Clay Court GOAT

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
This is not hyperbole, my friend, but a well-documented incident, witnessed by Segura, Rosewall, and Kramer. If you want a reference, it is in "Golden Boy" by Hodgson and Jones, who also quote Gonzales,
"...he was such a strong son-of-a-*****..he had such strong wrists that he could hold the racquet high up the handle..he'd chop off the end so he could wield it like a ping-pong bat....when he tried, you just couldn't beat him. He hit the ball harder than anyone I ever played".
and Gonzales played them all.
Hoad used the same grip for all shots, and could adjust quickly.

Dan, I agree. Hoad was possibly the only one who was able to shoot an opponent's racquet off the latter's hand (Cooper and so on). When looking on pictures of Hoad I realize that he had the strongest arm at all, even bigger than mighty Nadal's...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
You didn't read with enough attention, or I wasn't able to be clear (which is likely). I did not compare Safin's level with Budge and Kramer. I mentioned the possibility that Safin will remain in the history of the sport, not by true objective greatness, but because he is so highly regarded among his peers, and among the public. He is here in every discussion about peak level of play. I compared it with Budge, who is more known for being lauded by Kramer than for his achievements.

In the case of Hoad and Budge, we have few direct datas to rank them very high in a goat list. We have to rely on peer's evaluation, but we cannot control the reasons behind these evaluation. As Benhur said, it is convenient to a player to hype his rival, because if he dominate him, it makes him even better, and if he is dominated, he has an excellent excuse. Beside, Rosewall and Laver where extremely humble and polite person who certainly preferred congratulate fellows tennis players than criticize them.

It might become the same for Safin (it is just an hypothesis): like Hoad, he is very popular. Like Hoad, he beated the best here and there. Like Hoad, he wasn't dedicated enough.

Flash, nevertheless, Safin is in another category than Budge and Kramer: Budge and Kramer realized much, much more than Safin did. We know enough about the two oldies.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
You claimed you don't watch tennis so you have no idea what's going on in the world of tennis. People including myself have watch modern tennis know experts/commentators/ex-players have said tennis continue to raises the bar. The only one who's dreaming is you.

TMF; Are you an idiot? I never said that I don't watch tennis (or modern tennis)! How can you rank Federer first when not having seen enough of old tennis?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
This is a great video of Rafa's road to his 7th FO crown last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeurmzFDtnA

Impressive, but among his titles there, I'd rank it his 6th best performance.

My ranking

1. 2008
2. 2006
3. 2007
4. 2005
5. 2010
6. 2012
7. 2011

It's unfair to old greats that people today have access to Youtube videos with great quality. It kinda sway people's perpective, giving the idea that today's generation of players are faster and more powerful. Technology does sometimes give a bias narrative.

The-Champ. I agree regarding videos of modern and videos of older players.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
TMF; Are you an idiot? I never said that I don't watch tennis (or modern tennis)! How can you rank Federer first when not having seen enough of old tennis?

You have said before that you have hardly ever seen Federer play.

You have also said you base Rosewall's ranking on your imagination.

No-one should take you seriously.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
You have said before that you have hardly ever seen Federer play.

You have also said you base Rosewall's ranking on your imagination.

No-one should take you seriously.

Phoenix, Are you TMF's brother? In their hate against me Federer fanatics use only lies and insults. Shame on you!!!
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame
This is a great video of Rafa's road to his 7th FO crown last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeurmzFDtnA

Impressive, but among his titles there, I'd rank it his 6th best performance.

My ranking

1. 2008
2. 2006
3. 2007
4. 2005
5. 2010
6. 2012
7. 2011

It's unfair to old greats that people today have access to Youtube videos with great quality. It kinda sway people's perpective, giving the idea that today's generation of players are faster and more powerful. Technology does sometimes give a bias narrative.


This is one problem, certainly. But even if there were more footage, I believe the perception would remain among many people of an inherent “superiority” of the moderns.

