Help me compare across eras!

mightyrick said:

And this was my point. Emerson is frequently underrated by many people. Emerson has unbelievable H2H against these players.

Unfortunately for him, he decided to not go pro until a little later. I'm sure he was probably given incentive (paid under the table) to not go pro. Because he was clearly good enough to go pro in '64.

Click to expand...

jg153040 said:

Thanks this is something I was looking for yes. But this is probably Year end rankings. It can be tricky sometimes. Can you tell me total weeks being number one for those players. Because 5 years ending number one could mean that you are nr.1 just total 5 weeks in theory. So I don't think it is fair.
If you can give me total weeks for those players that would help me a lot.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Sure, I agree with what you're saying completely. You've put a strawman out there for critique, I think it is a valid start for sure.

So, I think the first thing to do would be to look at the results of the model and determine "how close" the results come to what we think is reality. For example, Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall did not come up at all. While we all may disagree on where Laver/Rosewall fall on the Top-10 list... we all can agree that they should at least appear on the list, correct? Even in the Open Era they should appear.

So now we either need to add another variable to the model which would show these results... or modify the existing coefficients (weights) on the current variables to make that happen. The question is... if we add a new variable... what is it? And what coefficient do we apply to that variable... and why?

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Ok, so now you've narrowed to a more accurate representation. Number of tour points. Using points, it will bring you closer to what you are looking for. Just change the assertion a little bit.

You could start with : The player with the most tour points won is the best player.

Obviously, past era players are at a disadvantage with that model... so you might use something like... "The player with the highest percentage share of tour points won over their career is the best player." It seems to me that all of this weighting of venues is already done by the ATP. So there is no reason to recreate it.

This data might be a bit more difficult to pull together, though.

I think a more solid metric would be something like: the best players are those with the most years holding a number one ranking at some point in the year. For those with a tie, you could use total weeks at number one as a tiebreaker.

After doing some looking, that list actually looks much more solid.

Click to expand...

jg153040 said:

True that is why I use slams won + total weeks nr.1.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

That list isn't year end number one. It is the number of years that a player has reached number one at any point in the year.

Even if a player was only number one for five weeks, they still have to win enough tournament points to achieve that ranking. This ordinarily takes a player months to do. It actually is a very good metric across eras.

The point system has changed a few times over the decades. But across eras, to achieve number one, you always have to win the aggregate of the most important tournaments.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

This seems to be an overloaded metric to me. Double-counting. Especially in the modern era of ATP rankings where players defend points. If you win the big tournaments consistently, you will be number one and you will consistently be number one. Because you will have enough points (and a large enough point margin) to do so.

Click to expand...

Mustard said:

My best player of the year in bold. Players not in bold are the best in the other pro/am code (pre-open era).

My Best players per year (pre-open era)
1877: Spencer Gore (amateur)
1878: Frank Hadow (amateur)
1879: John Hartley (amateur)
1880: John Hartley (amateur)
1881: William Renshaw (amateur)
1882: William Renshaw (amateur)
1883: William Renshaw (amateur)
1884: William Renshaw (amateur)
1885: William Renshaw (amateur)
1886: William Renshaw (amateur)
1887: Herbert Lawford (amateur)
1888: Ernest Renshaw (amateur)
1889: William Renshaw (amateur)
1890: Willoughby Hamilton (amateur)
1891: Wilfred Baddeley (amateur)
1892: Wilfred Baddeley (amateur)
1893: Joshua Pim (amateur)
1894: Joshua Pim (amateur)
1895: Joshua Pim (amateur)
1896: Harold Mahony (amateur)
1897: Reggie Doherty (amateur)
1898: Reggie Doherty (amateur)
1899: Reggie Doherty (amateur)
1900: Reggie Doherty (amateur)
1901: Arthur Gore (amateur)
1902: Laurie Doherty (amateur)
1903: Laurie Doherty (amateur)
1904: Laurie Doherty (amateur)
1905: Laurie Doherty (amateur)
1906: Laurie Doherty (amateur)
1907: Norman Brookes (amateur)
1908: William Larned (amateur)
1909: William Larned (amateur)
1910: Tony Wilding (amateur)
1911: Tony Wilding (amateur)
1912: Tony Wilding (amateur)
1913: Tony Wilding (amateur)
1914: Tony Wilding (amateur)
1915: Bill Johnston (amateur)
1916: Richard Norris Williams (amateur)
1917: Lindley Murray (amateur)
1918: Lindley Murray (amateur)
1919: Bill Johnston (amateur)
1920: Bill Tilden (amateur), Romeo Acquarone (professional)
1921: Bill Tilden (amateur), John CS Rendall (professional)
1922: Bill Tilden (amateur), John CS Rendall (professional)
1923: Bill Tilden (amateur), John CS Rendall (professional)
1924: Bill Tilden (amateur), Albert Burke (professional)
1925: Bill Tilden (amateur), Karel Kozeluh (professional)
1926: Rene Lacoste (amateur), Karel Kozeluh (professional)
1927: Rene Lacoste (amateur), Vinny Richards (professional)
1928: Henri Cochet (amateur), Vinny Richards (professional)
1929: Henri Cochet (amateur), Karel Kozeluh (professional)
1930: Henri Cochet (amateur), Karel Kozeluh (professional)
1931: Bill Tilden (professional), Ellsworth Vines (amateur)
1932: Ellsworth Vines (amateur), Bill Tilden (professional)
1933: Jack Crawford (amateur), Bill Tilden (professional)
1934: Ellsworth Vines (professional), Fred Perry (amateur)
1935: Ellsworth Vines (professional), Fred Perry (amateur)
1936: Ellsworth Vines (professional), Fred Perry (amateur)
1937: Ellsworth Vines (professional), Don Budge (amateur)
1938: Ellsworth Vines (professional), Don Budge (amateur)
1939: Don Budge (professional), Bobby Riggs (amateur)
1940: Don Budge (professional), Don McNeill (amateur)
1941: Fred Perry (professional), Bobby Riggs (amateur)
1942: Don Budge (professional), Ted Schroeder (amateur)
1943: Joseph Hunt (amateur), ??? (professional)
1944: Bobby Riggs (professional), Frank Parker (amateur)
1945: Bobby Riggs (professional), Frank Parker (amateur)
1946: Bobby Riggs (professional), Jack Kramer (amateur)
1947: Bobby Riggs (professional), Jack Kramer (amateur)
1948: Jack Kramer (professional), John Bromwich (amateur)
1949: Jack Kramer (professional), Pancho Gonzales (amateur)
1950: Jack Kramer (professional), Budge Patty (amateur)
1951: Jack Kramer (professional), Frank Sedgman (amateur)
1952: Pancho Segura (professional), Frank Sedgman (amateur)
1953: Jack Kramer (professional), Tony Trabert (amateur)
1954: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Jaroslav Drobny (amateur)
1955: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Tony Trabert (amateur)
1956: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Lew Hoad (amateur)
1957: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Lew Hoad (amateur)
1958: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Ashley Cooper (amateur)
1959: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Alex Olmedo (amateur)
1960: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Neale Fraser (amateur)
1961: Pancho Gonzales (professional), Roy Emerson (amateur)
1962: Ken Rosewall (professional), Rod Laver (amateur)
1963: Ken Rosewall (professional), Roy Emerson (amateur)
1964: Rod Laver (professional), Roy Emerson (amateur)
1965: Rod Laver (professional), Roy Emerson (amateur)
1966: Rod Laver (professional), Fred Stolle (amateur)
1967: Rod Laver (professional), John Newcombe (amateur)

