Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Why would it be absurd when people like Jack Kramer and the Wimbledon seeding committee thought Gimeno was the superior player when Open Tennis started, at least on grass? Gimeno was seeded third at the first Open Wimbledon and Emerson fifth. Kramer thought for much of the 1960's that Gimeno was the third best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.

The point is that you may be correct (and you may be incorrect) but the notion that BobbyOne puts forth is not ridiculous. Facts are that Gimeno had a better head to head against Emerson and fact is the during the Open Era Gimeno won a major and Emerson did not.

Emerson was an excellent player but we all know (and I use the word know not believe) that there is no way Emerson would have won 12 majors during a truly Open Era in the 1960's. Gimeno often defeated Laver and Rosewall during the same tournament to win a tournament. You could not have much tougher than that for competition.

Many may say Emerson was the superior player but the notion was that Gimeno was a better player than Roy Emerson is not a notion that only BobbyOne had but many knowledgeable experts in the game. I pointed out just a few earlier in the post.

Here's the seedings for the 1968 Wimbledon below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles

At the 1968 US Open Gimeno was dropped to tenth seed but Emerson was dropped to fourteenth seed.

Either way the people at the time who did the seedings thought Gimeno was at least for grass superior to Emerson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_US_Open_–_Men's_Singles

Kramer was the guy who "discovered" Gimeno, when the other top players refused to sign with Kramer. Biased.
Emmo had better results than Gimeno at the 1969 US Open and the 1970 Wimbledon, plus Emmo won over Gimeno decisively in their Wimbledon meeting in 1959.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The amateur-pro ranking pre 1968 is one of the biggest problems for proper evaluation. I prefer two separate rankings for each year. Before the internet age and some new books like that one of McCauley, amateur tennis often was regarded as the lone worldwide circuit, while the pros were seen as outlaws, who played only exhibitions at secondary venues. So historically, and we see this still in public polls, pro tennis has been underrated. The level of pro tennis was generally higher than that of the amateurs, all new pros confirmed this. On the other hand, really great amateurs adapted well to the new format and the difficult circumstances and reached the top of the pro game, after dealing with a rough bapstism for a half year or so.
Nevertheless i am not dogmatic in this question and would regard different time periods. In the late 50s for instance, when all top players had turned pro, there was no contest between pros and amateurs. In the early 50s however, the pro circuit was quite a mess (no valid circuit, Kramer often absent, Pancho in and out, few leading tournaments and players), and in some years like 1952, players like Sedgman could be ranked among or on top of the best pros. For the 60s, i think amateurs like Emerson or Santana had real class and would have done well at the pros. If they were better than Gimeno is a tricky question, i would put them technically quite on the same level. I have seen all three quite often on tv, Gimeno and Emmo live. I even saw a Spoga Cup final 1969 at Cologne between these two, with Gimeno winning in two long close sets. The last match i saw from Gimeno was a fine Hilversum final against Okker over 5 sets. My take is, that Gimeno technically and tactically was the most sound and consistent player of these three, but that Santana was more unpredictable and on occasion, when getting hot, more dangerous (like Nastase). Emmo was the most athletic and fit and mentally the strongest. In a big final or Davis Cup tie i would have feared him the most.

Superbly stated.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
That's too bad.

Haydn is vastly under-rated. I'll take Haydn over Mozart in almost any genre.

Haydn is earthier and wittier, and rhythmically more interesting. Mozart is too elegant, too Rococo, too suave, too superficial, too saccharine. (Torture--thy name is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.) Try Haydn's Symphony No. 92 or No. 88 or No. 45. Try Adam Fischer's performances. Try Haydn's Piano Sonata No. 32 or 42 or 59, or the Piano Trio No. 38. Wonderful stuff!

It's a very good thing that Haydn was Beethoven's teacher and not Mozart.

Some good observations, although Mozart himself learned a lot from Haydn and this was a positive influence, put some more muscle into Mozart (like the Prague and Jupiter symphonies).
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983, Your hate against me makes me tired. You don't have any serious arguments and neglect all arguments I and others have given you.

You are very nasty that you claim I have a Rosewall agenda in praising Gimeno.

Why do I praise also Nüsslein, Segura and Kovacs f.i., all of them certainly underrated? To push Rosewall too???

Emerson did NOT dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted. In fact he only dominated two years and generally lost many majors he should have won.

Gimeno won an open GS tournament while Emerson failed totally in open era.

Gimeno reached four open era major's SFs, Emerson none.

