Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Dan Lobb · Aug 31, 2012

Talker said:
When was this? The year will be good enough.

Rosewall was interviewed in 2010 by an Italian publication, and the website dropped off the internet a few months ago, unfortunately. I saved the reference in my computer, but it was cleared out when my wife and I moved to our new house.
It required translation from Italian, and gave the statement, "and the greatest player of all was my fellow [sic] Lew Hoad", which was presumably a mistranslation for "my friend Lew Hoad".

Dan Lobb · Aug 31, 2012

BobbyOne said:
I guess you meant Toto Brugnon, not Tito who was a Yugoslavian dictator...

Yes, indeed.

Iron Man · Sep 1, 2012

NonP said:
Yes, it is indeed an illusion. You only need watch the old-timers' recent exos between themselves and against today's players to see how much more pace they're generating on average than they ever did even at their absolute peaks.

Click to expand...

which old-timers played with today's players ? Who ? When ? Where?

Now it's highly implausible that geriatric Edberg (or any other player, for that matter) is hitting his FH much better than he ever did in his salad days, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. But then it raises the question: if Edberg can somehow improve his FH so much in his 40s, what makes you think he wouldn't have done it had his prime coincided with today? And if today's training, equipment, nutrition or whatnot is so much better, as the familiar argument goes, what makes you think Edberg wouldn't have taken full advantage of it?

Click to expand...

Did Edberg use to play with a wood racquet ? and who said that he wouldn't be good player in this era ?

Playing with modern equipment improve your quality of play but it doesn't guarantee you can compete and win titles . How many players won majors in the last decade ? Only few ones and those few belong to the elite because even though all players have access to technology which make their strokes big they couldn't cope with them because simply they are better .

now we suppose that players in the past all play with modern equipments , and under the same conditions as today , who will be the best ? only a few people , the ones who are more talented and more athletic . and this is what is happening now , Federer and Nadal win many majors not because they are favoured and advantaged ( with the equipment ) but because they are better .
aren't players like Laver and Gonzalez favoured because of the lack of competition and the fact that Tennis back then was not a popular sport , how do we explain the huge number of American and Australian champions who won majors comparing to the present ?

As far as I am concerned I've never put down or belittled any past great player , in my GOAT list there are many old - timers in my top ten because I Know that a great player is great whether he plays with a racquet or with a pan

Iron Man · Sep 1, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
Rosewall was interviewed in 2010 by an Italian publication, and the website dropped off the internet a few months ago, unfortunately. I saved the reference in my computer, but it was cleared out when my wife and I moved to our new house.
It required translation from Italian, and gave the statement, "and the greatest player of all was my fellow [sic] Lew Hoad", which was presumably a mistranslation for "my friend Lew Hoad".

I looked for the interview and never found it ( even a hint about it )

the internet dropped off and website cleared out without any trace , a cool story indeed

IF you find it post it even in Italian because I understand it .

by the way , didn't Laver rank Rosewall at number 6 in his GOAT list What do u think of that ?

Talker · Sep 1, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
Rosewall was interviewed in 2010 by an Italian publication, and the website dropped off the internet a few months ago, unfortunately. I saved the reference in my computer, but it was cleared out when my wife and I moved to our new house.
It required translation from Italian, and gave the statement, "and the greatest player of all was my fellow [sic] Lew Hoad", which was presumably a mistranslation for "my friend Lew Hoad".

That was recent.

Some have posted players comments from pretty far back which wouldn't have much validity as Federer's career is still ongoing.

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

Talker said:
Many experts have said directly that Fed has the best game ever played also.

Do you agree with the experts?

Don't forget Laver himself said this ERA is much more difficult than when he played.

There are so many others saying the same thing about the present ERA.
If you accept what experts say then you have to agree.

Even if you are right that Federer is the GOAT (I rank him No. 6 or 7) it's common sense that Rosewall's precision was unparalleled.

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

Iron Man said:
NonP said:

which old-timers played with today's players ? Who ? When ? Where?

Did Edberg use to play with a wood racquet ? and who said that he wouldn't be good player in this era ?

