GOAT Discussions

P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
absurdo said:
i am an admirer of all tennis eras and great players.

it appears to be a contradiction but it is not, but maybe i was not clear and that is my fault:

i dont think we can compair levels of greatness with absolute fairness. arguing who is the greatest across eras is to create unfair comparisons. what are we talking about? talent? inteligence? speed? strokes? serves? tactics? all these are subjective. are we comparing results and achievments? are seriously achievements across eras the same? are contexts the same? importance of certain tournaments the same? pro fields the same? are they comparable? i am just not sure they are.

but i think its clear you can compare, for example, 2 videos of 2 different players, ignoring history and that they are 40 years apart. but this is hugely unfair for the old time players, in my opinion.

i dont think it would be fair to compare laver's level of play at a certain point, (nowadays we can do it only via youtube) versus federer or nadal or novaks level of play on a certain video. sure i think laver would lose easily.

but this doesnt reduce his level of greatness. so, we cannot use the same criteria for every era...
Click to expand...

This. Laver could well be the greatest, historically speaking and relative to his field. But he just isn't on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And don't bring up "wooden-racquets" or "racquet-technology". He had nothing on these guys athletically.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
He may have been, but it was still his weakest surface, relative to the field. That's not even debatable. Stats don't lie.

And you can't neglect something which is irrelevant. Laver didn't play them, he only has himself to blame. You can't just hand over Majors to players who didn't bother showing up. And it's not like he was fire, either. He made 1 Major QF after his year of Greatness and just the 3R in the '71 AO. Stands to reason he wouldn't have won anything even if he'd played the AO in '72 or even '70.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant if clay was Laver's weakest surface when being still superb on it.

As a Rosewall admirer I had to learn that Laver maybe leads Rosewall on clay even though Rosewall was commonly considered best claycourter before Borg.

You neglect the fact that many top pros could not play some of the early open era events because of quarrels of their pro organisations.

You can contradict any calculation because it was not fact but we should be so open-minded that we could agree about the probabilities. And it's very probably that Laver won more than 18 majors if open era would have come earlier. I cannot follow you, I'm afraid.
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
It's irrelevant if clay was Laver's weakest surface when being still superb on it.

As a Rosewall admirer I had to learn that Laver maybe leads Rosewall on clay even though Rosewall was commonly considered best claycourter before Borg.

You neglect the fact that many top pros could not play some of the early open era events because of quarrels of their pro organisations.

You can contradict any calculation because it was not fact but we should be so open-minded that we could agree about the probabilities. And it's very probably that Laver won more than 18 majors if open era would have come earlier. I cannot follow you, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question. Would you call Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion? After all, he played the AO like once and retired at 26. If he'd played the AO and stuck around till he was 30, he might have even gotten to 20 Grand Slams. So tell me, is Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion?

Clay was the surface Laver had the least success on, ton for ton. And that makes it his weakest surface, relative to the field, even if he was a great on it.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
This. Laver could well be the greatest, historically speaking and relative to his field. But he just isn't on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And don't bring up "wooden-racquets" or "racquet-technology". He had nothing on these guys athletically.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Hoad had a bigger arm than Nadal and that Laver had a stronger wrist than Federer?
 
A

absurdo

Rookie
just a thought before leaving to play some tennis, ahah:

look at nadal. he has beaten federer, the best player of this era, several times. he has his number.

one could say something like: if nadal beats the best player, he is the best player.

but we know this is only half the story, nadal loses against lots of different people, most of them are not that great.

so, nadal's level of greatness not only depends on his performance against the best, but also his performance against the others, the field, the journeyman, the top 20s and 30s.

so i ask: is it easier or harder to be GREAT today?

(it's really a question :p)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
Let me ask you a question. Would you call Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion? After all, he played the AO like once and retired at 26. If he'd played the AO and stuck around till he was 30, he might have even gotten to 20 Grand Slams. So tell me, is Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion?

Clay was the surface Laver had the least success on, ton for ton. And that makes it his weakest surface, relative to the field, even if he was a great on it.
Click to expand...

A potential one, yes he is but I tend to think that he would have declined a bit after 1982. So for me rather Laver than Borg is a potential 20-time GS champion.