The underlying problem is a reductionist perception of sports where the skills/artistry factor is too tied in with other factors that evolve through time such as equipment and physical conditioning, especially equipment. The tendency is so strong that it affects people even in their assessment of works that are considered strictly “art”, such as music, painting etc. (even the most hideous architectural monstrosities of the 20th century are perceived as architectural progress with respect to the past). There seems to exist this tendency to believe that progress is a universal force imbuing every form of human activity and mental process. It may be some kind of journalistic illusion that is force-fed to us from all angles.
It’s mostly BS of course, but it seems unstoppable. There are even tons of people convinced that we now understand how the world came to be, how life originated, how existence is possible...just because we are so much more intelligent than our dumb ancestors. It’s a kind of generalized self-delusion.

The range of human skills to direct a tennis ball with a racquet cannot have changed form an evolution point of view in 100 or in 1000 years. Those skills are the same, and they are just adapted to the available equipment.

The old equipment allows a more immediate appreciation of skill by itself, if you are able to keep in mind certain limitations the equipment offered. From this, some enthusiasts of the old game derive the mislead conclusion that skill itself has actually decreased. But that's not true either.

On the other hand, the intoxication with the notion of progress on all fronts among some of the modern followers causes them to believe that not only equipment and (to a degree) physical conditioning have improved, but that skill itself never ceases to increase.

One poster writes today:
Athletics never go backward. Today's players are always bigger, faster, stronger, and better than any era in the history of the game of tennis.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7291916&postcount=7

And another one:
Anyone who watches tennis knows the players have been getting faster, stronger, generally more skilled continually for as many years as we've been watching the game. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7293628&postcount=24

There isn't much you can do about this. These beliefs in the progress of everything just won’t go away. They are in the air as a kind of continuous bombardment, and some people absorb them very easily. And for those who do, watching old videos of great players would just confirm what they already believe.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
This is one problem, certainly. But even if there were more footage, I believe the perception would remain among many people of an inherent “superiority” of the moderns.

The underlying problem is a reductionist perception of sports where the skills/artistry factor is too tied in with other factors that evolve through time such as equipment and physical conditioning, especially equipment. The tendency is so strong that it affects people even in their assessment of works that are considered strictly “art”, such as music, painting etc. (even the most hideous architectural monstrosities of the 20th century are perceived as architectural progress with respect to the past). There seems to exist this tendency to believe that progress is a universal force imbuing every form of human activity and mental process. It may be some kind of journalistic illusion that is force-fed to us from all angles.
It’s mostly BS of course, but it seems unstoppable. There are even tons of people convinced that we now understand how the world came to be, how life originated, how existence is possible...just because we are so much more intelligent than our dumb ancestors. It’s a kind of generalized self-delusion.

The range of human skills to direct a tennis ball with a racquet cannot have changed form an evolution point of view in 100 or in 1000 years. Those skills are the same, and they are just adapted to the available equipment.

The old equipment allows a more immediate appreciation of skill by itself, if you are able to keep in mind certain limitations the equipment offered. From this, some enthusiasts of the old game derive the mislead conclusion that skill itself has actually decreased. But that's not true either.

On the other hand, the intoxication with the notion of progress on all fronts among some of the modern followers causes them to believe that not only equipment and (to a degree) physical conditioning have improved, but that skill itself never ceases to increase.

One poster writes today:
Athletics never go backward. Today's players are always bigger, faster, stronger, and better than any era in the history of the game of tennis.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7291916&postcount=7

And another one:
Anyone who watches tennis knows the players have been getting faster, stronger, generally more skilled continually for as many years as we've been watching the game. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7293628&postcount=24

There isn't much you can do about this. These beliefs in the progress of everything just won’t go away. They are in the air as a kind of continuous bombardment, and some people absorb them very easily. And for those who do, watching old videos of great players would just confirm what they already believe.

QFT.

Some people may believe also that today's highschool students are more intelligent than Newton, Einstein, Gauss or Von Neumann.

As my grandfather used to tell: the masses are stupid.
 
This is a great video of Rafa's road to his 7th FO crown last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeurmzFDtnA

Impressive, but among his titles there, I'd rank it his 6th best performance.