In your ignorance you not only try to blame Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon (even though you are disproved already) but also cannot imagine what was the reason why Gimeno did not win a pro major. Guess what!!!

Gimeno's French win in 1972 was relatively weak, an easy path, only Smith and Metreveli giving any challenge. Smith lost in straight sets, clay not being his best surface. Metreveli was a good but not great player.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983, Your hate against me makes me tired. You don't have any serious arguments and neglect all arguments I and others have given you.

I don't hate you, this is an internet forum and I disagree with your opinion, especially on Rosewall. That is all.

You are very nasty that you claim I have a Rosewall agenda in praising Gimeno.

Why do I praise also Nüsslein, Segura and Kovacs f.i., all of them certainly underrated? To push Rosewall too???

Emerson did NOT dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted. In fact he only dominated two years and generally lost many majors he should have won.

And yet he won 12 amateur majors, including at least 2 at every venue. Very impressive, albeit that competition may not have been strong.

Gimeno won an open GS tournament while Emerson failed totally in open era.

Gimeno reached four open era major's SFs, Emerson none.

I already said I give Gimeno credit for that one major victory but it's not enough to overcome Emerson's 12 amateur slams.

In your ignorance you not only try to blame Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon (even though you are disproved already)

Who disproved me? I've still not seen a valid reason for putting a man with a 0-5 Wimbledon finals record ahead of the likes of Federer and Laver. Frankly it's an insult to tennis that such a man could be ranked as GOAT. In the real world of course no-one thinks Rosewall is GOAT so at least people generally hold sensible opinions.

but also cannot imagine what was the reason why Gimeno did not win a pro major. Guess what!!!

It doesn't matter how good Laver and Rosewall were, if Gimeno was truly a great like you claim, he would have won at least a few pro slams. In reality he was just a nearly man.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Kramer was the guy who "discovered" Gimeno, when the other top players refused to sign with Kramer. Biased.
Emmo had better results than Gimeno at the 1969 US Open and the 1970 Wimbledon, plus Emmo won over Gimeno decisively in their Wimbledon meeting in 1959.

Dan, Wimbledon 1970 is doubtful. A QF higher than a SF?. Emerson never reached a SF at an open major, Gimeno reached four of them.

Gimeno was 6:1 in the first full year they met. Gimeno beat Emerson in straight sets in the 1960 Queen's Club tournament.

Gimeno reached No.3, Emerson reached No.5...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Some good observations, although Mozart himself learned a lot from Haydn and this was a positive influence, put some more muscle into Mozart (like the Prague and Jupiter symphonies).

Haydn once wrote to Mozart's father: "Your son is the greatest composer".
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem,

Haydn ahead of Mozart? I mean to dream a nightmare. ALL composers after them claimed that Mozart was greater. Beethoven admired only Mozart, not Haydn.

Haydn does not have any feelings in his music. He lacks any increasing of emotions and highlights. In fact he does not have any emotions apart from wit.

Eine kleine Nachtmusik is a great work but not one of Mozart's best. Did you ever hear the Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491?. They have all what great music needs.
If you do not believe that Haydn has any emotions or feeling in his music, then you are not listening deeply.

Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491--I have multiple recordings of all of these by Bohm, von Karajan, Geza Anda, Colin Davis, Marriner, etcetera. (I choose not to listen to them, unless I want to go into diabetic shock.)

The best recordings of Mozart's symphonies are by Peter Maag. He manages to give Mozart some rhythmic drive, tension, and gravitas--not just more glossy schlagobers.

P.S. You are wrong about Beethoven. (He admired Handel most of all.)
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I don't hate you, this is an internet forum and I disagree with your opinion, especially on Rosewall. That is all.



And yet he won 12 amateur majors, including at least 2 at every venue. Very impressive, albeit that competition may not have been strong.



I already said I give Gimeno credit for that one major victory but it's not enough to overcome Emerson's 12 amateur slams.



Who disproved me? I've still not seen a valid reason for putting a man with a 0-5 Wimbledon finals record ahead of the likes of Federer and Laver. Frankly it's an insult to tennis that such a man could be ranked as GOAT. In the real world of course no-one thinks Rosewall is GOAT so at least people generally hold sensible opinions.



It doesn't matter how good Laver and Rosewall were, if Gimeno was truly a great like you claim, he would have won at least a few pro slams. In reality he was just a nearly man.

Phoenix, Gimeno's French Open win does of course not overcome Emerson's 12 amateur titles but you should consider it as a hint that Gimeno was generally stronger than Emerson, as also the 6:1 hth of 1968 indicate.

