Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.
Dan, you try to always have the last word even if it is a strange one...
Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.
I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.
He lost his most famous match...that being a mere W qf, to Neale Fraser.
He was used to just fill the pro fields.
Ayala, on the other hand had a RG final, at least.
best pros were Laver,Rosewall, Hoad (when available), Gonzales (idem), Gimeno, Olmedo,Cooper and Anderson.In the 60´s, of course.
kiki, after a longer while and having studied tennis history myself, I must contradicct you: Buchholz was not used to fill the pro field. No.4 and No.5 in several years...
Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson were not stronger than Buchholz.
Ayala was a joke in comparison to Buchholz in the pro ranks. See Joe's book!
Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.
Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?
If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.
He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?
Olmedo won W and FH, so did Coop and Anderson won FH...Butchols??? a mere qf.No better than Riessen or Tim Gullikson.
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.
Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.
Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.
Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.
But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.
Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!
I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.
Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.
Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.
Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.
But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.
Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!
I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....
Why would Buchholz turn pro at 20 BEFORE he won anything, and TAKE A WEAK CONTRACT as a result? Something wrong there.
Did he realize that he might as well turn pro, that Laver would only continue to get better in the amateurs, and that he might have better luck in the pros BEFORE Laver got there?
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.
Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.
Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.
Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.
But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.
Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!
I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....
Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.
Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.
At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.
Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.
Bobby, I have nothing against Bucholz but I was always amused he was talked about in same sentence as all time greats who also were pros
You had to have proven something to get signed by Kramer or Mc Call back in that time so Butch is a real exception...maybe because he was american and that let him overcome his poir record as an amateur?
Anyhow,I wont regard you as a true historian till you give me a full picture about Jan Kodes
Mc Call had 5 aussies and 2 latins but no pure US player unless you assume Gonzales and Olmedo were WASP
So he desperatey signed journeyman Butch
He should wait a bit more and sign Mc Kinley or Ralston
Why a joke? Gullikson reach a W qf just like your beloved Buch so where is difference?
Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.
Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.
At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.
Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.
Here's the question. How many classic majors would Federer have had if he turned pro (let's say after 2003) in an era that didn't allow pros to play the majors? Obviously far fewer. It would not affect his greatness as a player. He would have been every bit as great but he would be hurt by the different standards of greatness today that is often very inaccurate.
And I think Federer would want to play against the top players. The money wouldn't have hurt either.
Fed has not won a major on wood??!!Like I have written before, Laver won Pro Majors on wood. Federer hasn't won a major on wood. Do we penalized Federer for not winning on wood? Of course not. He didn't have the opportunity and he probably would have. Same with Laver.
Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?
Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.
Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?
Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.
The big difference is that Buchholz was ranked among the top five all categories for several years while Gullikson was never a top ten player.
Come on Dan, Richey was an excellent player and he beat greats like Laver and Rosewall.Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)
Who knows, the Australian may change to velcro in the next 28 years & the current players will be dismissed since they didn't play on all surfaces.
:shock:
You will have to return the serve before the ball hit the ground! It will require a longer tennis racquet or a change of rule so that you can receive the serve from the service box. There will be no ground stroke.. all of the shots will have to be volleys.
Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)
Dan, In 1968 Buchholz was after his peak.
Butch would have had good chances to win amateur majors against players like Emerson, Santana and Stolle. The latter three were not unvincible, to say the least. By the way, Gimeno as an amateur would most probably have won amateur majors.
Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)
So, he was too young to win in 1961 or 1962, and too old to win in 1968. When and where was there a peak?
Gimeno and Bucholz could see the writing on the wall, and took a weak pro contract rather than get clobbered by Laver, Emerson, and Santana in the amateur ranks.
Dan, You mean the 1969 Canadian Open. You did not mention that Buchholz defeated Newcombe in the SFs, winning the last set by 6-0....
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.
Here you again are far away from logic and facts.
Buchholz did win a major in 1962!
In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....
Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.
Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).
Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...
Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....
He did not win a major in 1962. He won the Cleveland Arena championship, with virtually no competition except Segura in the final, who lost in straight sets. It was a four-man tournament, with Barry McKay and Jack Arkinstall also on board. Wow.
He beat a rookie Laver in one match in 1963.