My best players per year (open era)
1968: Rod Laver (professional)
1969: Rod Laver (professional)
1970: Rod Laver (professional)
1971: John Newcombe (professional)
1972: Stan Smith (amateur/professional) - turned professional in July 1972
1973: Ilie Nastase (professional)
1974: Jimmy Connors (professional)
1975: Arthur Ashe (professional)
1976: Jimmy Connors (professional)
1977: Guillermo Vilas (professional)
1978: Bjorn Borg (professional)
1979: Bjorn Borg (professional)
1980: Bjorn Borg (professional)
1981: John McEnroe (professional)
1982: Jimmy Connors (professional)
1983: John McEnroe (professional)
1984: John McEnroe (professional)
1985: Ivan Lendl (professional)
1986: Ivan Lendl (professional)
1987: Ivan Lendl (professional)
1988: Mats Wilander (professional)
1989: Boris Becker (professional)
1990: Stefan Edberg (professional)
1991: Stefan Edberg (professional)
1992: Jim Courier (professional)
1993: Pete Sampras (professional)
1994: Pete Sampras (professional)
1995: Pete Sampras (professional)
1996: Pete Sampras (professional)
1997: Pete Sampras (professional)
1998: Pete Sampras (professional)
1999: Andre Agassi (professional)
2000: Gustavo Kuerten (professional)
2001: Lleyton Hewitt (professional)
2002: Lleyton Hewitt (professional)
2003: Andy Roddick (professional)
2004: Roger Federer (professional)
2005: Roger Federer (professional)
2006: Roger Federer (professional)
2007: Roger Federer (professional)
2008: Rafael Nadal (professional)
2009: Roger Federer (professional)
2010: Rafael Nadal (professional)
2011: Novak Djokovic (professional)
2012: Novak Djokovic (professional)

Click to expand...

jg153040 said:

mattennis about the homogenization. I don't think it matters.

.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Are you sure about this list? If all you are referring to is being ranked number one at any time during a given year, than you are pretty far off for Federer. I have eight years total for him (2004-2010, 2012).

Fed's periods of being number one:

Feb. 2, 2004 - Aug. 17, 2008
July 6, 2009 - June 6, 2010
July 9, 2012 - Nov. 4, 2012

Click to expand...

mattennis said:

Well, as I said, it doesn't matter when you compare Federer to Nadal, or Nadal to Djokovic, because all them benefited greatly of the homogeneization of conditions, of the unique baseline game, of the 32 seeds at GS tournaments, etc

But of course it is unfair to top players from other eras where they hadn't 32 seeds at GS tournaments, they hadn't the luxury of being able to play the same style all year long and still win because anyone else also plays this style all year long and courts allow it, etc

It is not only me. Many players (Berdych, Tipsarevic, Federer....) have said conditions today (meaning mainly speed) are more or less the same everywhere (except for the differences in movement on grass, clay and hard).

Federer has said more than once that it was totally different in the 90s, and the fact that today all the courts+balls are similar and slower plus 32 seeds and the end of surface specialists, makes it way easier for current top players to always make the finals rounds of all GS tournaments, that in the 90s a red-hot hard hitter in a godly day (and there were many of those) could defeat anyone on a fast court, but today that is almost impossible given the conditions.

So at least Federer is honest and brave enough to acknowledge all this even if it means he (and other top players from current era) wouldn't probably have those achievements/streaks in previous eras conditions.

That is one of the things I love about Roger. He is honest.

For example, I am sure Sampras would have never acknowledged these obvious things had he been in Federer's place.

Also, I think Nadal will never admit this. Nadal will never say he has benefited A LOT from the changes in the game in the last 10 years and that probably he would have had a different career (still successful, sure, but not like currently) had he been born in the 90s or the 80s.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Now seeing it for the first time, I'm actually rather drawn to this approach for greatness just using the "best player of the year" for the most years.

It removes all of these nuances around the weight of the Grand Slam, weak vs. strong era, three majors in a year, most majors won, consecutive weeks at #1, Pro/Open-Era, single or double prime, H2H... et cetera.