McEnroe and Lendl would have been big obstacles for Borg in the 1980s.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
absurdo said:
just a thought before leaving to play some tennis, ahah:

look at nadal. he has beaten federer, the best player of this era, several times. he has his number.

one could say something like: if nadal beats the best player, he is the best player.

but we know this is only half the story, nadal loses against lots of different people, most of them are not that great.

so, nadal's level of greatness not only depends on his performance against the best, but also his performance against the others, the field, the journeyman, the top 20s and 30s.



so i ask: is it easier or harder to be GREAT today?

(it's really a question :p)
Click to expand...

I agree that we now have four or five top players in contrast to years ago when Federer dominated clearly against those like Safin and Roddick.

We can consider Federer the best player in the last ten years but of course it's a blame for him to losing rather often to Nadal and others. Nadal could reach Federer's achievements when being healthy.

Now it's about equal to older times to be great.
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
A potential one, yes he is but I tend to think that he would have declined a bit after 1982. So for me rather Laver than Borg is a potential 20-time GS champion.

McEnroe and Lendl would have been big obstacles for Borg in the 1980s.
Click to expand...

Laver has just 13 pro-level Majors having played most of them for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has 11 Grand Slams having played just 3 of them all his career and having retired at 26. I fail to see how Laver is the potential 20-Major champion between them. And again, potential doesn't mean all that much. You can't hand over Majors to players just because they didn't (or couldn't) play some Majors and/or retired early. It is what it is.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
Laver has just 13 pro-level Majors having played most of them for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has 11 Grand Slams having played just 3 of them all his career and having retired at 26. I fail to see how Laver is the potential 20-Major champion between them. And again, potential doesn't mean all that much. You can't hand over Majors to players just because they didn't (or couldn't) play some Majors and/or retired early. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Not Laver has played pro-level Majors for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has played for a longer time (8 years) than Laver (6 years)!

You lack power of imagination if you don't see how Laver has potential 20 majors.
 
Last edited:
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Wrong! Not Laver has played pro-level Majors for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has played for a longer time (8 years) than Laver (6 years)!
Click to expand...

Grand Slams are pro-level Majors in the Open Era. Laver played those for many years. 15 years (including pro-Slams), to be precise.
If you're gonna argue otherwise, Laver has just 8 pro-level Majors.
 
Last edited:
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Carsomyr said:
I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.
Click to expand...
This is a very fair point. Laver certainly would not have won the very same majors that he did--if tennis had been open. He may have won the same total number, he may have won more or less. It's all speculation.

Carsomyr said:
I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.
Click to expand...
You should get more credit for your objectivity here, particularly about Laver.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Prisoner of Birth said:
This. Laver could well be the greatest, historically speaking and relative to his field. But he just isn't on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And don't bring up "wooden-racquets" or "racquet-technology". He had nothing on these guys athletically.
Click to expand...

You never watched Laver.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Prisoner of Birth said:
Let me ask you a question. Would you call Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion? After all, he played the AO like once and retired at 26. If he'd played the AO and stuck around till he was 30, he might have even gotten to 20 Grand Slams. So tell me, is Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion?

Clay was the surface Laver had the least success on, ton for ton. And that makes it his weakest surface, relative to the field, even if he was a great on it.
Click to expand...

Borg could have reached 20 if he had played the AO every year and not retired so early in his career.Still, given the unbelievable level of competition at the top during the 80´s, I pretty much doubt prime J Mac,Lendl,Becker,Edber,Wilander would have let him reach 20.Maybe 3 more titles, IMO ( and he also took 3 indoor majors which were almost slam events in his time)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
Grand Slams are pro-level Majors in the Open Era. Laver played those for many years. 15 years (including pro-Slams), to be precise.
If you're gonna argue otherwise, Laver has just 8 pro-level Majors.
Click to expand...

Laver played them for many years but he WON his 13 pro majors and open era majors in a shorter time than Borg won his 11. Is this not a reasonable argument?
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
It's not Caravaggio what my thread opponent meant when writing that tennis is over 150 years old...

As you know the modern tennis (as we play it today) has been firstly played in 1877.
Click to expand...

Didn´t Clopton bring it from India?
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Laver played them for many years but he WON his 13 pro majors and open era majors in a shorter time than Borg won his 11. Is this not a reasonable argument?
Click to expand...

So what? Why do your wins have to be in a short space of time? Laver had the opportunity to win more pro-level Majors. He didn't. Why? Because he couldn't win a single Major after '69.

Borg, for whatever reason, didn't either. You just can not hand over Majors to players just because you think they could have won more.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
So what? Why do your wins have to be in a short space of time? Laver had the opportunity to win more pro-level Majors. He didn't. Why? Because he couldn't win a single Major after '69.

Borg, for whatever reason, didn't either. You just can not hand over Majors to players just because you think they could have won more.
Click to expand...

Other posters have explained that Laver did play a reduced schedule after 1969.

I do not hand over majors because I would think they could have won more.

I go for probability. I look if a player would have been seeded No.1 when participating.

It's clear for me that Laver would have been seeded No.1 in several open era event such as AO 1970. Do you know that Laver won the 1970 Dunlop event which was the secret AO of that year? Of course it also could have been that he yet would not have won but we should go for the most probable case.

It's funny that the "Rosewall biassed" BobbyOne has to defend Rosewall's greatest opponent, Laver...
 
Last edited:
borg number one

borg number one

Legend
BobbyOne said:
I would be happy if there were an agreement that Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer are the seven best palyers of all time, at least regarding their superb achievements. Nadal could join them one day...
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think Nadal is already knocking on that door and hopefully he'll be able to still play well for at least a few more years.
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Other posters have explained that Laver did play a reduced schedule after 1969.

I do not hand over majors because I would think they could have won more.

I go for probability. I look if a player would have been seeded No.1 when participating.

It's clear for me that Laver would have been seeded No.1 in several open era event such as AO 1970. Do you know that Laver won the 1970 Dunlop event which was the secret AO of that year? Of course it also could have been that he yet would not have won but we should go for the most probable case.

It's funny that the Rosewall biassed BobbyOne has to defend Rosewall's strongest opponent, Laver...
Click to expand...

Federer was seeded #1 at this year's US Open. Had he missed it or skipped it, would you say, "Federer would probably have 18 Slams"? I mean, how absurd is that line of reasoning? You can't suppose anything. What happened has happened. Laver only won 13 pro-level Majors. He made just 1 Grand Slam QF after '69. He'd probably not have won anything even if he played the AO in '70 and '72. After all, he only made it to the 3rd round in '71. This isn't rocket science. Laver has and deserved just 13 pro-level Majors. You could make a case for Laver probably winning 16 Majors if there had been 4 pro-Slams but even that's debatable considering Clay was Laver's least successful surface.
 
borg number one

borg number one

Legend
kiki said:
That is true because priorities and focus change from time to time and tennis is not different from people's every day life and evolution
I think the best one player can achieve is to be best of his or her own time
Click to expand...

Priorities and focus do change from era to era. So much happened from the late 1960's to the early 1980's for example when not only equipment shifted big time with graphite and oversized frames taking over but there was so much change in terms of rankings, tournaments, how big tennis had become in terms of popularity with tennis fans around the world, and the list goes on.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
Federer was seeded #1 at this year's US Open. Had he missed it or skipped it, would you say, "Federer would probably have 18 Slams"? I mean, how absurd is that line of reasoning? You can't suppose anything. What happened has happened. Laver only won 13 pro-level Majors. He made just 1 Grand Slam QF after '69. He'd probably not have won anything even if he played the AO in '70 and '72. After all, he only made it to the 3rd round in '71. This isn't rocket science. Laver has and deserved just 13 pro-level Majors. You could make a case for Laver probably winning 16 Majors if there had been 4 pro-Slams but even that's debatable considering Clay was Laver's least successful surface.
Click to expand...

Regarding speculations one can suppose the probable and another can suppose the not probable. The latter is bad but what do you have against the former?

I give you an example from an other area. Franz Schubert, arguably the greatest composer at all, by the way, died at 31 after having written 1000 works. We can take it for sure that he would not have stopped writing music (and great music) also if he would have lived longer or much longer. So I can say that Schubert would most probably have written many additional fine works if he would have lived till being40 or 60 or even longer. Of course we will never know how many additional works he would have produced. And of course there could have been the most improbable: that he would have stopped writing music at all after 31 But that's absurd.

