Tennis Channel:Paul Goldstein GOAT jorneyman

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
Looking at his record, he had some impressive wins, including Rafter and even Djokovic at the Australian. Good guy, too!
 
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.
 

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
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.

Yeah but Santoro had a number of wins against quality competition. giant killer frustrating the heck out of most players. Like losing to a tennis coach.
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
"Journeyman" has to be one of the stupidest adjectives of all time used liberally by the broadcasting McEnroe's in the 90's until someone probably told them how ridiculous they sound.. .It implies that a professional tennis player consistently ranked between#30-60 is somehow a "second rate" player.. The #30+ best players in basketball, baseball and football make MILLIONS and are never called journeyman..
 

NLBwell

Legend
A journeyman is someone who has completed an apprenticeship and is fully educated in a trade or craft, but not yet a master. To become a master, a journeyman has to submit a master work piece to a guild for evaluation and be admitted to the guild as a master. (Wikipedia)

jour·ney·man [jur-nee-muhn] Show IPA
noun, plural jour·ney·men.
1.
a person who has served an apprenticeship at a trade or handicraft and is certified to work at it assisting or under another person.
2.
any experienced, competent but routine worker or performer.
3.
a person hired to do work for another, usually for a day at a time.
(dictionary.com)
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I would say if you have ever made a Grand Slam quarter-final, you are not a journeyman.

I hadn't realised Santoro only ever made one, but nevertheless, that still means he is no journeyman.

Mind you, Paradorn Srichaphan never made a slam quarter-final and I'm not sure I'd call him a journeyman either...
 

big ted

Legend
journeyman would probably have a match record of less than .500 with no tournament titles so that would exclude srichaphan, santoro, and definitely gilbert. even vince spadea may not even be considered a journeyman, he won one title and made $5M in prize money
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
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.
 
Last edited:

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
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.

That's true, those guys are journeymen, I'd also throw in Michael Russell and tons of others. But this thread was on the BEST of the journeymen.
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
The #1 player in the world just lost to someone who has AT TIMES been described as a 'journeyman" (Tommy Haas)
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
The #1 player in the world just lost to someone who has AT TIMES been described as a 'journeyman" (Tommy Haas)

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.
 

comeback

Hall of Fame
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
 

NLBwell

Legend
Pretty silly of them to call someone who was #2 in the world a "jouneyman." So only if you were #1 in the world would you be better than a journeyman?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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

nah, I think it refers that he has had to struggle like a journeyman many times .... but that he always had much more talent than a journeyman ..

to call haas a journeyman would be ridiculous.

P.S. Bleacherreport is mainly a blogspace and I've seen many ridiculous comments there ...
 

kiki

Banned
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!!!
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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'
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
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'

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
 

kiki

Banned
...and Raul defeated Borg 6-0 6-1 at Teheram and Connors at DC
Wake when Ferrer trashes Nadal and Fed like that
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
...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.
 

kiki

Banned
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?
 

kiki

Banned
I keept seeing how amazed are young fans when they discover a wonderful world they didn' t know to exist at all, that of XX century tennis
Their willingness to learn will make them enjoy real tennis and, learn the contrast with current, boring, monostyle era
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Ferrer at 4 is just the perfect definition of this era

He's only #4 because Nadal has been injured. There are 35 Grand slams combined between Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, 36 if you include Del Potro. Not many era's can post those sort of numbers.
 

kiki

Banned
Any player from Laver's era would be number one or two? :?

Laver himself would be if he was at his peak.

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.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
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.

No.

Djokovic would be ahead of most of those guys even at his reduced level. Gonzales, peak Hoad, Rosewall yes maybe they could be ahead of him. 2011 Djokovic on these courts would probably be ahead of them all.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You dare whispering the names of Ramirez andFerrer?
Woow I am stunned

read : kiki is clueless .......

ferrer > ramirez ...

reality ..reality ...


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


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 .......
 

kiki

Banned
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...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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 ....
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
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...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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:
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
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:

The only matches I didn´t sleep at where the middle 2000´s Wimbledon finals between Nadal and Fed.Great matches, both, 2007 and 2008.I also watched their many FO finals, but it was a blast, still some nice points whatsoever.

Djokovic is too sleepish for me.Murray, a bit nicer to watch but that´s it.and I also watched the 2009 Flushing final, with Del Potro beating Federer.great play from del potro.Reminded me when Safin beat sampras at 2000 USO final.

If we go to the beginning of the century, i certainly watched Costa beating Ferrero at Rg, ferrero beating Verkerk, Guga winning his 2 RG, and Ivanisveic surprising win at Wimbledon 2001.Oh¡ and that great Sampras showdown at the USO 2002.

I watched live or tv other events like Miami,Barcelona,Madrid,Rome,Montecarlo,London´s YEC,Hamburg, and some DC finals, too.
 
Top