It makes an interesting simple statement. The best players of all time are the players who were the "best of year" for the most numbers of years in their era.

And then let the individual tennis records stand on their own.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Now seeing it for the first time, I'm actually rather drawn to this approach for greatness just using the "best player of the year" for the most years.

It removes all of these nuances around the weight of the Grand Slam, weak vs. strong era, three majors in a year, most majors won, consecutive weeks at #1, Pro/Open-Era, single or double prime, H2H... et cetera.

It makes an interesting simple statement. The best players of all time are the players who were the "best of year" for the most numbers of years in their era.

And then let the individual tennis records stand on their own.

Click to expand...

mattennis said:

This is how it is in other sports (Formula One, Rallying, Motorcycling...). The one with more "Championships" (more year-champion) is seen as the greatest.

But again, for me, it is unfair to compare players from different eras. It is good to know those achievements, that Tilden was considered the best of the world for 7-10 years, that Gonzales was considered the best of the world for about 7 years,....but I am not going to think that those two were "greater/better" than Federer just because Federer was the best of the year "only" five times. They all are great and I refuse to rank them (great players from different eras) in any form.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Fair enough, I agree. We don't have to rank them. Personally, I can live with that. I think I'm more interested in the correct players in all eras getting their due and proper respect... and being put in the proper "bucket" or "tier".

Federer deserves respect. But so does Laver. So does Gonzales. So does Sampras. Tilden and Budge absolutely. Borg? Yeah probably... but definitely under these guys.

Nadal? He isn't there. We can respect him for his unbelievable mastery of slow surfaces... but in his own era... he wasn't the best of the game in enough years. Maybe he will get a few more, I don't know.

I'm sure we can always continue to argue about how to rank within that top tier... but that is probably a fairly pointless exercise. As you pointed out... how do you compare accomplishments across era given the unbelievable amount of changes in schedules, ranking systems, rules, technology, venues, and surfaces. It can't be done objectively.

Good stuff.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Fair enough, I agree. We don't have to rank them. Personally, I can live with that. I think I'm more interested in the correct players in all eras getting their due and proper respect... and being put in the proper "bucket" or "tier".

Federer deserves respect. But so does Laver. So does Gonzales. So does Sampras. Tilden and Budge absolutely. Borg? Yeah probably... but definitely under these guys.

Nadal? He isn't there. We can respect him for his unbelievable mastery of slow surfaces... but in his own era... he wasn't the best of the game in enough years. Maybe he will get a few more, I don't know.

I'm sure we can always continue to argue about how to rank within that top tier... but that is probably a fairly pointless exercise. As you pointed out... how do you compare accomplishments across era given the unbelievable amount of changes in schedules, ranking systems, rules, technology, venues, and surfaces. It can't be done objectively.

Good stuff.

Click to expand...

Mustard said:

I've heard some people say that Nadal doesn't have to change his game when he goes onto grass. I'm left scratching my head at such a statement, how they've somehow missed that Nadal focuses more on his serve, stands on the baseline instead of way behind it, puts more emphasis on volleys etc.

The people who say that there's no variety seem to be struggling to accept that serve and volley is now extremely rare on tour, but the reality is that there are still differences in styles and tactics in regards to the baseline play.

Click to expand...

jg153040 said:

I don't know about pro majors. That is why I'm asking here if you guys have any ideas to translate them into this system. And how many weeks was Laver nr.1?
Or other older greats. I didn't see them play that is why I'm asking here.

Slam finals and tournaments won are all reflected in weeks being nr.1.
The more you have, more time you will have spent being nr.1.

So 13 weeks being nr.1 = 1 slam won.

Click to expand...

boredone3456 said:

Like I said in my opinion your system is way to simplistic and arbitrary. You give 3 different point categories for majors then say everything else factors into weeks at #1 and say that covers it all. That is way to simple...greatness is not that easy sorry. No one calls Court the GOAT and she has more slams than anyone...that alone should tell you something. Your system is insanely biased towards major victories in my opinion.