My ranking

1. 2008
2. 2006
3. 2007
4. 2005
5. 2010
6. 2012
7. 2011

It's unfair to old greats that people today have access to Youtube videos with great quality. It kinda sway people's perpective, giving the idea that today's generation of players are faster and more powerful. Technology does sometimes give a bias narrative.

2008 Rafa in FO is just....it's a memory I try to not to remember. Unplayable.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
This is one problem, certainly. But even if there were more footage, I believe the perception would remain among many people of an inherent “superiority” of the moderns.

The underlying problem is a reductionist perception of sports where the skills/artistry factor is too tied in with other factors that evolve through time such as equipment and physical conditioning, especially equipment. The tendency is so strong that it affects people even in their assessment of works that are considered strictly “art”, such as music, painting etc. (even the most hideous architectural monstrosities of the 20th century are perceived as architectural progress with respect to the past). There seems to exist this tendency to believe that progress is a universal force imbuing every form of human activity and mental process. It may be some kind of journalistic illusion that is force-fed to us from all angles.
It’s mostly BS of course, but it seems unstoppable. There are even tons of people convinced that we now understand how the world came to be, how life originated, how existence is possible...just because we are so much more intelligent than our dumb ancestors. It’s a kind of generalized self-delusion.

The range of human skills to direct a tennis ball with a racquet cannot have changed form an evolution point of view in 100 or in 1000 years. Those skills are the same, and they are just adapted to the available equipment.

The old equipment allows a more immediate appreciation of skill by itself, if you are able to keep in mind certain limitations the equipment offered. From this, some enthusiasts of the old game derive the mislead conclusion that skill itself has actually decreased. But that's not true either.

On the other hand, the intoxication with the notion of progress on all fronts among some of the modern followers causes them to believe that not only equipment and (to a degree) physical conditioning have improved, but that skill itself never ceases to increase.

One poster writes today:
Athletics never go backward. Today's players are always bigger, faster, stronger, and better than any era in the history of the game of tennis.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7291916&postcount=7

And another one:
Anyone who watches tennis knows the players have been getting faster, stronger, generally more skilled continually for as many years as we've been watching the game. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7293628&postcount=24

There isn't much you can do about this. These beliefs in the progress of everything just won’t go away. They are in the air as a kind of continuous bombardment, and some people absorb them very easily. And for those who do, watching old videos of great players would just confirm what they already believe.

Benhur, I agree totally. After having been bombarded by some Federer fanatics, it's a true refreshing change for me to read your intelligent post.

I have a friend who is a good tennis player (I'm a bad one). He assures me that with the modern racquets he can do now many skilled strokes which he was not able when he was younger but used a wooden racquet. Wood was a tough criterion for skills. Many younger fans never saw Nastase or Rosewall or even McEnroe playing with their extraorinary shots.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF; Are you an idiot? I never said that I don't watch tennis (or modern tennis)! How can you rank Federer first when not having seen enough of old tennis?

Funny how you have been whining about people insult/attacking you and now you prove yourself as a complete hypocrite. Fact is you claimed you only saw 10 matches of Fed, only a moron would say he knows about modern tennis and commentators/experts's opinion about tennis and Federer. Even ambk have have the pleasure to rip you to pieces for making a fool everytime for your ignorant.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You have said before that you have hardly ever seen Federer play.
You have also said you base Rosewall's ranking on your imagination.

No-one should take you seriously.

He actually said he only saw 10 matches of Federer. But he acts like he knows just as much as anyone who have been watching hundreds of Federer's matches over 10 years. So dense.
 

ARFED

Professional
ARFED, It's not a case of convenient or not. It's just a fact that Laver and Rosewall played mostly with wood racquets. Wood was used much longer than poly as you know. Wood shows who really is a genius. With poly one can easier show fine shots even when not being that skilled...

With wood not only Nadal would lose some of his strength but also GOAT Federer would lose some of his skills. So I think Nadal would again have the edge against Roger.

Bud Collins is often asked if Federer is the GOAT (he ranks him among the top five). He uses to answer: "He can't beat Nadal"...