You mean he was third in the Handsome Eight competition? Without Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Stolle, Emerson, Ralston in the field, the group that Buchholz used to belong to, but quit for some reason. Was Buchholz about EIGHTH in that field? I guess Emerson's signing pushed Buchholz out.
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.
Here you again are far away from logic and facts.
Buchholz did win a major in 1962!
In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....
Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.
Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).
Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...
Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.
Here you again are far away from logic and facts.
Buchholz did win a major in 1962!
In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....
Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.
Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).
Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...
Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....
Yes, it was 1969. Buchholz was a feeble old man of 28. (As you stated earlier, 28 is not the age of a veteran.)
He did not win a major in 1962. He won the Cleveland Arena championship, with virtually no competition except Segura in the final, who lost in straight sets. It was a four-man tournament, with Barry McKay and Jack Arkinstall also on board. Wow.
He beat a rookie Laver in one match in 1963.
You mean he was third in the Handsome Eight competition? Without Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Stolle, Emerson, Ralston in the field, the group that Buchholz used to belong to, but quit for some reason. Was Buchholz about EIGHTH in that field? I guess Emerson's signing pushed Buchholz out.
Buchholz finished third in the 1968 WCT rankings in terms of PERCENTAGE of matches won only.
In terms of money he was sixth (behind Pilic, Drysdale, Ralston).
In terms of matches won he was fifth.
The top money-winner was Roche, followed closely by Newcombe (who won the most tournaments), and no one else close. This is what you would expect.
Buchholz finished third in the 1968 WCT rankings in terms of PERCENTAGE of matches won only.
In terms of money he was sixth (behind Pilic, Drysdale, Ralston).
In terms of matches won he was fifth.
The top money-winner was Roche, followed closely by Newcombe (who won the most tournaments), and no one else close. This is what you would expect.
Dan, Buchholz was not as feeble at 28 as you are in tennis history...
Dan, five winning tournaments against strong competition (Newcombe, Roche etc) is a proof for strength!
You have a special gift: Your ignorance increases from post to post...
Dan, again WRONG! Buchholz beat a Laver who was much better than in his amateur days (You wrote that Laver, Emerson and Santana would have destroyed Buchholz at the amateurs).
Buchholz also beat Laver the same year at the Japanese pro championships
in straight sets.
Ralston was yet in the WCT field!
Buchholz was at least as good as Emerson and Stolle n 1968.
Butch finished only a bit behind Laver in the 1963 6 man tour, edging out Gimeno!
Dan, I'm tired to correct you every time. I hope that kiki or other posters can teach you tennis history...
Dan, the percentage list was the official list to rank the Handsome Eight.
You have a strong money-fixation, I see.
I thought that you believed Buchholz was past his peak by 1969, a doddering old veteran of 28.
Ralston was on both tours in 1968.
Why did Buchholz skip over to the WCT? Obviously, a weaker field.
Buchholz failed to win a major, and at Wembley in 1963, he choked against a lame Hoad, who pulled a thigh muscle in the third set. If you can't put away a player who is stumbling around on only one leg, you've got problems.
There is a HUGE gap between Roche and Newk and the rest in terms of money.
I hope that you are not shocked to learn that some matches are worth more money than others. This is where Newk and Roche apparently stood out.
The bottom line is MONEY. Buchholz was way back, Roche and Newk far ahead of the rest.
Dan, Ralston played only the WCT tour and a few tournaments where all pros met, just as Buchholz did.
Where have you read that Buchholz skipped over to the WCT?
The WCT group was pretty tough.
If you neglect facts and logic repeatedly, you will get problems: serious fans will doubt if you are a serious man...
Dan, again WRONG! Buchholz beat a Laver who was much better than in his amateur days (You wrote that Laver, Emerson and Santana would have destroyed Buchholz at the amateurs).
Buchholz also beat Laver the same year at the Japanese pro championships
in straight sets.
Ralston was yet in the WCT field!
Buchholz was at least as good as Emerson and Stolle in 1968.
Butch finished only a bit behind Laver in the 1963 6 man tour, edging out Gimeno!
Dan, I'm tired to correct you every time. I hope that kiki or other posters can teach you tennis history...