual data says federer won 9 HC slams to Borg's zero.

Factual data says nadal won 2 HC slams to borg's zero
Factual data says davydenko leads him 6-1 on HC

=> davydenko has every chance of beating borg on HC

yet clueless kiki's logic suggests davydenko can't beat borg on HC :roll:

To defeat Borg on any court, you need a special weapon, a shot above normal standarts...did Davidhenko ever got one? he is a kind of new Solomon or new Dibbs.Very consistent, very good retriever but won on consistency and Borg was the perfect definition of consistency...

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

treblings said:
what would be amazing about it? people endlessly debating the same old points without ever adding something new or original to the discussion?
that´s not amazing, that´s simply human nature

yeah¡ why not debate presidential elections one by one since WWII...still Obamatards would be bringing up the same clueless opinions...Human Nature, as you said.

What do you bring in here ?

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

It is becoming more and more obvious Fed and Nadal, no matter how many titles win, have played in a weak era and cannot claim GOAT status because being completley owned in the majors by nadal (when Fed peaked) and Djokovic ( when Nadal peaks).We´ll see how many majors will Djoko win, and, more important than that, if he is or not owned by a guy that would deny him any possibility tom fight for GOAT status.

Laver,Borg,Kramer,Budge,Tilden,Gonzales,Sampras were never owned in that insane way, and that is why they are LEGITIM GOAT candidates....

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
To defeat Borg on any court, you need a special weapon, a shot above normal standarts...did Davidhenko ever got one? he is a kind of new Solomon or new Dibbs.Very consistent, very good retriever but won on consistency and Borg was the perfect definition of consistency...

clueless...... davydenko is more similar to agassi/kafelnikov rather than solomon/dibbs.

You think he was winning vs Rafael Nadal, I repeat Rafael Nadal , based only on consistency ??????

He is 6-1 vs him on HC

Jeez, he was winning based on his RoS, taking the ball early and his defense - all 3 of which are way above normal standards btw ...

But then its obvious you haven't watched him play like ever ...... Totally clueless as ever, Kiki ......

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
It is becoming more and more obvious Fed and Nadal, no matter how many titles win, have played in a weak era and cannot claim GOAT status because being completley owned in the majors by nadal (when Fed peaked) and Djokovic ( when Nadal peaks).We´ll see how many majors will Djoko win, and, more important than that, if he is or not owned by a guy that would deny him any possibility tom fight for GOAT status.

Laver,Borg,Kramer,Budge,Tilden,Gonzales,Sampras were never owned in that insane way, and that is why they are LEGITIM GOAT candidates....

Laver played in the weakest era of all ...playing all midgets ....., lucky that Hoad was injured so often ....

Kramer's achievements aren't enough ...

Borg retired early . cowaaaaaaard ..

sampras couldn't play on clay

tilden played in an era of very less depth

budge's achievements aren't enough

gonzales was lucky to be not facing the full fields and not to have more matches on clay , lucky that Hoad was injured so often

see how easy it is to denigrate any player, clueless Kiki ?

treblings · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
What do you bring in here ?

my opinion sometimes, though it´s probably not controversial enough to get much of a feedback

sometimes i´m angered by a mindless remark or when people confuse their opinions with facts
mostly though i´m amused

Limpinhitter · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
rage ? I'm laughing time and again at your cluelessness.

Factual data says davydenko beat federer, his worst matchup , on HC twice. Factual data says federer won 9 HC slams to Borg's zero.

Factual data says nadal won 2 HC slams to borg's zero
Factual data says davydenko leads him 6-1 on HC

=> davydenko has every chance of beating borg on HC

yet clueless kiki's logic suggests davydenko can't beat borg on HC :roll:

IMO, It's problematic to state that one player would beat, or can't beat, another as a substitute to express your opinion that one player is better than another. I don't think any informed observer would say that Davydenko could never beat Borg on HC. The question is, who would have the winning record between them on HC. Again, IMO, clearly Borg is the far greater champion, Davydenko has never been a major champion, and would almost certainly have a winning record against Davydenko on any surface.

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
clueless...... davydenko is more similar to agassi/kafelnikov rather than solomon/dibbs.

You think he was winning vs Rafael Nadal, I repeat Rafael Nadal , based only on consistency ??????

He is 6-1 vs him on HC

Jeez, he was winning based on his RoS, taking the ball early and his defense - all 3 of which are way above normal standards btw ...

But then its obvious you haven't watched him play like ever ...... Totally clueless as ever, Kiki ......

Well , I really tried to watch some action from him.But you are right, I never ended his matches...I would fall asleep after 30 minutes or so...:-?

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
Laver played in the weakest era of all ...playing all midgets ....., lucky that Hoad was injured so often ....

Kramer's achievements aren't enough ...

Borg retired early . cowaaaaaaard ..

sampras couldn't play on clay

tilden played in an era of very less depth

budge's achievements aren't enough

gonzales was lucky to be not facing the full fields and not to have more matches on clay , lucky that Hoad was injured so often

see how easy it is to denigrate any player, clueless Kiki ?

Yes, your argumentation is absolutely impeccable...as always.Your knowledge of any given player fits in just one sentence, as proved in this post...kid, try another sport, tennis is a mistery to you.

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

I just laugh when Fed and Nadal are put in any of the first 2 or 3 tiers for GOAT considerations...they are the nº 1 players that have been more often owned by thsoe considered their successors.It never happened to laver,Hoad,Borg,Sampras,Kramer,Tilden,Budge or Gonzales.Those deserve being considered for the first 2-3 tiers...

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
IMO, It's problematic to state that one player would beat, or can't beat, another as a substitute to express your opinion that one player is better than another.

I don't think any informed observer would say that Davydenko could never beat Borg on HC.

that's exactly what Kiki said. So we are in agreement that Kiki is clueless ????

Limpinhitter said:
The question is, who would have the winning record between them on HC. Again, IMO, clearly Borg is the far greater champion, Davydenko has never been a major champion, and would almost certainly have a winning record against Davydenko on any surface.

one would think that ... its logical as Borg is of course the greater champion. But then so is Nadal .... yet he trails him 1-6 on HC .... Some things are just an issue of matchup ....

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
Well , I really tried to watch some action from him.But you are right, I never ended his matches...I would fall asleep after 30 minutes or so...:-?

Basically that's true for you in case of any modern match as you are still immersed in your Laver era worship => you are totally clueless about modern day tennis and anything you said about it deserves to be treated with absolute contempt especially considering your hopeless myopic Laver driven agenda . End of story ...

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
I just laugh when Fed and Nadal are put in any of the first 2 or 3 tiers for GOAT considerations...they are the nº 1 players that have been more often owned by thsoe considered their successors.It never happened to laver,Hoad,Borg,Sampras,Kramer,Tilden,Budge or Gonzales.Those deserve being considered for the first 2-3 tiers...

I just laugh big time when Laver is put in discussion for the GOAT ..... He was being beaten up left, right by Hoad when he joined the pros. But then Hoad was affected by injuries ...... Gonzales while still being well past his best also managed to beat him several times ... Imagine what a prime Gonzales would've done to him on the fast surfaces ??? :lol:

Basically the luckiest champion of all time , Rod Laver ....

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
Basically that's true for you in case of any modern match as you are still immersed in your Laver era worship => you are totally clueless about modern day tennis and anything you said about it deserves to be treated with absolute contempt especially considering your hopeless myopic Laver driven agenda . End of story ...

I watched many matches, some even live, involving Sampras,Kuerten,Hewitt,Agassi,Safin,Nadal,Federer.Delpo and Djokovic,just less, but still, and I never was interested in the upper or middle class journeymanship, which certainly includes Ferrer,Davidenkho,Murray,Fish,Tsonga and...sorry for breaking your heart, Tommy Haas.

yes, Haas was no great champion, you clueless.

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
I watched many matches, some even live, involving Sampras,Kuerten,Hewitt,Agassi,Safin,Nadal,Federer.Delpo and Djokovic,just less, but still, and I never was interested in the upper or middle class journeymanship, which certainly includes Ferrer,Davidenkho,Murray,Fish,Tsonga and...sorry for breaking your heart, Tommy Haas.

yes, Haas was no great champion, you clueless.

no, you haven't watched any matches from the present era and that much is obvious from your posts ......

and yes, Haas was no great champion, clueless Kiki, I know that .....No need to repeat it ....

But of course you find time to pump up the likes of Drysdale and Ralston ..... LOL :lol:

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
no, you haven't watched any matches from the present era and that much is obvious from your posts ......

and yes, Haas was no great champion, clueless Kiki, I know that .....No need to repeat it ....

But of course you find time to pump up the likes of Drysdale and Ralston ..... LOL :lol:

Haas would give half his ass to make a major final...which Ralston and Drysdale did...and they were upper class journeyman of that era.

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

Obviously considering you never watched any of tsonga, davydenko, murray, haas etc play ( and obv have no interest in their records ) you have zero right to be commenting about them as you have zero idea of how they play and how good they are ... Any comments from you regarding them is just coming out of your Laver worship and trying to put down every other era ...

abmk · Apr 8, 2012

kiki said:
Haas would give half his ass to make a major final...which Ralston and Drysdale did...and they were upper class journeyman of that era.

yes, they made finals in a hopelessly weak amateur field .... Haas would be making multiple major finals in that field, not just one ....

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
Obviously considering you never watched any of tsonga, davydenko, murray, haas etc play ( and obv have no interest in their records ) you have zero right to be commenting about them as you have zero idea of how they play and how good they are ... Any comments from you regarding them is just coming out of your Laver worship and trying to put down every other era ...

I Have seen those players.Murray, think he got great potential but something is wrong with him.the others are good but fall behind.

Limpinhitter · Apr 8, 2012

abmk said:
yes, they made finals in a hopelessly weak amateur field .... Haas would be making multiple major finals in that field, not just one ....

Actually, Dennis Ralston was a physical specimen, a beast, who was expected to be the next Jack Kramer or Pancho Gonzales. But, he had a terrible temper which held him back from being the best he could have been. IMO, Ralston was a more natrually gifted player and athlete than Murray or Tsonga. I have some great pics of Ralston in action. Maybe I'll find time to post them.

Cliff Drysdale was also a great player. Not a major champion, but, a threat to anyone he played, with a big serve and a great 2hb. He was particularly troublesome for Rosewall. I had the privilege of seeing him win WCT event in the 70's.

kiki · Apr 8, 2012

Ralston himself was one of the handsome eight Hunt signed in for the first ever WCT tour.

BTW, almost all top players signed for WCTin the early 70´s...but still, there were names in that circuit whose background or merit is completely unknowm by me.Tom leonard,Roy Barth,Tom Edlefsen were regular WCT players.Were they NCAA champions or something like that? how comes they joined the Hunt´s very selective club?

kiki · Apr 9, 2012

Anybody´s FINALLY hanging up the 1972 Dallas match?

Mustard · Apr 9, 2012

kiki said:
Anybody´s FINALLY hanging up the 1972 Dallas match?

What about the match?

kiki · Apr 9, 2012

Mustard said:
What about the match?

It seems impossible to have decent footage of 1972 Dallas...

Laver #2

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Similar threads