Austrian expert, i`ve heard Bud Collins more than once saying that Fed is the greatest player of the Open era, so i think that he ranks him pretty high. And again you just showed that the first time you picked up a racqet was 2 weeks ago, when you throw some of them accidentally on the floor in a store.

Seroiusly Bobby, seriously???? Nadal would have the upper hand against Federer with a wood racquet???

You know that the truth is not in the books, it is out there. Go, play some tennis, feel the emotion, and then comeback and we can discuss.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Funny how you have been whining about people insult/attacking you and now you prove yourself as a complete hypocrite. Fact is you claimed you only saw 10 matches of Fed, only a moron would say he knows about modern tennis and commentators/experts's opinion about tennis and Federer. Even ambk have have the pleasure to rip you to pieces for making a fool everytime for your ignorant.

M. FEDERER; I don't think that any of the Federer armada can rip me to pieces, but rather abmk (who is intelligent) than you...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
He actually said he only saw 10 matches of Federer. But he acts like he knows just as much as anyone who have been watching hundreds of Federer's matches over 10 years. So dense.

And you have not even seen 10 Rosewall or Laver matches. Then how can you know that Federer is the GOAT???
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Austrian expert, i`ve heard Bud Collins more than once saying that Fed is the greatest player of the Open era, so i think that he ranks him pretty high. And again you just showed that the first time you picked up a racqet was 2 weeks ago, when you throw some of them accidentally on the floor in a store.

Seroiusly Bobby, seriously???? Nadal would have the upper hand against Federer with a wood racquet???

You know that the truth is not in the books, it is out there. Go, play some tennis, feel the emotion, and then comeback and we can discuss.[/QUOTE

Argentinian Federer, It is not a discussion between us. It's just hate against me!

I did write that Collins ranks Federer high (top 5).

I don't understand your silly joke...

Since Nadal usually beats Federer, why should he not been able to do the same when both are using wood racquets? Or have you misinterpreted me that only Nadal would use wood? It would be fitting for you, ignorant and hater.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Have you seen 10 Rosewall or Laver matches?

At least more than he has seen.

It was a response to TMF who blamed me for having seen only 10 Federer matches. Stay logical!

By the way, sometimes I believe I have seen too many Federer matches because I always have seen the same: the same game plan, a defensive backhand and a medium volley...
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame
Benhur, I agree totally. After having been bombarded by some Federer fanatics, it's a true refreshing change for me to read your intelligent post.

I have a friend who is a good tennis player (I'm a bad one). He assures me that with the modern racquets he can do now many skilled strokes which he was not able when he was younger but used a wooden racquet. Wood was a tough criterion for skills. Many younger fans never saw Nastase or Rosewall or even McEnroe playing with their extraorinary shots.

Yes, but you still seem to be under the impression that modern racquets allow players to win with less skills. That’s not the case unless you are playing someone with older equipment (and even then, if he is better than you, the difference in skills wouldn’t have to be very significant before it overcomes the equipment advantage). Innate skills at the very top have not decreased or increased; they are just molded and employed a bit differently from a tender age. The current top 20 growing up 60 years ago would still become high ranked players. The opposite would also be true, but maybe a little less -- not because of any progress in innate skills between then and now (an absurd notion), but simply because the pool from which tennis draws its players seems to be much larger today, so it’s reasonable to expect that the decrease in skill between number 1 and number 20 today might be less pronounced than 60 years ago. And even this is not certain.
 

ARFED

Professional
Yes, but you still seem to be under the impression that modern racquets allow players to win with less skills. That’s not the case unless you are playing someone with older equipment (and even then, if he is better than you, the difference in skills wouldn’t have to be very significant before it overcomes the equipment advantage). Innate skills at the very top have not decreased or increased; they are just molded and employed a bit differently from a tender age. The current top 20 growing up 60 years ago would still become high ranked players. The opposite would also be true, but maybe a little less -- not because of any progress in innate skills between then and now (an absurd notion), but simply because the pool from which tennis draws its players seems to be much larger today, so it’s reasonable to expect that the decrease in skill between number 1 and number 20 today might be less pronounced than 60 years ago. And even this is not certain.

