^ Maybe I'm being too generous but I wouldn't call Santoro a journeyman.
What's the definition of a journeyman?
Someone who is good enough to make the tour and have a long career, but not get to the second week of slams typically.
well Santoro's only better results in slams than a 4th round is the 2006 AO. His record is also just on the average mark, barely positive. Journeyman to me.
Problem is, there's no set definition when it comes to tennis journeyman. Not everyone agrees, so the discussion is stilted to start with.
To me, a journeyman is someone who has done well enough actually make a living playing tennis, but has never really "broken through" consistently. But, then what does "broken through" mean? A good Slam run, a ranking good enough to gain auto entry into many (even if not all) tournaments, a tournament win (even if a small one). But, even then, if a player achieves one of these things on one occasion and then goes away, I think he's still a journeyman.
Donald Young had a little run where me made USO fourth round, made some 250 and 500 semis and finals, got to 40ish in the rankings. But, he then lost all of his points and is now playing qualifers and challengers. If he does this for the majority of he rest of his career, I'd call him a journeyman. If he somehow gets back to the Top 40 and has those results again and maintains them for a while, then maybe not.
The thing is, tennis commentators use "journeyman" very generally - basically, anyone who has been around along time, but never did anything "big" (again, we can debate what "big" means). So, it's applied to a wide range of players. I've even heard it applied to players who clearly achieved non-journeyman results, but then stuck around and results dwindled. Thus, I've heard reference to the "journeyman phase of his/her career."
Right now, I think of Tim Smyczek as a true journeyman.
The #1 player in the world just lost to someone who has AT TIMES been described as a 'journeyman" (Tommy Haas)
Congrats on being a fan of Tommy Haas..I am too....My point was how ridiculous that word "journeyman" is for any top 100 pro.I've never heard anyone call him that, & I've followed his entire career.
paul goldstein spent most of his career ranked 70-100(& I think won more challengers than anyone)
If he wasn't a journeyman, I don't know who was.
Congrats on being a fan of Tommy Haas..I am too....My point was how ridiculous that word "journeyman" is for any top 100 pro.
here is an article that refers to Haas as a higher level journeyman
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...nspiring-story-from-roger-federers-generation
Wouldn' t it be Ferrer the paradigma of journeymanship?
Has journeyman David ever won a Masters 1000 or Supernine event?
In Golden Tennis we use to categhorize guys like Higueras ir Barazutti is upper class journeys and none of them got further number 10
Well now the longtime ago number 4 is the place where journeymanship status starts. ...which speakes uncredible volume about that era
Wait!!! I just don' t remember who was number 5 during peak Fed era...Philippoussis? Bagdhatis? BLAKE!!!!?
How glorious!!!
ferrer >>> higueras/barazzutti ........... and they didn't call higueras/barazutti as journeymen either. only in your world .........
ramirez was #4 in 76, gene mayer in 80, gilbert in 90, forget in 91, rusdeski , bjorkman in 97, enqvist in 99, kiefer in 2000
dibbs was #5 in 78, solomon in 80, arias in 84, jarryd in 85
yeah, so much for the so called 'golden era'
...and Raul defeated Borg 6-0 6-1 at Teheram and Connors at DC
Wake when Ferrer trashes Nadal and Fed like that
Federer and Nadal are better players than Borg and Connors .
Were Borg and Connor's peaking at the time? Ferrer has wins over Nadal, never beaten Federer though.
Both look better because of week era
In important finals has Ferrer beaten Nadal?
Or maybe its a strong era and the top guys are just that good...
Ferrer at 4 is just the perfect definition of this era
Ferrer at 4 is just the perfect definition of this era
You can take any player during Laver's time and they wouldn't be #4 today. :twisted:
No, they´d be number one or number two.
Any player from Laver's era would be number one or two? :?
Laver himself would be if he was at his peak.
What about Brad Gilbert, Fabrice Santoro and Vincent Spadea?
No, I´d pick Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Ashe, maybe Roche, a healthy Hoad and a younger Gonzales.
Emerson,Kodes,Smith,Okker,Stolle,Gimeno and Santana would be very competitive but not number 1 or 2.
You dare whispering the names of Ramirez andFerrer?
Woow I am stunned
Gene Mayer beat iN THE SAME WEEK both Mac and Borg and also beat Lendl and Connors
Not even in your Disney planet may Ferrer dream doing that
read : kiki is clueless .......
ferrer > ramirez ...
reality ..reality ...
ferrer beat nadal, djokovic, roddick in the same week in Masters 2007
he also beat djokovic and murray in the same week in Masters 2011
ferrer has beaten nadal, djokovic, murray all multiple times
you are total clueless .......
I know it breaks you down so much enthusiasm around an era you just don´t have a remote clue about...sorry, learn to live with that.
Comparing big talented Ramirez and Mayer to moonballing icon Ferrer is the jokes of ages...
lol, face it , you just don't know the facts/reality ........ ferrer > ramirez, mayer ... no question ..
its just like when you say borg-vilas at RG was more interesting than nadal-djoker AO 2012 when in reality it was far more boring ....
I have plenty of clue about the 70s and give the players of that time their due just as I do for the modern era ...
you just have no idea of the reality and live in the past , of which you have a totally myopic view ....
Your only clue about past players are the books and internet wiki...
I could easily describe some of the matches I've seen in that era , including :
borg-mac 1980 wimbledon final
borg-vilas 1978 RG final
orantes-connors 1975 USO final
borg-gerulaitis 1977 wimbledon semi
connors-mac 1984 USO semi
etc etc etc ....
this is only until 85 btw ...have seen far more of the matches after that ....
I think the 1984 semi b/w mac/connors was the finest match at the USO in the open era ....
how about you describe some of the matches in the modern era - apart from federer-nadal or federer-safin ....
lets see you having a go at that , shall we ? :lol: