Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Thanks to Federerkooora (whoever he/she is) for posting this video on the tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIDBh0s1-_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIDBh0s1-_E
Manuel Santana vs. Dennis Ralston, W final 1966
- Thread starter Limpinhitter
- Start date
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
"My 3 toughest opponents, I'd have to say, probably, Roy Emerson, uh, Ken Rosewall and, uh, Lew Hoad." -- Dennis Ralston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTha8_RrJlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTha8_RrJlI
Moose's stats on this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=372470
TomT
Hall of Fame
Nice video. Ralston was a heckuva player. His comment re the three toughest players he faced is interesting.
Should be in reverse order. All three fast as cats around the court.
The video shows two excellent players. Great.
Maybe Ralston did not mention Rod Laver because Dennis had several surprising wins over Rocket in his first pro year.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Dennis Ralston was a stud. Big, strong, fast. Great shot maker. He was expected to be the next Pancho Gonzeles or Jack Kramer. From what I recall, he was a bit hot headed and didn't play his best when he got close to winning majors.
Young Ralston was called Dennis the ******, because he was sanctioned once by the US federation for attacking referees and linesmen. He was one of those dangerous players i miss in todays game. Players out of the range of ranking place 8-16, who were a nightmare for favorites in the last sixteen or last eight, but were not able to string seven wins together to win the whole major. Players who played better against better players than against lesser ones. And who had the nerves to get through the upset wins. I think for instance of Barry Mackay, Marty Riessen, Roger Taylor, Roscoe Tanner, Tim Mayotte, Joakim Nystrom, Larsson, Brad Gilbert.
kiki
Banned
There were some others too.But while I agree with some of your names, I don´t think Nystrom,Gilbert ( except vs Becker) and, of course Tim Mayotte were giant killers.They were much more similar to Ferrer, in that they were extremely consistent and tough to beat players, but they did not scare the great champions the way i recall Tanner or Lutz or Ralston did.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Ralston was above that level. He was the #1 ranked American for 3 straight years in the mid 60's, and, as I mentioned above was expected to be the next Gonzales or Kramer.
muddlehead
Professional
good vid. here's another i noticed on right side of this vid on youtube
great quality laver fraser 1960 wimbledon. rare to see such clarity in a 1960 wimby...
great quality laver fraser 1960 wimbledon. rare to see such clarity in a 1960 wimby...
atatu
Legend
I had the chance to interview Ralston last year, here is what he said about that match:
For example at Wimbledon, when I went out there to play the finals of Wimbledon in 1966, I was playing Manuel Santana. I beat him two weeks earlier at Queens 64, 64, easily, and he was a really good player on clay, and a good player on grass, but I remember I beat Cliff Drysdale in the semis 12-10 in the fifth, and I had a day off and I walked out there and I was just flat. If I had a coach, someone who would have told me, you haven’t done anything yet, you’re in the finals, that’s great, so what, forget it , you’ve got to go out there and win this match, finish the job. But I went out there like “Ok, I’m in the finals” and my attitude wasn’t this is the most important match of your life, which it should have been, regardless, win or lose. I think I was comfortable, and I thought I was going to win, but I lost in straight sets, and that's a tough loss, but I learned something from it.
http://austintennis.blogspot.com/2011/10/dennis-ralston-interview-part-i.html
For example at Wimbledon, when I went out there to play the finals of Wimbledon in 1966, I was playing Manuel Santana. I beat him two weeks earlier at Queens 64, 64, easily, and he was a really good player on clay, and a good player on grass, but I remember I beat Cliff Drysdale in the semis 12-10 in the fifth, and I had a day off and I walked out there and I was just flat. If I had a coach, someone who would have told me, you haven’t done anything yet, you’re in the finals, that’s great, so what, forget it , you’ve got to go out there and win this match, finish the job. But I went out there like “Ok, I’m in the finals” and my attitude wasn’t this is the most important match of your life, which it should have been, regardless, win or lose. I think I was comfortable, and I thought I was going to win, but I lost in straight sets, and that's a tough loss, but I learned something from it.
http://austintennis.blogspot.com/2011/10/dennis-ralston-interview-part-i.html
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Wow! Great interview. I love the way Ralston just speaks his mind. And you did a great job of asking the questions and then letting him run with it.
Both of the players you mentioned had a fantastic dropshot, they say.
Particularly Santana I believe. Pietrangeli had a very good backhand. If I remember correctly he won 2 RG and he made a wimbledon semi final in 1960 (he lost against Laver in five sets).
kiki
Banned
As I said before, their 1961 final is considered to be one of the finest ever and, certainly, the best match played on clay during the 1960´s...
Yes, i agree with you. And what's your opinion of the 62 final (Laver-Emerson)?
kiki
Banned
A very tough one, which Laver rates as his most difficult final en course to his first Grad SLAM; which compares to bUDGE...
Yes, it was really a close match, which makes me think about the place of Emerson in history. He's overated today, I know but at the same time he was a good player and could have been better if he became pro, don't you think?
kiki
Banned
Hard to tell.IMo, if we rank the top pros from 1963 to 1967, Emerson could have challenged Hoad or Gonzales for the nº 3 ( and Gimeno &Fraser ) but I do not think he could have surpassed Laver and Rosewall..
To favour Emerson in comparison with the pros people tend to overrate Emmo. Maybe he could have improved when playing against the top pros but I doubt it because he did not have the same potential that Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez and Gimeno had.
I rank Emerson as No. 5 together with Hoad and Buchholz in his very best year, 1964.
Fraser must be a mistake here...
kiki
Banned
I also rank him at 5 th, behind the big four.Hoad had severe problems, although we know that he had owned Rosewall in 2 out of 3 majors before turning pro...
kiki
Banned
top amateurs were false, not only Roy
kiki
Banned
shamateurism meant bonus and a fix fee for representing your country in the then big Dc plus Gs titles.and advertising and in Santana´s case, other thinks linked to Franco´s regime...thai is like that and that prevented well being players like Pietrangeli,Santana and Emerson to join pros.
You forgot Australian Champ.s 1955. In amateur GS tournaments it is 2:2 between Hoad and Rosewall.
Rosewall was higher ranked that Hoad from 1953 to 1955 plus was clearly better than Lew in the second part of 1956.
kiki
Banned
True, but Hoad won 2 Wimbs...and that, really hurts Rosewall career ( the only objection to put him in the first 2 tiers of all time giants is he never won the biggest title)
Emerson rejected a huge pro contract offered to him by Laver and Rosewall in 1964, who needed an injection into the slumbering pro tour.
I believe that it was about $80,000 (worth about 20 times that today)
Emerson turned it down, claiming that he was making more than that as an amateur.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That's conflicting with what I've read, which was that Emerson remained an amateur out of loyalty to the Aussie Davis Cup team and Harry Hopman. However, when an alleged basis for motivation is based on money, it has instant credibility, IMO. Do you have a source for that?
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
From Rod Laver's Tennis Digest, 1973
From The Book of Tennis - How to Play the Game, 1965
PS: Sorry about the dark resolution, I might try to lighten them and re-scan when I get a chance.
From The Book of Tennis - How to Play the Game, 1965
PS: Sorry about the dark resolution, I might try to lighten them and re-scan when I get a chance.
Last edited:
If you have doubts to put Rosewall in the first two tiers, I only can shake my head...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Do you really think Rosewall wouldn't have won Wimbledon if he was allowed to play it? Most likely he would have won a number of Wimbledon. You know tennis history. You can't penalize Rosewall for that considering how long he was not allowed to play the classic majors. He was the best player in the world for a number of years.
The official line was that Emmo was loyal to the Aussie Davis Cup team.
I am trying to remember the source for the more believable story, that Emmo rejected an $80,000 guarantee from Laver and Rosewall, telling them that he could do better than that as an amateur.
I read it recently.
I have read that once in World Tennis
Following your logic, your "king", Laver is much worse than Federer and Sampras because Rod only won four Wimbledons while F. and S. won seven...
I may have read a blog somewhere quoting the World Tennis story.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That Emmo made more money to remain an amateur?
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Having had the privilege of seeing all 3 of them play, live, it's my opinion that Laver was the greater player. I'm not saying that Laver would beat them with a wood racquet. But, Laver was the greatest athlete to ever step on a tennis court, IMO, and, more than anyone of his era, had very modern strokes with heavy topspin on both sides, and would benefit from modern racquets to their fullest extent.
That Emmo believed that his income would be higher as an amateur. This would be in 1964, at the height of Emmo's celebrity, and by 1968 when he turned pro his celebrity had declined as he aged. He was 30 years old before he turned pro.
But is this plausible? Well, I mean I always thought Laver, for example, became pro because he could earn more money and that’s what I read in some interviews that he gave.
If you could find the source, that would be the ideal. Thank you.
Maybe there was more than one cause, that explains Emmo's decision. Certainly the pros made more money than the amateurs, who were paid under the table for appearing in minor tournaments over the world. Laver got 110000 $ as a guarantee for signing his pro contract in 1963, as an amateur he got maybe 5000 $ for his 1962 Grand Slam. But the amateur circuit wasn't as hard as the pro tour. I have read a comment of a poster here - Andrew D.- who knew some Queenslanders like Mal Anderson and Ashley Cooper. Apparently those fellow Queenslanders told Emmo about the harsh rigors of the pro tour, the constant travelling and the constant pressure to play head to head tours against the best. Even Hoad remained in his heart more an amateur. So Emmo remained loyal to Hopman and the DC squad, and joined the McCall group only in 1968.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Well, it was a need for Franco to have international outstanding sportsmen, specially in the modernization of the regime, from 1960.Nopt that Santana was a pro Franco guy, he in fact was linked with anybody at the power, including the Socialist Party.