Great post
 

The-Champ

Legend
This is one problem, certainly. But even if there were more footage, I believe the perception would remain among many people of an inherent “superiority” of the moderns.

The underlying problem is a reductionist perception of sports where the skills/artistry factor is too tied in with other factors that evolve through time such as equipment and physical conditioning, especially equipment. The tendency is so strong that it affects people even in their assessment of works that are considered strictly “art”, such as music, painting etc. (even the most hideous architectural monstrosities of the 20th century are perceived as architectural progress with respect to the past). There seems to exist this tendency to believe that progress is a universal force imbuing every form of human activity and mental process. It may be some kind of journalistic illusion that is force-fed to us from all angles.
It’s mostly BS of course, but it seems unstoppable. There are even tons of people convinced that we now understand how the world came to be, how life originated, how existence is possible...just because we are so much more intelligent than our dumb ancestors. It’s a kind of generalized self-delusion.

The range of human skills to direct a tennis ball with a racquet cannot have changed form an evolution point of view in 100 or in 1000 years. Those skills are the same, and they are just adapted to the available equipment.

The old equipment allows a more immediate appreciation of skill by itself, if you are able to keep in mind certain limitations the equipment offered. From this, some enthusiasts of the old game derive the mislead conclusion that skill itself has actually decreased. But that's not true either.

On the other hand, the intoxication with the notion of progress on all fronts among some of the modern followers causes them to believe that not only equipment and (to a degree) physical conditioning have improved, but that skill itself never ceases to increase.

One poster writes today:
Athletics never go backward. Today's players are always bigger, faster, stronger, and better than any era in the history of the game of tennis.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7291916&postcount=7

And another one:
Anyone who watches tennis knows the players have been getting faster, stronger, generally more skilled continually for as many years as we've been watching the game. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7293628&postcount=24

There isn't much you can do about this. These beliefs in the progress of everything just won’t go away. They are in the air as a kind of continuous bombardment, and some people absorb them very easily. And for those who do, watching old videos of great players would just confirm what they already believe.

Great post as usual Benhur.
And by this we can conclude that most members in this forum are "hypermodernists/supermodernists". It's a shallow world where contextuality does not exist.
 
Last edited:

ARFED

Professional
Austrian expert, i`ve heard Bud Collins more than once saying that Fed is the greatest player of the Open era, so i think that he ranks him pretty high. And again you just showed that the first time you picked up a racqet was 2 weeks ago, when you throw some of them accidentally on the floor in a store.

Seroiusly Bobby, seriously???? Nadal would have the upper hand against Federer with a wood racquet???

You know that the truth is not in the books, it is out there. Go, play some tennis, feel the emotion, and then comeback and we can discuss.[/QUOTE

Argentinian Federer, It is not a discussion between us. It's just hate against me!

I did write that Collins ranks Federer high (top 5).

I don't understand your silly joke...

Since Nadal usually beats Federer, why should he not been able to do the same when both are using wood racquets? Or have you misinterpreted me that only Nadal would use wood? It would be fitting for you, ignorant and hater.

I guess that you don`t have enough brain cells to have a reasonable argument. Your posts, while some of them funny (ridiculously funny, i might add), are increasingly boring by the minute. So, Austrian Expert, take care.
 

Feather

Legend
Yes, but you still seem to be under the impression that modern racquets allow players to win with less skills. That’s not the case unless you are playing someone with older equipment (and even then, if he is better than you, the difference in skills wouldn’t have to be very significant before it overcomes the equipment advantage). Innate skills at the very top have not decreased or increased; they are just molded and employed a bit differently from a tender age. The current top 20 growing up 60 years ago would still become high ranked players. The opposite would also be true, but maybe a little less -- not because of any progress in innate skills between then and now (an absurd notion), but simply because the pool from which tennis draws its players seems to be much larger today, so it’s reasonable to expect that the decrease in skill between number 1 and number 20 today might be less pronounced than 60 years ago. And even this is not certain.

Basically his agenda is modern players don't have skills and they are lucky to succeed with superior technology. He also thinks that in todays grinders era people should be able to win like those days after they cross 30.

Most of his posts are based on assumptions.