Playing with modern equipment improve your quality of play but it doesn't guarantee you can compete and win titles . How many players won majors in the last decade ? Only few ones and those few belong to the elite because even though all players have access to technology which make their strokes big they couldn't cope with them because simply they are better .

now we suppose that players in the past all play with modern equipments , and under the same conditions as today , who will be the best ? only a few people , the ones who are more talented and more athletic . and this is what is happening now , Federer and Nadal win many majors not because they are favoured and advantaged ( with the equipment ) but because they are better .
aren't players like Laver and Gonzalez favoured because of the lack of competition and the fact that Tennis back then was not a popular sport , how do we explain the huge number of American and Australian champions who won majors comparing to the present ?

As far as I am concerned I've never put down or belittled any past great player , in my GOAT list there are many old - timers in my top ten because I Know that a great player is great whether he plays with a racquet or with a pan

Click to expand...

Iron Man, Laver and Gonzalez did not have the lack of competition. Even if I concede that there are now more good players around, I still claim that the top did not increase towards now. Gonzalez and Laver had many alltime greats as opponents, many more than the current players have. Other posters and I have listed them several times already so I don't bother to give such long lists again.

And as for your strange claim that the older players played as though they would training, I give you an example: The 1971 Wimbledon QF match Rosewall/Richey, by the way one of the best matches ever played at Wimbledon, was a spellbound thrilling match of five sets and 64 games. 36 years old Rosewall had lost the first two sets before he won three tough sets. After the match Cliff Richey said to Muscles:" Well done, IRON MAN!"...

Limpinhitter · Sep 1, 2012

Talker said:
Many experts have said directly that Fed has the best game ever played also.

Do you agree with the experts?

Don't forget Laver himself said this ERA is much more difficult than when he played.

There are so many others saying the same thing about the present ERA.
If you accept what experts say then you have to agree.

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer is in a different tier of greatness than Rosewall, primarily for his forehand and serve. Having said that, Rosewall had a beautiful game and was definitely one of the top 3 all time cleanest ball strikers, and maybe THE most precision shot maker, in tennis history.

As for tennis experts, in my experience, their opinions are only slightly more defensible than the typical GPPF ****.

krosero · Sep 1, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
Cas Fish appears to be unreliable. However, he may have picked up the 13 number from someone who had a better knowledge, (possibly Buchholz?), and exaggerated the actual results. Buchholz came out with the 13 number in 2007, after Hoad's death. It appears that Hoad did not want the information put out, perhaps because the six extra matches were part of a private commercial deal between Laver and himself.
I have seen the Fish article only in the quote you give here.
As I suggest above, Hoad and Laver, close friends, may have made their own arrangements for a supplementary tour of six matches, almost concurrent with the PTPA tour, while the official tour organized by Trabert and the PTPA would have been 8 matches. It appears that Hoad and Laver made their own private deal for the February 1964 hth tour of Laver's home state, which Laver won 7 to 1.
Laver often pointed out that Gonzales had approached him in 1962 about joining him in a private tour of just the two of them. Laver preferred to deal with his close friends Hoad and Rosewall, and Trabert, also close to Hoad and Rosewall. Hoad was best man at Laver's wedding, and they had been close friends since 1956.

cool story, bro

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Plaa played in the roaring twenties and roaring thirties and Stoefen played only in the roaring thirties...

Plaa was world's pro champion in 1932 when he beat Tilden in the deciding match.

Where were Plaa and Stoefen from? Just curious.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

Mustard said:
Henkel and Budge won Roland Garros in the amateurs in 1937 and 1938, respectively. Von Cramm won the title in 1934 and 1936.

Nusslein,Henkel and Von Cramm.The 30´s must have been german tennis greatest era as far as male are concerned...even more than the 90´s, with Becker,Stich,kiefter and Haas...

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
Nusslein,Henkel and Von Cramm.The 30´s must have been german tennis greatest era as far as male are concerned...even more than the 90´s, with Becker,Stich,kiefter and Haas...

Yes, they were strong then and they also had Aussem and Krahwinkel.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

BobbyOne said:
I read the then actual report in World Tennis about the 1956 US final and there is no hint that Hoad suffered from back problems in that match. It just seems that you try to make your darling unbeatable, especially against Rosewall...