It does not matter how good Laver and Rosewall were???? A very stupid and illogic statement. Of course it's deciding HOW good L and R were. If they were practically "out of the world" they are virually not beatable even by very strong players. Remember that also Gonzalez and Hoad did not win against the two Aussies.

Insulting are only you. I'm not sure that in the "real world" no-one is ranking Rosewall the GOAT. Is this forum not a part of the real world? At least here I'm not the only person who considers it that way.

The real world, f. i. Tennis Channel ranks Emerson ahead of Rosewall and Gonzalez only at 22nd place. Is it that what you want???
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If you do not believe that Haydn has any emotions or feeling in his music, then you are not listening deeply.

Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491--I have multiple recordings of all of these by Bohm, von Karajan, Geza Anda, Colin Davis, Marriner, etcetera. (I choose not to listen to them, unless I want to go into diabetic shock.)

The best recordings of Mozart's symphonies are by Peter Maag. He manages to give Mozart some rhythmic drive, tension, and gravitas--not just more glossy schlagobers.

P.S. You are wrong about Beethoven. (He admired Handel most of all.)

hoddjem, Yes I meant that Beethoven admired only Mozart out of the two.

If you diminish the best Mozart works as too sweet or so it shows me you never heard them. They are composed in Minor and don't have any sweet or Rokoko touch. Please listen to them seriously. If you do so you will have tears in your eyes, at least in the Requiem, probably Mozart's greatest work.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Schumann must have heard bad performances.
Again, listen to Karajan with Wunderlich in the Creation, both studio and live, and then tell me that you hear no emotion. Wunderlich was the Haydn singer of them all.
Or Gould in the sonatas.
Furtwangler in symphony 88 (Furtwangler was never dull), or Bernstein in the symphonies (always had passion and a range of emotions).
As an Austrian, you must appreciate these performers.
And get a hold of Philip Downs' book "Classical Music" for an understanding of Haydn's life and compositional approach.

Dan, I appreciated those performers but I just can't appreciate Haydn's ice-cold music, a music without any deeper emotions.....
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Some good observations, although Mozart himself learned a lot from Haydn and this was a positive influence, put some more muscle into Mozart (like the Prague and Jupiter symphonies).

Dan, It was just reverse: Haydn who wrote only second class symphonies before he learnt Mozart's masterpieces learnt a lot from them. Without Mozart even the latest Haydn oeuvres would have stayed totally dull.

I only accept No.94 and some string quartetts plus Die Schöpfung (The Creation).
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Kramer,Newk,Emmo,Edberg,Mac,Sedgmam,Hoad,,Rosewall,Cochet and Trabert for singles&dubs

Kiki,

Since you mentioned Trabert, I was trying to find a relatively current equivalent in style and in relative strength to Trabert. Trabert was a terrific baseliner with an excellent return as well as a very good serve and volleyer. He was not the most agile however. I thought of a couple, one is Agassi for the return and groundies. Agassi wasn't exactly fast either. The second is Boris Becker. The problem I have with Becker is that Becker wasn't that good on clay, having never won a clay tournament. Becker had a better serve imo but Trabert's was pretty goo.

My questions are this, how strong would you say Trabert was at his peak? I think he was excellent. Second, who do you think is a relatively close equivalent to Trabert in the last twenty to thirty years?
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Dan, It was just reverse: Haydn who wrote only second class symphonies before he learnt Mozart's masterpieces learnt a lot from them. Without Mozart even the latest Haydn oeuvres would have stayed totally dull.

I only accept No. 94 and some string quartets plus Die Schöpfung (The Creation).
Too bad. Symphony no. 92 or no. 88 are more interesting.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
PC 1, those equivalents of different eras are quite fascinating. I would compare Becker to Hoad in some ways (i remember Maskell saying something like that, when Becker played a junior final with Edberg), Sampras to Gonzalez (big weapon serve), Edberg to Patty (both had fine backhand volleys), Korda or Leconte to Laver (fine lefty backhands), Pernfors reminded me of Rosewall (i know double hander). From what i have read, Trabert was a hard working pro, great on clay, a bit like Courier, although Traberts backhand was his strong side.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, I appreciated those performers but I just can't appreciate Haydn's ice-cold music, a music without any deeper emotions.....