The missing pro major is not a clay event but a grass event (Australia).

And please, PLEASE, stop belittleing Laver on clay. It was his least successful surface because the pros did not have a clay event at all from 1963 to 1967. And the Rocket reached final at the first French Open against clay king , Rosewall and won the second issue over Rosewall. Laver would have been a favourite or co.-favourite for the 1970 to 1972 issues there.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
Again, split fields. No wonder each of these guys has so many titles.
Click to expand...
.

You are really funny: First you omit the amateur majors of the old greats, and now you diminish even the pro majors of them. I think pc1 has explained once that we can be sure that a Laver or Rosewall would have won open majors about the same number as pro majors. Are you aware that Laver & Rosewall won all pro majors from 1963 to 1967 evenagainst strong opposition? They were awesome in their strength. The top amateurs would probably not having been an obstacle for them even in a 128 man field.

How good these two little giants were you can see in the fact that they won 7 open majors out of the first 9 where they participated even though they were past their prime then. I hope this argument helps a bit to convince you about the strength of L&R...
 
Last edited:
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Regarding speculations one can suppose the probable and another can suppose the not probable. The latter is bad but what do you have against the former?

I give you an example from an other area. Franz Schubert, arguably the greatest composer at all, by the way, died at 31 after having written 1000 works. We can take it for sure that he would not have stopped writing music (and great music) also if he would have lived longer or much longer. So I can say that Schubert would most probably have written many additional fine works if he would have lived till being40 or 60 or even longer. Of course we will never know how many additional works he would have produced. And of course there could have been the most improbable: that he would have stopped writing music at all after 31 But that's absurd.

The missing pro major is not a clay event but a grass event (Australia).

And please, PLEASE, stop belittleing Laver on clay. It was his least successful surface because the pros did not have a clay event at all from 1963 to 1967. And the Rocket reached final at the first French Open against clay king , Rosewall and won the second issue over Rosewall. Laver would have been a favourite or co.-favourite for the 1970 to 1972 issues there.
Click to expand...

There was no Clay pro-Slam. It's be only fair to assume the extra-pro-Slam to be one on Clay. Laver was great on Clay. But it was his least successful surface, and his weakest relative to the field (as it did have Rosewall in it).
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
BobbyOne said:
.

You are really funny: First you omit the amateur majors of the old greats, and now you diminish even the pro majors of them. I think pc1 has explained once that we can be sure that a Laver or Rosewall would have won open majors about the same number as pro majors. Are you aware that Laver & Rosewall won all pro majors from 1963 to 1967 evenagainst strong opposition? They were awesome in their strength. The top amateurs would probably not having been an obstacle for them even in a 128 man field.

How good these two little giants were you can see in the fact that they won 7 open majors out of the first 9 where they participated even though they were past their prime then. I hope this argument helps a bit to convince you about the strength of L&R...
Click to expand...

Federer and Nadal would win 20 Majors each of they were playing in different fields.

Oh, and you're talking about post-prime. Grandpa Gonzales was giving prime Laver nightmares. So much for his "strength".
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
.

You are really funny: First you omit the amateur majors of the old greats, and now you diminish even the pro majors of them. I think pc1 has explained once that we can be sure that a Laver or Rosewall would have won open majors about the same number as pro majors. Are you aware that Laver & Rosewall won all pro majors from 1963 to 1967 evenagainst strong opposition? They were awesome in their strength. The top amateurs would probably not having been an obstacle for them even in a 128 man field.

How good these two little giants were you can see in the fact that they won 7 open majors out of the first 9 where they participated even though they were past their prime then. I hope this argument helps a bit to convince you about the strength of L&R...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Laver and Rosewall won TOO MANY pro majors, and contested almost every one of them AGAINST EACH OTHER. Sorry, but that is NOT a strong field, that is a WEAK field.
If you want to see a strong pro field, look at the late 1950's, a stronger field than today.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Prisoner of Birth said:
Federer and Nadal would win 20 Majors each of they were playing in different fields.

Oh, and you're talking about post-prime. Grandpa Gonzales was giving prime Laver nightmares. So much for his "strength".
Click to expand...

It's not a blame for any great player to lose some matches to Pancho Gonzalez. He is one of my four greatest players at all.

Laver and Rosewall won so many majors despite of playing in the SAME field. So your argument of Federer and Nadal winning 20 majors is not a strong one.

By the way, where are the Laver admirers to post in this thread against those who belittle Laver? Anyway, I try to give my best to defend the Rocket...
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Unfortunately, Laver and Rosewall won TOO MANY pro majors, and contested almost every one of them AGAINST EACH OTHER. Sorry, but that is NOT a strong field, that is a WEAK field.
If you want to see a strong pro field, look at the late 1950's, a stronger field than today.
Click to expand...

Dan, you are falling back to nonsense arguments. The pro scene of the 1960s was very strong. The fact that Laver and Rosewall played at the same time (plus Gonzalez, Hoad , Gimeno) makes the field of the old pros even stronger!
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Dan, you are falling back to nonsense arguments. The pro scene of the 1960s was very strong. The fact that Laver and Rosewall played at the same time (plus Gonzalez, Hoad , Gimeno) makes the field of the old pros even stronger!
Click to expand...

Hoad and Gonzales were indeed OLD pros, and past their prime in the 1960's.
Gimeno? He couldn't even beat a crippled old Hoad at Wembley in 1963 and 1966.
Who else? Stolle? Ralston? Bucholz? Also-rans in the amateur field.
The 1960's were the doldrums for pro tennis. The big scene was the AMATEUR game, with the household names such as Emerson and Santana, both of whom refused to sign pro contracts of $80,000 (remember, Hoad signed for $125,000 in 1957, things had cooled down in pro tennis since then).
Emerson and Santana could do better in the amateur game than a measly $80,000, so the ranks of supporting players in the pros were the second tier amateurs who could not command the big bucks in the "amateur" world.
 
U

urban

Legend
Bobby, there is absolute no need to defend Rod Laver. Especially here against some fanatic or simply quite ignorant posters. May they live in peace with themselves, if they have a life outside the internet. His record speaks for himself. His name is still a household name on the current tennis scene. His Grand Slams are celebrated by all tennis folks even 50 years after achieving them and heralded as the ultitmate achievement in tennis.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno were much superior in the 1960s to Emerson and Santana. Emerson refused to turn pro for so long because of Davis Cup, and he almost certainly got money under the table, ditto with Santana. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Santana had stayed amateur for political reasons in the fascist Franco era. Gimeno never got the credit he deserved at that time, no doubt because he was a professional.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Mustard said:
Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno were much superior in the 1960s to Emerson and Santana. Emerson refused to turn pro for so long because of Davis Cup, and he almost certainly got money under the table, ditto with Santana. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Santana had stayed amateur for political reasons in the fascist Franco era. Gimeno never got the credit he deserved at that time, no doubt because he was a professional.
Click to expand...

...and he was from Barcelona while Santana was from Madrid...
Santana, however was good enough to beat the best players on any given surface
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad and Gonzales were indeed OLD pros, and past their prime in the 1960's.
Gimeno? He couldn't even beat a crippled old Hoad at Wembley in 1963 and 1966.
Who else? Stolle? Ralston? Bucholz? Also-rans in the amateur field.
The 1960's were the doldrums for pro tennis. The big scene was the AMATEUR game, with the household names such as Emerson and Santana, both of whom refused to sign pro contracts of $80,000 (remember, Hoad signed for $125,000 in 1957, things had cooled down in pro tennis since then).
Emerson and Santana could do better in the amateur game than a measly $80,000, so the ranks of supporting players in the pros were the second tier amateurs who could not command the big bucks in the "amateur" world.
Click to expand...

Dan, you are wrong regarding Stolle and Ralston. They were not also-rans in the amateur field. Stolle turned pro when being No. 1 in McCauley's world rankings (World Tennis). Ralston was No.5.

You are also wrong regarding Buchholz: He was a top amateur and very strong as a pro.