Rosewall himself has aknowledged that only windy conditions could prevent Hoad fron getting the grand Slam that 1956.He felt bad for his friend since he always recognized that " Lew, on his day, was not possible to beat"

He may be mean but he was a honest guy and a true gentleman

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

pc1 said:
Playing with a wood racquet is far more demanding than playing with the racquets of today, trust me on this. The wood racquets were smaller but heavier than the racquets of today. Try hitting with that type of racquet for thousands of swings and there is a major difference.

And actually tennis was a battle to make a living in those days. They didn't make the huge sums of money that they make today. It was not leisurely but a battle to survive. Guys like Pancho Gonzalez, when he play the major head to head tours knew he had to win or he would be a has been. How's that for pressure?

Of course it's not the racquet that makes a good player but a great racquet can improve your level of play and what you can do with the ball. Do you think it was easy to hit heavy topspin with the older racquets? They had to hit flatter shots because the racquets wouldn't allowed them to hit the heavy topspin easily.

I am trying to point out to you that the equipment often make you think the present players were FAR superior to the players of the past when it, imo isn't true. It's an illusion caused by the superior equipment. That's why I pointed out how McEnroe, over age 50 almost beat Andy Roddick two years ago in World Team Tennis in another post. John McEnroe in his prime lost to Tony Roche, past his prime. Not saying Roche was better than McEnroe but he would have been competitive if both were in their primes. It would be tough for both.

That's why I also point out how the women today can belt the ball like heck and look FAR better than the male players of the 1960's and 1970'a when you know the men would destroy them if they used the same equipment.

That is true.Wood rackets penalize those images while, at the same time, where much more burden on your arm ( and guts strings).Not many people in the current pro tour would play with a Head Vilas...I know what I am talking about.

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
Where were Plaa and Stoefen from? Just curious.

Martin (de) Plaa was from France. he was a trainer of the Musketeers in the 1920s and beat Tilden to win the 1932 World's Pro Championshis in Berlin.

Lester "Rollo" Stoefen might have been from California. He was runner up to Perry in the 1934 PSW L.A. amateur championships. He even became stronger (according to Tilden) in the pro ranks and was able to beat clay master, Nüsslein, in the 1939 French Pro.

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
Rosewall himself has aknowledged that only windy conditions could prevent Hoad fron getting the grand Slam that 1956.He felt bad for his friend since he always recognized that " Lew, on his day, was not possible to beat"

He may be mean but he was a honest guy and a true gentleman

.

When you say that Rosewall was mean, then you are mean...

Dan Lobb · Sep 1, 2012

Iron Man said:
I looked for the interview and never found it ( even a hint about it )

the internet dropped off and website cleared out without any trace , a cool story indeed

IF you find it post it even in Italian because I understand it .

by the way , didn't Laver rank Rosewall at number 6 in his GOAT list What do u think of that ?

I believe that the interview was during the 2010 Australian Open, which Rosewall attended.
If you doubt this story, there is a good way to check it out. Rosewall is still with us.
Laver deservedly ranked Rosewall at 6, but I would put him at number 5 all-time. I think that he could have handled Borg, Sampras, McEnroe and the others.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Iron Man said:

Iron Man, Laver and Gonzalez did not have the lack of competition. Even if I concede that there are now more good players around, I still claim that the top did not increase towards now. Gonzalez and Laver had many alltime greats as opponents, many more than the current players have. Other posters and I have listed them several times already so I don't bother to give such long lists again.

And as for your strange claim that the older players played as though they would training, I give you an example: The 1971 Wimbledon QF match Rosewall/Richey, by the way one of the best matches ever played at Wimbledon, was a spellbound thrilling match of five sets and 64 games. 36 years old Rosewall had lost the first two sets before he won three tough sets. After the match Cliff Richey said to Muscles:" Well done, IRON MAN!"...

Click to expand...

Gonzales era has the strongest top 6 ever: Hoad,Sedgman,Rosewall,Kramer,Trabert ( and Laver, later) and himself.Not possible to compare with current times...