"Deeper emotions"? If you listen to Furtwangler or Karajan conduct Haydn, you will hear not only emotions, but a profound spirituality, something more significant than mere emotions. The greatest composers attempted to reveal spitiyual realities, this was true not just of Bach and Handel, but also Haydn (the Masses, Creation, the Seasons, Seven Last Words of Christ), Mozart (Requiem, Mass in C Minor, Zauberflote, other sacred works).
Did you know that Mozart accepted a position as church composer just before his death?
Beethoven wrote two great spiritual edifices, the Missa Solemnis and Ninth Symphony, as the culmination of his work.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan, It was just reverse: Haydn who wrote only second class symphonies before he learnt Mozart's masterpieces learnt a lot from them. Without Mozart even the latest Haydn oeuvres would have stayed totally dull.

I only accept No.94 and some string quartetts plus Die Schöpfung (The Creation).

Mozart was not a symphonist primarily, unike Haydn, and Mozart's maturity as symphonist came in 1786 (the Prague), the same year that Haydn was already through composing the great Paris symphonies.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
PC 1, those equivalents of different eras are quite fascinating. I would compare Becker to Hoad in some ways (i remember Maskell saying something like that, when Becker played a junior final with Edberg), Sampras to Gonzalez (big weapon serve), Edberg to Patty (both had fine backhand volleys), Korda or Leconte to Laver (fine lefty backhands), Pernfors reminded me of Rosewall (i know double hander). From what i have read, Trabert was a hard working pro, great on clay, a bit like Courier, although Traberts backhand was his strong side.

Trabert had powerful groundstrokes, which were consistent enough to win four Roland Garros titles.
Trabert was similar to Becker, although Becker could not play clay.
Hoad was much faster and more agile than Becker, and had the ability to win on clay. A much greater range of weapons than Becker.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Mozart was not a symphonist primarily, unike Haydn, and Mozart's maturity as symphonist came in 1786 (the Prague), the same year that Haydn was already through composing the great Paris symphonies.

Dan, listen objectively to both and you will realize the difference between great music (Mozart) and well-composed music (Haydn).
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
"Deeper emotions"? If you listen to Furtwangler or Karajan conduct Haydn, you will hear not only emotions, but a profound spirituality, something more significant than mere emotions. The greatest composers attempted to reveal spitiyual realities, this was true not just of Bach and Handel, but also Haydn (the Masses, Creation, the Seasons, Seven Last Words of Christ), Mozart (Requiem, Mass in C Minor, Zauberflote, other sacred works).
Did you know that Mozart accepted a position as church composer just before his death?
Beethoven wrote two great spiritual edifices, the Missa Solemnis and Ninth Symphony, as the culmination of his work.

Dan, I did not know it.

I would like to add Schubert's last mass (in German words it's in Es-Dur).

Of course we may not forget Bach's great Passions and his "High Mass".
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
PC 1, those equivalents of different eras are quite fascinating. I would compare Becker to Hoad in some ways (i remember Maskell saying something like that, when Becker played a junior final with Edberg), Sampras to Gonzalez (big weapon serve), Edberg to Patty (both had fine backhand volleys), Korda or Leconte to Laver (fine lefty backhands), Pernfors reminded me of Rosewall (i know double hander). From what i have read, Trabert was a hard working pro, great on clay, a bit like Courier, although Traberts backhand was his strong side.
Trabert had powerful groundstrokes, which were consistent enough to win four Roland Garros titles.
Trabert was similar to Becker, although Becker could not play clay.
Hoad was much faster and more agile than Becker, and had the ability to win on clay. A much greater range of weapons than Becker.

Becker is the closest comp to Trabert I know of. Thanks to both of you for your replies.

Urban I've often thought Korda and Leconte were similar to many ways to Laver. Laver of course was more consistent than either but all of them could hit streaks where they seemed unstoppable.

I would agree with both of you that Hoad was similar to Becker but as Dan wrote, had many more weapons.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Dan, It was just reverse: Haydn who wrote only second class symphonies before he learnt Mozart's masterpieces learnt a lot from them. Without Mozart even the latest Haydn oeuvres would have stayed totally dull.
Boy, have you got your history and chronology mixed up.

Haydn started writing his emotional Sturm und Drang symphonies (nos. 43-48 ) around 1772. Mozart was 16 at the time, and his output had extended to K. 150s and 160s. Mozart's symphonies of this time went up through no. 22, K. 162--years away from and hardly as noteworthy as his much more mature 1786 Prague Symphony no. 38, K. 504.

Haydn's rather advanced Paris Symphonies (nos. 82-87) were written 1786-87, when Mozart was finally reaching musical maturity with Koechel numbers in the late 480s-early 500s.