And you, as many others, neglect the strength of Gimeno who was among the top three (all categories) several years, only behind Laver and Rosewall...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
urban said:
Bobby, there is absolute no need to defend Rod Laver. Especially here against some fanatic or simply quite ignorant posters. May they live in peace with themselves, if they have a life outside the internet. His record speaks for himself. His name is still a household name on the current tennis scene. His Grand Slams are celebrated by all tennis folks even 50 years after achieving them and heralded as the ultitmate achievement in tennis.
Click to expand...

urban, I'm very grateful for your clear words.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Mustard said:
Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno were much superior in the 1960s to Emerson and Santana. Emerson refused to turn pro for so long because of Davis Cup, and he almost certainly got money under the table, ditto with Santana. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Santana had stayed amateur for political reasons in the fascist Franco era. Gimeno never got the credit he deserved at that time, no doubt because he was a professional.
Click to expand...

Mustard, I agree.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Dan, you are wrong regarding Stolle and Ralston. They were not also-rans in the amateur field. Stolle turned pro when being No. 1 in McCauley's world rankings (World Tennis). Ralston was No.5.

You are also wrong regarding Buchholz: He was a top amateur and very strong as a pro.

And you, as many others, neglect the strength of Gimeno who was among the top three (all categories) several years, only behind Laver and Rosewall...
Click to expand...

Stolle won some majors and was dangerous to anybody whatever pro or am
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Mustard said:
Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno were much superior in the 1960s to Emerson and Santana. Emerson refused to turn pro for so long because of Davis Cup, and he almost certainly got money under the table, ditto with Santana. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Santana had stayed amateur for political reasons in the fascist Franco era. Gimeno never got the credit he deserved at that time, no doubt because he was a professional.
Click to expand...

The name of the game is MONEY, and Gimeno never attained the status of Santana in the public mind because Gimeno jumped at pro contracts BEFORE he accomplished anything significant in the amateur ranks.
Emerson and Santana stayed amateur because of the economics of the game, because Laver and Rosewall, for all their skill in the mid-1960's, did not command the drawing power of Hoad and Gonzales in the late 1950's and the ability to rent out the major venues; Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong. Instead, it was Longwood (Boston, not the Big Apple), Stade Coubertin (cheaper, indoor, and no clay!), and Melbourne Arena. A sad decline for the pro game.
No wonder the pros could not offer Emerson and Santana enough contract to overcome the increased funds in the amateur game and a more aggressive cash offer to keep the top amateur stars.
I am not sure that Gimeno could outperform Santana on clay or grass in the mid-1960's. In 1970, Santana beat Laver and Hoad to win at Barcelona, against a field that included Gimeno, and teamed with Hoad to beat Laver and Gimeno in the doubles final.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Dan, you are wrong regarding Stolle and Ralston. They were not also-rans in the amateur field. Stolle turned pro when being No. 1 in McCauley's world rankings (World Tennis). Ralston was No.5.

You are also wrong regarding Buchholz: He was a top amateur and very strong as a pro.

And you, as many others, neglect the strength of Gimeno who was among the top three (all categories) several years, only behind Laver and Rosewall...
Click to expand...

Stolle was fortunate to win Forest Hills in 1966, due to a stumble by Newcombe which sprained his ankle in the second set of the final, the basis for Stolle's amateur ranking. Stolle won precious few events as a pro. Ralston won what as a pro?
Bucholz won what as an amateur? He turned pro too quickly, like Gimeno, and this does nothing to help draw the fans to pro tennis.
Gimeno was definitely BEHIND Laver and Rosewall, that is the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

theagassiman
Jim Courier: Underated?
Replies
38
Views
5K
magnut
M
hoodjem
GOAT Factors?
2
Replies
70
Views
2K
thrust
T
The Guru
Why are people so high on Sampras?
6 7 8
Replies
379
Views
18K
Karma Tennis
Karma Tennis
M
5 men have GREAT cases to be mens GOAT, while 0 women have even a good case to be female GOAT, and 5 have all similarily weak cases
2
Replies
76
Views
3K
Dolgopolov85
D
harryz
McEnroe is the real overall GOAT (or GOHG)
2
Replies
60
Views
5K
thrust
T
Top