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Yes, they were strong then and they also had Aussem and Krahwinkel.

True, I forgot that.So, either male or female, 30´s are german golden era for tennis and then, the 90´s ( Graf,Becker,Stich,Huber,haas and Kiefer).

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

BobbyOne said:
.

When you say that Rosewall was mean, then you are mean...

He was known in the entire tour as "Pockets"

Dan Lobb · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
Rosewall himself has aknowledged that only windy conditions could prevent Hoad fron getting the grand Slam that 1956.He felt bad for his friend since he always recognized that " Lew, on his day, was not possible to beat"

He may be mean but he was a honest guy and a true gentleman

The recent Hodgson biography states that Hoad did not tell anyone about his back problem in the 1956 US final due to sportsmanship.
I would suggest that there were also commercial considerations, as Hoad was the subject of fierce offers from Kramer to turn pro. If Hoad was known to be damaged goods, this would impact his bargaining power.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
The recent Hodgson biography states that Hoad did not tell anyone about his back problem in the 1956 US final due to sportsmanship.
I would suggest that there were also commercial considerations, as Hoad was the subject of fierce offers from Kramer to turn pro. If Hoad was known to be damaged goods, this would impact his bargaining power.

I don´t know but it makes sense.OTOH, Hoad left a very highly regarded memory to all of those who knew him and his wife.He was worshipped in Spain and Gonzales ( yes, the SOB Gonzales), Rosewall and Laver were really fond of him.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

PC1, don´t take it so personally about Rosewall.After all, he is a human being and there is no perfect one, is there?

I have the highest opinion of him, as I have stated many times.

In his book, Laver told that the most popular joke in the days of the pro tour was:

"Do you know how Kenny got hurt today? He just felt out of his pocket"

pc1 · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
PC1, don´t take it so personally about Rosewall.After all, he is a human being and there is no perfect one, is there?

I have the highest opinion of him, as I have stated many times.

In his book, Laver told that the most popular joke in the days of the pro tour was:

"Do you know how Kenny got hurt today? He just felt out of his pocket"

I'm not taking it personally for the record. I don't recall that line in Laver's book.

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
BobbyOne said:

Gonzales era has the strongest top 6 ever: Hoad,Sedgman,Rosewall,Kramer,Trabert ( and Laver, later) and himself.Not possible to compare with current times...

Click to expand...

You could have added the great Segura.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

pc1 said:
I'm not taking it personally for the record. I don't recall that line in Laver's book.

I am sorry, I meant BobbyOne, not you.I just had a lapsus, maybe your request about where I rank Kodes absorbed so much menthal energy....in any case, sorry again.

kiki · Sep 1, 2012

BobbyOne said:
kiki said:

You could have added the great Segura.

Click to expand...

he is overrated, a kind of more modern Nusslein.Talented, yes, but not in hte big men leagues.But lets not start again with that...

I adressed a repply to PC1, when I intended to adress myself to you...is about the popular joke of Pockets Rosewall, that was so hot on the old pro tour...

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

kiki said:
he is overrated, a kind of more modern Nusslein.Talented, yes, but not in hte big men leagues.But lets not start again with that...

I adressed a repply to PC1, when I intended to adress myself to you...is about the popular joke of Pockets Rosewall, that was so hot on the old pro tour...

Thanks, kiki: You brought me to laugh again: Your reduction of Nüsslein's status is really a funny joke. Even Charlie Chaplin (whom I admire) could not have make such a good joke!

And now you even begin to belittle the very underrated Pancho Segura. A journeyman could not have won three majors and could not have got a matchpoint against champion Rosewall at Wembley when being 41.

And believe me, Rosewall was really strong in 1962!

Mustard · Sep 1, 2012

Segura is the second best player of the 1950s behind Gonzales, in my opinion, as Kramer retired too early in the decade. Sedgman is neck and neck with Segura as Gonzales' main rival for the 1950s.

BobbyOne · Sep 1, 2012

Mustard said:
Segura is the second best player of the 1950s behind Gonzales, in my opinion, as Kramer retired too early in the decade. Sedgman is neck and neck with Segura as Gonzales' main rival for the 1950s.