Mozart very much admired and respected Haydn. Why else would he have dedicated his greatest String Quartets nos 14-19 to the elder master. (They are now universally referred to as Mozart's Haydn Quartets, from 1782-85.)
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Boy, have you got your history and chronology mixed up.

Old fellow, I'm quite sure about the right chronology. Haydn composed his best worksonly AFTER Mozart's death.

Haydn's middle age symphonies are much weaker than his last ones, influenced by Mozart's masterpieces.

Mozart made a genial symphony as early as 1773, his fabulous Little g-Minor, much sooner than Haydn's relative great ones.

Mozart and Haydn respected each other. Mozart's Haydn-Quartetts outclass Haydn's quartetts.

Beethoven dedicated works to Haydn but he did not admire Haydn. A dedication does not mean too much.

I guess we should return now to returns, services and similary items.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Old fellow, I'm quite sure about the right chronology. Haydn composed his best works only AFTER Mozart's death.

Haydn's middle age symphonies are much weaker than his last ones, influenced by Mozart's masterpieces.

Mozart made a genial symphonie as early as 1773, his fabulous Little g-Minor, much sooner than Haydn's relative great ones.

Mozart and Haydn respected each other. Mozart's Haydn-Quartetts outclass Haydn's quartetts.

Beethoven dedicated works to Haydn but he did not admire Haydn. A dedication does not mean too much.

I guess we should return now to returns, services and similary items.
Wrong again, ole bean.

Mozart died 5 December 1791. Haydn went to London in January of 1791, whereupon he started writing the first of his culminating London Symphonies (nos. 93-104). The earliest of which (numbered incorrectly as no. 96) premiered in London in March 1791.

Mozart's Symphony no. 25 in G minor, K. 183 is fairly pleasant and genial, but if you want to hear "feelings" and emotions from an early Classical period work try Haydn's symphonies no. 43 Mercury or no. 44 Trauersymphonie written in 1772 one year before Mozart's "genial" symphony no. 25.

The facts deny many of your statements, and the chronology contradicts many of your unfounded assertions.
 
Last edited:
eat-popcorn-3D.gif
 

kiki

Banned
Kiki,

Since you mentioned Trabert, I was trying to find a relatively current equivalent in style and in relative strength to Trabert. Trabert was a terrific baseliner with an excellent return as well as a very good serve and volleyer. He was not the most agile however. I thought of a couple, one is Agassi for the return and groundies. Agassi wasn't exactly fast either. The second is Boris Becker. The problem I have with Becker is that Becker wasn't that good on clay, having never won a clay tournament. Becker had a better serve imo but Trabert's was pretty goo.

My questions are this, how strong would you say Trabert was at his peak? I think he was excellent. Second, who do you think is a relatively close equivalent to Trabert in the last twenty to thirty years?

I thought about Boris, too.But Kodes is the answer.Good serve and volley, steady and deep groundies, Kodes was a bit less percutant but had better footwork.

Both great on natural surfaces, grass and clay but not as strong indoors.

Kodes is the better choice.
 

kiki

Banned
Becker is the closest comp to Trabert I know of. Thanks to both of you for your replies.

Urban I've often thought Korda and Leconte were similar to many ways to Laver. Laver of course was more consistent than either but all of them could hit streaks where they seemed unstoppable.

I would agree with both of you that Hoad was similar to Becker but as Dan wrote, had many more weapons.

John Mc Enroe was compared to Laver.But I think they were not the same breed.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I thought about Boris, too.But Kodes is the answer.Good serve and volley, steady and deep groundies, Kodes was a bit less percutant but had better footwork.

Both great on natural surfaces, grass and clay but not as strong indoors.

Kodes is the better choice.

Thanks Kiki.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Wrong again, ole bean.

Mozart died 5 December 1791. Haydn went to London in January of 1791, whereupon he started writing the first of his culminating London Symphonies (nos. 93-104). The earliest of which (numbered incorrectly as no. 96) premiered in London in March 1791.

Mozart's Symphony no. 25 in G minor, K. 183 is fairly pleasant and genial, but if you want to hear "feelings" and emotions from an early Classical period work try Haydn's symphonies no. 43 Mercury or no. 44 Trauersymphonie written in 1772 one year before Mozart's "genial" symphony no. 25.

The facts deny many of your statements, and the chronology contradicts many of your unfounded assertions.

hoodjem, You should write about tennis history. It's better for your reputation.