I would also like to add that the globalization of the sport will help to bring more talents from small nations. correct me if I am wrong, would we get a world number one from a small country like Serbia in the 60s?

Great Post BenHur
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
QFT.

Some people may believe also that today's highschool students are more intelligent than Newton, Einstein, Gauss or Von Neumann.

As my grandfather used to tell: the masses are stupid.

Agreed
Which questions democracy
Or is it a sweet that inteligent elites invented to entertain the masses and
keep their dominating position? That is the real question in current recessiom which is the greatest ever GROT
 

Feather

Legend
Agreed
Which questions democracy
Or is it a sweet that inteligent elites invented to entertain the masses and
keep their dominating position? That is the real question in current recessiom which is the greatest ever GROT

My view

I personally believe that to compare players across decades and say that one player is the GOAT is a disservice to all the legends of this glorious game as the players used different equipments, faced different opposition and also played on different conditions. It's impossible to make an objective statement and all the arguments go on subjectivity and personals biases and hatreds.

Even though I am a die hard fan of Roger Federer, I never called him GOAT. I simply don't believe in a GOAT. I am more than happy with the fact that Roger Federer is one of the greats to have played this game.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
In the case of Budge, he is one of only two men to have won the Grand Slam. I think that is some data to rank him in the Top 10 of a GOAT list (IMHO).

Budge is the creator of the Grand Slam. Before that, nobody had called winning the four slam a Grand Slam. If he had lost in the US, he wouldn't have lost the Grand Slam. It makes a big difference in term of pressure.

Beside, he won on the amateur tour. Vines, Nusslein, Old Tilden, Perry, the top players were not competing. His Grand Slam has no more value than Laver's amateur one, and Laver is not an all time great for it.

In an old post, someone (might be the "late" PC1) explained that Budge record wasn't that stellar. Kramer made a fantastic PR work though.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
While I think the comparison between Budge and Hoad is a good one, Safin doesn't belong in the same mix, because he did not have a few great years.
He won the US Open and the Australian, period, plus two Davis Cups.
This doesn't compare with Budge or Hoad, not even close. They both had great years, not just great tournaments.
Hoad played 120+ matches in 1958, and 150+ matches in 1959 with a 70% win ratio on the two championship tours of 1959.
Budge won professional tours head-to-head against Vines, Perry, and Riggs, plus classic Davis Cup matches against von Cramm, Bromwich, and Quist.

My point is that the myth around a player can be very disconnected from actual achievements. I agree that both Budge and Hoad have achieved far more than Safin. The "myth" around him is far more greater too.

Note that I make the hypothesis that the myth around them is disconnected from the reality. I'm not sure about it.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Budge is the creator of the Grand Slam. Before that, nobody had called winning the four slam a Grand Slam. If he had lost in the US, he wouldn't have lost the Grand Slam. It makes a big difference in term of pressure.

That's not true, the term Grand Slam was coined when Jack Crawford made the final of the US in 1933, having won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles that year. He couldn't quite complete the job, losing in 5 sets to Fred Perry when exhausted/suffering from some kind of illness. Therefore there will have been some pressure on Budge in the US final in 1938.

Budge, let's not forget, actually won nine consecutive major tournaments he participated in (six classic Grand Slams in a row from Wimbledon 1937 - still a record - then three pro majors in 1939/1940). He also defeated Von Cramm in what was then considered the greatest match of all time, in the Davis Cup (when that competition was still very important).

I do think his record qualifies him for all-time great status, maybe not quite GOAT, but lower end of the all-time top 10 (IMHO).
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
That's not true, the term Grand Slam was coined when Jack Crawford made the final of the US in 1933, having won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles that year. He couldn't quite complete the job, losing in 5 sets to Fred Perry when exhausted/suffering from some kind of illness. Therefore there will have been some pressure on Budge in the US final in 1938.

Budge, let's not forget, actually won nine consecutive major tournaments he participated in (six classic Grand Slams in a row from Wimbledon 1937 - still a record - then three pro majors in 1939/1940). He also defeated Von Cramm in what was then considered the greatest match of all time, in the Davis Cup (when that competition was still very important).