I agree. In my rankings Segura is among the top five twelve times and in the top 2 four times. But it's hard to decide if Segura or Sedgman was stronger.

Sedgman has won more majors. Segura was probably the more talented player.

pc1 · Sep 1, 2012

Mustard said:
Segura is the second best player of the 1950s behind Gonzales, in my opinion, as Kramer retired too early in the decade. Sedgman is neck and neck with Segura as Gonzales' main rival for the 1950s.

I agree. To be honest I think Segura would easily defeat Kodes. Segura at his peak was able to defeat Gonzalez in his prime at Pro Majors!

NonP · Sep 1, 2012

Iron Man said:
which old-timers played with today's players ? Who ? When ? Where?

Sampras has played a few exos against today's players, most notably Federer. Agassi was still going relatively strong right up to his retirement. Edberg recently played with Tsonga (if not with the brilliance he showed a year or two before). And even Mac managed not to embarrass himself against Roddick in WTT a few years ago.

Did Edberg use to play with a wood racquet ? and who said that he wouldn't be good player in this era ?

I don't think so, at least not after his junior days. And surely you have seen posts here and elsewhere questioning Edberg's or other old-timers' potential in this era?

Playing with modern equipment improve your quality of play but it doesn't guarantee you can compete and win titles . How many players won majors in the last decade ? Only few ones and those few belong to the elite because even though all players have access to technology which make their strokes big they couldn't cope with them because simply they are better .

This is stating the obvious, but OK.

now we suppose that players in the past all play with modern equipments , and under the same conditions as today , who will be the best ? only a few people , the ones who are more talented and more athletic . and this is what is happening now , Federer and Nadal win many majors not because they are favoured and advantaged ( with the equipment ) but because theare better .

Ditto.

aren't players like Laver and Gonzalez favoured because of the lack of competition and the fact that Tennis back then was not a popular sport , how do we explain the huge number of American and Australian champions who won majors comparing to the present ?

This topic has been beaten to death. My own view is that there is indeed more depth today, but the quality of competition at the top has changed very little.

As far as I am concerned I've never put down or belittled any past great player , in my GOAT list there are many old - timers in my top ten because I Know that a geat player is great whether he plays with a racquet or with a pan

Good to know. I wasn't talking about you in particular but making a general comment.

Vcore89 · Sep 2, 2012

1. Steffi Graf
2. Margaret Court
3. Chris Evert
4. Martina Navralitova
5. Monica Seles
6. Justine Henin
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Maureen Connolly
10. Billie Jean King

kiki · Sep 2, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Thanks, kiki: You brought me to laugh again: Your reduction of Nüsslein's status is really a funny joke. Even Charlie Chaplin (whom I admire) could not have make such a good joke!

And now you even begin to belittle the very underrated Pancho Segura. A journeyman could not have won three majors and could not have got a matchpoint against champion Rosewall at Wembley when being 41.

And believe me, Rosewall was really strong in 1962!

Did you enjoy the popular joke about Pockets?? I did not invented it, pros did...Edmondson beat Rosewall quite roundly IN A MAJOR....is he a better player than your beloved Segura?

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

kiki said:
Did you enjoy the popular joke about Pockets?? I did not invented it, pros did...Edmondson beat Rosewall quite roundly IN A MAJOR....is he a better player than your beloved Segura?

Rosewall was pretty old, I think over forty. BobbyOne's point was Segura was an extremely strong player into his forties.

You're the one who constantly mentions that the Old Pro Tour in the 1950's had the strongest possible competition in history and Segura was probably one of the top two or three players over that decade with three majors won. He won a lof of tournaments in the 1950's. You're contradicting yourself by downgrading Segura.

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

Some tournaments that Segura won

BobbyOne said:
You could have added the great Segura.

kiki said:
he is overrated, a kind of more modern Nusslein.Talented, yes, but not in hte big men leagues.But lets not start again with that...

I adressed a repply to PC1, when I intended to adress myself to you...is about the popular joke of Pockets Rosewall, that was so hot on the old pro tour...

Kiki here are some tournaments that Pancho Segura won and some tours he won.