Okay, I concede that Haydn did not write ALL of his late works after Mozart's death. But VIRTUALLY ALL of them. And ALL of them were OF COURSE heavily influenced by Mozart's masterpieces.

Imagine Haydn would have died in, say, 1780 and therefore would not have known Mozart's great works. How poor would his oeuvre be...

Most of all: I have heard hundreds of Haydn's works but I was never thrilled by any of them, did not get tears or a shower on my neck or back.

Hear Mozart 488, second movement: There you would learn what emotion and greatness is. But it seems senseless to ask you because you called Mozart's
sadest works (including even the Requiem!!!) sweet or similary.....
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Wrong again, ole bean.

Mozart died 5 December 1791. Haydn went to London in January of 1791, whereupon he started writing the first of his culminating London Symphonies (nos. 93-104). The earliest of which (numbered incorrectly as no. 96) premiered in London in March 1791.

Mozart's Symphony no. 25 in G minor, K. 183 is fairly pleasant and genial, but if you want to hear "feelings" and emotions from an early Classical period work try Haydn's symphonies no. 43 Mercury or no. 44 Trauersymphonie written in 1772 one year before Mozart's "genial" symphony no. 25.

The facts deny many of your statements, and the chronology contradicts many of your unfounded assertions.

hoodjem, I forgot to write hat you are casual: First you write Mozart 25 is genial and second you write it's "genial". You just want to blame me and troll me. But you use only nasty words. You have NOT disproved my chronology with that little exception regarding 1791 which does not contradict my thesis that old Haydn was influenced by top Mozart. So be fair!
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Who´d be the modern Frank Sedgman? maybe John Newcombe? both had tremendous FH volleys and great net coverage.

Sedgman was quicker than Newcombe. Sedgman had a superior volley which some think is the best of all time. Newcombe had the superior forehand and serve.

I think the closest to Sedgman would be Edberg. Serves around the same level, both have been called the greatest volleyers ever. Both are great movers. Difference is that Edberg had a great backhand and Sedgman only a good one. I think Sedgman had the superior forehand.
 

kiki

Banned
Sedgman was quicker than Newcombe. Sedgman had a superior volley which some think is the best of all time. Newcombe had the superior forehand and serve.

I think the closest to Sedgman would be Edberg. Serves around the same level, both have been called the greatest volleyers ever. Both are great movers. Difference is that Edberg had a great backhand and Sedgman only a good one. I think Sedgman had the superior forehand.

Maybe, thanks
 

kiki

Banned
Incidentally just because many think Sedgman was the greatest volleyer doesn't mean Newcombe wasn't a super volleyer. I think he was.

Since I think you are keen on both, Newk and Orantes...did they ever meet other than DC?
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem, I forgot to write hat you are casual: First you write Mozart 25 is genial and second you write it's "genial". You just want to blame me and troll me. But you use only nasty words. You have NOT disproved my chronology with that little exception regarding 1791 which does not contradict my thesis that old Haydn was influenced by top Mozart. So be fair!
If quoting is trolling, then I am guilty.

I submit that to quote is not to blame, but simply to assign responsibility or authorship where it is proper.

If quoting your saying of "genial" is nasty, then I don't understand the meaning of nasty. One must take responsibility for one's words.

Am I "casual" or "nasty"? The difference is huge, in my opinion.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem, I forgot to write hat you are casual: First you write Mozart 25 is genial and second you write it's "genial". You just want to blame me and troll me. But you use only nasty words. You have NOT disproved my chronology with that little exception regarding 1791 which does not contradict my thesis that old Haydn was influenced by top Mozart. So be fair!

Most great composers influence each other, just as great tennis players learn from each other.
Mozart certainly learned much from Haydn, just as Hoad learned much from Kramer.
Mozart was profoundly influenced by Bach beginning in 1781 or thereabout, as evidenced by his own compositions, and borrowed a theme from Handel's Messiah (which Mozart orchestrated) for his Requiem.
Nothing wrong with this.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If quoting is trolling, then I am guilty.

I submit that to quote is not to blame, but simply to assign responsibility or authorship where it is proper.

If quoting your saying of "genial" is nasty, then I don't understand the meaning of nasty. One must take responsibility for one's words.

Am I "casual" or "nasty"? The difference is huge, in my opinion.

hoodjem, Let's stop our discussion about music. A last statement: I critisized that you once wrote GENIAL symphony and once "GENIAL" symphony, the second version probably to belittle Mozart 25.
 
Top