I do think his record qualifies him for all-time great status, maybe not quite GOAT, but lower end of the all-time top 10 (IMHO).

Thanks for the precision. I still think that the absence of the other best players is a big snag. A single match considered whatever isn't enough either. There has been so many greatest match of all time. And tennis is not about winning a single match anyway.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Thanks for the precision. I still think that the absence of the other best players is a big snag. A single match considered whatever isn't enough either. There has been so many greatest match of all time. And tennis is not about winning a single match anyway.

The point about the Von Cramm match was the least important of what I wrote, I was just pointing out he did legendary things in Davis Cup as well as at the majors.

It is fine if you don't consider Budge a true great but I think he has enough credentials to at least be a contender for all-time top ten.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Yes, but you still seem to be under the impression that modern racquets allow players to win with less skills. That’s not the case unless you are playing someone with older equipment (and even then, if he is better than you, the difference in skills wouldn’t have to be very significant before it overcomes the equipment advantage). Innate skills at the very top have not decreased or increased; they are just molded and employed a bit differently from a tender age. The current top 20 growing up 60 years ago would still become high ranked players. The opposite would also be true, but maybe a little less -- not because of any progress in innate skills between then and now (an absurd notion), but simply because the pool from which tennis draws its players seems to be much larger today, so it’s reasonable to expect that the decrease in skill between number 1 and number 20 today might be less pronounced than 60 years ago. And even this is not certain.

Benhur, I still believe that modern racquets allow a player to make more with the ball than wood did. Partly the racquet "plays for itself" even when the player is not very skilled...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I guess that you don`t have enough brain cells to have a reasonable argument. Your posts, while some of them funny (ridiculously funny, i might add), are increasingly boring by the minute. So, Austrian Expert, take care.

ARFED, I do take care because you are a dangerous man: You once threatened to me as you now do again...

I will not answer your obnoxious posts anymore. Good bye, Federer fanatic!

P.S.: I can take away your sorrow about my brain cells: My IQ was once measured at 130...
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Basically his agenda is modern players don't have skills and they are lucky to succeed with superior technology. He also thinks that in todays grinders era people should be able to win like those days after they cross 30.

Most of his posts are based on assumptions.

I would also like to add that the globalization of the sport will help to bring more talents from small nations. correct me if I am wrong, would we get a world number one from a small country like Serbia in the 60s?

Great Post BenHur

Federer fanatic: In the 1940s to 1960s a certain Pancho Segura came from Ecuador. A big country?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Budge is the creator of the Grand Slam. Before that, nobody had called winning the four slam a Grand Slam. If he had lost in the US, he wouldn't have lost the Grand Slam. It makes a big difference in term of pressure.

Beside, he won on the amateur tour. Vines, Nusslein, Old Tilden, Perry, the top players were not competing. His Grand Slam has no more value than Laver's amateur one, and Laver is not an all time great for it.

In an old post, someone (might be the "late" PC1) explained that Budge record wasn't that stellar. Kramer made a fantastic PR work though.

Flash, Laver not an all-time great for his 1962 GS? Very interesting aspect which I did not consider before...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
That's not true, the term Grand Slam was coined when Jack Crawford made the final of the US in 1933, having won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles that year. He couldn't quite complete the job, losing in 5 sets to Fred Perry when exhausted/suffering from some kind of illness. Therefore there will have been some pressure on Budge in the US final in 1938.

Budge, let's not forget, actually won nine consecutive major tournaments he participated in (six classic Grand Slams in a row from Wimbledon 1937 - still a record - then three pro majors in 1939/1940). He also defeated Von Cramm in what was then considered the greatest match of all time, in the Davis Cup (when that competition was still very important).

I do think his record qualifies him for all-time great status, maybe not quite GOAT, but lower end of the all-time top 10 (IMHO).

Phoenix: I agree!
 

Feather

Legend
Federer fanatic: In the 1940s to 1960s a certain Pancho Segura came from Ecuador. A big country?

I am NOT a Federer fanatic. Except for you, no one has called me a fanatic. I like Roger Federer but I like so many players. I have never said that Roger is a GOAT as I believe that it's an insult to all the legends of the game who played in different conditions.