1. Segura defeated Kramer in the Paris Pro Indoors final in 1950 6-3 6-2 to win the tournament.
2. Segura defeated Kramer in the semi and Frank Kovacs in the final to win the US Pro Champs in 1950.
3. Segura went unbeaten in a round robin defeating Bobby Riggs, Frankie Parker, Van Horn and Pancho Gonzalez to win the 1951 US Pro Grasscourt Champs
4. Segura won the German International Round Robin by defeating Pancho Gonzalez, Earn, Riggs in 1951
5. Segura won the US Pro Claycourts by defeating Riggs in straight sets.
6. Segura won the US Pro Champs by defeating Pancho Gonzalez in five sets.
7. Segura won the Venezuelz Pro Round Robin by defeating McGregor, Frank Sedgman, and Jack Kramer going unbeaten.
8. Segura won the Slazenger Pro Champs by defeating Frank Sedgman in the final in five sets.
9. Segura won the Riccione Pro Champs by defeating Frank Sedgman
10. Segura won the Rimini Pro Champs by defeating Frank Sedgman
11. Segura won the Pacific Pro Champs by defeating Pancho Gonzalez in 1954
12. Segura won the Australian Pro Champs by defeating Gonzalez in the semi and Sedgman in the final.
13. Segura won the Alaska Indoor Champs by defeating Budge in the semi and Trabert in the final.
14 Segura won the San Remo Pro Champs by defeating Buchholz, Lew Hoad and Gimeno in 1961.
15 Segura won the Dutch Pro Champs by defeat Gimeno in 1961
16 Segura won the Scheveningen Pro Champs by defeating Olmedo, Hoad and Ayala.
17. Segura won the Cannes Pro Champs by defeating Ayala, Olmedo and Hoad in the final.

Segura also won a number of tours over Parker, McGregor and in 1961 over Olmedo, Cooper and Buchholz who were in their primes. In a tour which Gonzalez won with Segura and the great Frank Sedgman participating, according to McCauley Segura defeated Sedgman in their individual matchup by a fraction, winning one more match 23 to 22. Considering how great Sedgman was that is the mark of a great player. Very few in the history of tennis could have done that. Sedgman was at his peak.

Look at the names Segura defeated. If you really think he's journeyman then the names he defeating were average to below average.

BobbyOne · Sep 2, 2012

kiki said:
Did you enjoy the popular joke about Pockets?? I did not invented it, pros did...Edmondson beat Rosewall quite roundly IN A MAJOR....is he a better player than your beloved Segura?

The more I'm reflecting about yourself the more I come to the conclusion that you are a Legend Troll.

I never read any hint about Pockets. I only read about Muscles. I'm reading about Rosewall since 40 years.

Rosewall was 41 when losing to Edmondson who was a tough grasscourt player. Edmondson also beat Newcombe in that AO.

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

More about Pancho Segura

Kiki,

Do you realize that Rod Laver called Segura's forehand the best he ever faced? Laver probably first faced Segura in 1963 when Segura was in his forties. Imagine how strong Segura's forehand was when he was younger! And of course Laver faced players with great forehands like Hoad, Newcombe, Okker, Gimeno, Nastase, Buchholz, Drobny among others.

Segura's forehand has been called by many the greatest forehand in the history of tennis, among them Jack Kramer and Ellsworth Vines. Actually to be more accurate Kramer and Vines called Segura's forehand to be the greatest single shot in the history of tennis. Pancho Gonzalez said that as great as Budge's backhand was, Segura's forehand was even stronger. That's a lot to start with but he had more than just an awesome forehand.

Segura actually has a lot in common with Roger Federer. Both have awesome forehands and are very mobile and nimble enough to hit their forehands a high percentage of the time. Segura had a fantastic volley, along the level of Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver. He had a better volley than Federer but not as good a serve. Segura had excellent touch, could lob extremly well. He was a terrific player.

The links to the video below is I believe from the Slazenger Pro Champs in England in 1949. Segura defeated Dan Maskell and lost to Jack Kramer in four sets in the semi. Kramer won the tournament in four sets over Don Budge. Perry lost to Danny Pails in the first round so I don't get why they had the headline in the first video that Perry's shines at Pro Wimbledon.

Anyway it shows a few seconds of the famous Segura forehand.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/perry-shines-at-professionals-wimbledon

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/professional-tennis-tournament/query/segura

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

TMF said:
The modern equipment force the players to be more athletic, faster because the increase of the pace. Top players all have great movements, great court coverage, great defense. A player with average movement would suffer, but in the wooden era he should be less effected because the pace was slower, less pressure.

The Big SERVE too. It's a major weapon today, and a player must have one to be great. Huge groundstrokes, if you don't have one, your game suffer too. New equipment doesn't help the players to play the game, but it force them to be a better player. And players who are undersize are at a disadvantage.

Modern equipment allows the players to hit their strokes better. The racquets are bigger therefore the hitting areas are bigger so there are fewer mishits, the strings are better, the racquets are lighter so you can get better racquet speed. The players themselves train to get themselves into better shape. The equipment doesn't force them to get into better shape any more than a modern car forces you to be a better driver than cars of the 1960's.

Actually playing with a wood racquet forces you to learn different techniques instead of relying on groundstroke power to win all the rallies. You learn to volley better, lob, drop shot, change pace etc in order to win the point. It's hard to overpower people from the baseline with a tiny wooden racquet. It's heavier and more strain on the arm. You couldn't just flick your wrist and hit the ball back powerfully when you're in trouble like you can now unless you were Laver or Hoad.

Switching from a wood racquet to a modern racquet is easier than the other way around in my opinion. It's usually easier to switch from lesser equipment to better equipment to state the obvious.

Come on now, do you think they didn't have big serves in the 1960's and 1970's? John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Pancho Gonzalez, Barry MacKay, Stan Smith, Borg, McEnroe, Tanner, Dibley, Stolle, Fraser. Alexander, Hoad are just a few names. Laver was an excellent server and yes he was smaller than the average player but more powerful than the average touring player.

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
Cas Fish appears to be unreliable. However, he may have picked up the 13 number from someone who had a better knowledge, (possibly Buchholz?), and exaggerated the actual results. Buchholz came out with the 13 number in 2007, after Hoad's death. It appears that Hoad did not want the information put out, perhaps because the six extra matches were part of a private commercial deal between Laver and himself.
I have seen the Fish article only in the quote you give here.
As I suggest above, Hoad and Laver, close friends, may have made their own arrangements for a supplementary tour of six matches, almost concurrent with the PTPA tour, while the official tour organized by Trabert and the PTPA would have been 8 matches. It appears that Hoad and Laver made their own private deal for the February 1964 hth tour of Laver's home state, which Laver won 7 to 1.
Laver often pointed out that Gonzales had approached him in 1962 about joining him in a private tour of just the two of them. Laver preferred to deal with his close friends Hoad and Rosewall, and Trabert, also close to Hoad and Rosewall. Hoad was best man at Laver's wedding, and they had been close friends since 1956.

krosero said:
cool story, bro

Yes it is.

Mustard · Sep 2, 2012

pc1 said:
Do you realize that Rod Laver called Segura's forehand the best he ever faced! Laver probably first faced Segura in 1963 when Segura was in his forties. Imagine how strong Segura's forehand was when he was younger

Just to confirm, Segura turned professional at the same time as Kramer and Pails, i.e. late 1947, so Segura definitely wouldn't have met Laver in a match until Laver had turned professional.

Whenever Jimmy Connors is asked about great players from the past, he talks about his old coach, Segura, and Gonzales.

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

kiki said:
I am sorry, I meant BobbyOne, not you.I just had a lapsus, maybe your request about where I rank Kodes absorbed so much menthal energy....in any case, sorry again.

No problem Kiki. That happens.

kiki · Sep 2, 2012

pc1 said:
Rosewall was pretty old, I think over forty. BobbyOne's point was Segura was an extremely strong player into his forties.

You're the one who constantly mentions that the Old Pro Tour in the 1950's had the strongest possible competition in history and Segura was probably one of the top two or three players over that decade with three majors won. He won a lof of tournaments in the 1950's. You're contradicting yourself by downgrading Segura.