The difference is, almost everyone calls you Federer hater..

Anyway, you are free to call me whatever you like :)
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I am NOT a Federer fanatic. Except for you, no one has called me a fanatic. I like Roger Federer but I like so many players. I have never said that Roger is a GOAT as I believe that it's an insult to all the legends of the game who played in different conditions.

The difference is, almost everyone calls you Federer hater..

Anyway, you are free to call me whatever you like :)

Okay, you are not a Federer fanatic. Then tell me why you and others insult me every time when I critisize a Federer weakness.

If almost everyone would call me a Federer hater, I would stop to write here. Fortunately there still are some fair posters even though the Federer admirers have already droven away that true gentleman pc1. Note: I mention him NOT only because he has defended me several times against unfair attacs.
 

Feather

Legend
Okay, you are not a Federer fanatic. Then tell me why you and others insult me every time when I critisize a Federer weakness.

If almost everyone would call me a Federer hater, I would stop to write here. Fortunately there still are some fair posters even though the Federer admirers have already droven away that true gentleman pc1. Note: I mention him NOT only because he has defended me several times against unfair attacs.

Show me one post of mine where I insulted you? just one post. I have never resorted to name calling. I have said that you are biased. That's not an insult. You show bias, so I pointed that
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Okay, you are not a Federer fanatic. Then tell me why you and others insult me every time when I critisize a Federer weakness.

If almost everyone would call me a Federer hater, I would stop to write here. Fortunately there still are some fair posters even though the Federer admirers have already droven away that true gentleman pc1. Note: I mention him NOT only because he has defended me several times against unfair attacs.

its because you point out non-existent weaknesses ( like lack of touch ) and exaggerate his "weaknesses"

I myself have said federer can be defensive with his BH/returning , his volleys can be sloppy at times and that he can be stubborn with his strategy at times ....

but if you say he can't volley or his BH doesn't work vs any top player (in a baseline-dominated era ) and can't change strategies at all ( when he's done that many times ) ...... reasonable people who've seen much much more of federer than you have are bound to criticize you ...(krosero himself has very politely pointed out the tons of flaws in your arguments)
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
its because you point out non-existent weaknesses ( like lack of touch ) and exaggerate his "weaknesses"

I myself have said federer can be defensive with his BH/returning , his volleys can be sloppy at times and that he can be stubborn with his strategy at times ....

but if you say he can't volley or his BH doesn't work vs any top player (in a baseline-dominated era ) and can't change strategies at all ( when he's done that many times ) ...... reasonable people who've seen much much more of federer than you have are bound to criticize you ...(krosero himself has very politely pointed out the tons of flaws in your arguments)

Aggressive abmk, When did I say that Federer can't volley?????????????
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Santana
15. Bruguera
16. Pietrangeli
17. Courier
18. Muster
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Emerson
23. Nastase
25. Trabert
26. Orantes
27. Panatta
28. Agassi
29. Connors
30. Nusslein
31. Tilden
32. Gimeno
33. Frank Parker
34. Roche
35. Sven Davidson
36. Jack Crawford
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Segura


(Latest version, as of 10-23-12.)
Here's a good list.
 

timnz

Legend
Where is Koželuh?

Here's a good list.

Koželuh was a six-time winner of the Bristol Cup (Menton, France), which was the most prestigious professional title in the world in the 1920s. He also won the World Pro tournament in Deauville, France, in 1925. Another major title for Koželuh was the French Professional Championship of 1930. He also won the US Pro on clay in 1932 and 1937.

Now all the titles mentioned above were on clay. One could argue that Koželuh was the best clay court player in the world from 1925 to 1932 at least. (It is possible that the French Amateurs were better - but I am not so sure of that - I think the evidence of Henri Cochet's lack of success amongst the Pro's suggests that Koželuh was stronger). He certainly was the best pro on that surface in that period.

I kind of always put Koželuh on the same rung as Nusslein...in the early 30's Nusslein, who was much younger than Koželuh - swapped titles.
 
Top