The top 6 of the 50´s, which is, I stated it before, one of the toughest eras ever if not the toughest at the top are Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall and Trabert.Those guys won majors, and Cooper and Anderson won majors, too, as amateurs.Plus they continued to dominate as pros.Segura´s problem ( just as Nusslein) is that his record is poor and can´t compare to the others.However, I heard a bit about him being a very talented player.Nusslein,Segura,Mecir,Rios,Murray,Okker,Lutz,Pecci and Ramirez/ Gottfried and Franulovic/Pilic may have been the most talented guys to never win a major.But this fact just does not allow them to be in the big boys leagues,IMO.

kiki · Sep 2, 2012

BobbyOne said:
The more I'm reflecting about yourself the more I come to the conclusion that you are a Legend Troll.

I never read any hint about Pockets. I only read about Muscles. I'm reading about Rosewall since 40 years.

Rosewall was 41 when losing to Edmondson who was a tough grasscourt player. Edmondson also beat Newcombe in that AO.

Then you are a bad Rosewall supporter.Pockets was the common way to descirbe him in the elite group while Muscless was more of a journalists topic.

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

kiki said:
Then you are a bad Rosewall supporter.Pockets was the common way to descirbe him in the elite group while Muscless was more of a journalists topic.

Come on guys, you both are pretty good in discussions. Take it easy.

pc1 · Sep 2, 2012

kiki said:
The top 6 of the 50´s, which is, I stated it before, one of the toughest eras ever if not the toughest at the top are Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall and Trabert.Those guys won majors, and Cooper and Anderson won majors, too, as amateurs.Plus they continued to dominate as pros.Segura´s problem ( just as Nusslein) is that his record is poor and can´t compare to the others.However, I heard a bit about him being a very talented player.Nusslein,Segura,Mecir,Rios,Murray,Okker,Lutz,Pecci and Ramirez/ Gottfried and Franulovic/Pilic may have been the most talented guys to never win a major.But this fact just does not allow them to be in the big boys leagues,IMO.

How is Segura's record poor? Did you see my list of some of his tournament victories and the Pro Majors in post 186 here? He defeated Frank Sedgman head to head! It's a fantastic record.

Segura would have destroyed Cooper and Anderson in my opinion. You can't put players like Segura and Nusslein with guys like Bob Lutz.

Mustard · Sep 2, 2012

Really Kiki? First you have a go at Vines, then Nusslein and now Segura? All 3 of them are all-time greats of tennis.

kiki · Sep 2, 2012

pc1 said:
How is Segura's record poor? Did you see my list of some of his tournament victories and the Pro Majors in post 186 here? He defeated Frank Sedgman head to head! It's a fantastic record.

Segura would have destroyed Cooper and Anderson in my opinion. You can't put players like Segura and Nusslein with guys like Bob Lutz.

While I don´t want to underrate him, I wonder how many majors did he win at RG,Wimbleodn,US Championships (later US Open) and the Australian Championships ( later AO).Same for Nusslein.

And I know pros were banned...but Pancho Gonzales won Forest Hills twice in a row and also the DC if memory serves.

Another great champion who was IMO, the 7 th best player of the great 1950´s troop was Alex Olmedo, a Wimbledon and US Opne winner and the man that singlehandedly restored the DC to the US... he even dared beating laver in a slam title¡¡¡

Mustard · Sep 2, 2012

pc1 said:
Segura would have destroyed Cooper and Anderson in my opinion. You can't put players like Segura and Nusslein with guys like Bob Lutz.

On the 1960 world pro tour, Segura beat Olmedo more times than vice versa. This means that even a 38 year old Segura was too strong for the best amateur player of 1959.

abmk · Sep 2, 2012

Mustard said:
Really Kiki? First you have a go at Vines, then Nusslein and now Segura? All 3 of them are all-time greats of tennis.

Its all a long line of delusions , all in kiki la la land :

kodes being on the same level as vines
kodes being on the same level as djoker
kodes being better than nusslein
federer is in the 3rd tier of all time greats .....

and it goes on and on ....

Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Similar threads