As for putting past greats into this system it is virtually impossible as there was no computer rankings and it would force you to recognize tournaments that are not majors...which you seem totally unwilling to do.

Like I said..valiant effort...but way to simple.to be of any real use.

Click to expand...

mattennis said:

Well, as I said, it doesn't matter when you compare Federer to Nadal, or Nadal to Djokovic, because all them benefited greatly of the homogeneization of conditions, of the unique baseline game, of the 32 seeds at GS tournaments, etc



But of course it is unfair to top players from other eras where they hadn't 32 seeds at GS tournaments, they hadn't the luxury of being able to play the same style all year long and still win because anyone else also plays this style all year long and courts allow it, etc
.

Click to expand...

mattennis said:

It is not only me. Many players (Berdych, Tipsarevic, Federer....) have said conditions today (meaning mainly speed) are more or less the same everywhere (except for the differences in movement on grass, clay and hard).

Federer has said more than once that it was totally different in the 90s, and the fact that today all the courts+balls are similar and slower plus 32 seeds and the end of surface specialists, makes it way easier for current top players to always make the finals rounds of all GS tournaments, that in the 90s a red-hot hard hitter in a godly day (and there were many of those) could defeat anyone on a fast court, but today that is almost impossible given the conditions.

So at least Federer is honest and brave enough to acknowledge all this even if it means he (and other top players from current era) wouldn't probably have those achievements/streaks in previous eras conditions.

.

Click to expand...

World Beater said:

Tennis is a zero sum game for all the competitors.

If the surfaces play more similarly, there are more potential competitors at every slam. The contending pool increases, which makes it tougher to win slams when you dont have specialists who thrive on extreme conditions.

On grass in the 90s, the contenders were VERY different to the contenders on clay.

Today, everyone is a factor everywhere. Players like berdych, tsonga, del potro find it close to impossible to break through the first tier of players - fed, nadal, djok, murr because they are factors at every slam and the second tier of players has to beat them in succession.

If you are in the third tier, forget about it... no more malivai washingtons, piolines, voltchkovs that took advantage of smaller pool of competitors on grass in the 90s.

You are going to have beat del potro/tsonga/ferrer/soderling and then the first tier from the qf onwards.



off the top of my head...

Nadal has been beaten by gonzales, tsonga, del potro, soderling, ferrer, youzhny. He also survived scares from petschner, haase, youzhny, kendrick on grass. Those matches could have gone either way...

Djokovic was beaten by kohlscheriber, tsonga, berdych. roddick..survived tipsarevic, seppi, wawrinka..

Give me an example of a player in the 90s who had a red-hot day and took out a player of comparable calibre to the top 4 today (i.e. a flash in the pan player?)

Sampras was beaten by krajicek, but he is of the calibre of tsonga, del potro etc. Im sure good players have beaten by other good players. But not many shocking upsets of someone of the calibre of djokvoic, nadal, federer..

Of course in the 90s, the only player i consider of that calibre is Pete Sampras.

Also, keep in mind that because the competition is intense throughout the calendar year - nadal, djok, fed, murray are all contesting finals in every other tournament on a regular basis - they are all burned by the end of the year. Their careers are likely to be much more physically challending than their predecessors, which makes longevity much more difficult.

i wouldnt call it a "luxury".

Click to expand...

jg153040 said:

I made a system how to convert greatness to numberss. For more details see my post : The Greatness Formula in the Current Pro players forum.

It is like this:
13 weeks nr.1 = 1 slam point
1 major = 1 slam point
Career slam = 1 slam point
Calendar Grand Slam = 2 slam points
.

Click to expand...

World Beater said:

People just have this notion that there is one style to play on grass and that it is diametrically opposite from how one should play on clay. This is wrong....

Click to expand...

hoodjem said:

So, do I understand you correctly that a Grand Slam would add up to six points: 2+1+1+1+1=6.?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Mustard, I believe that Emerson, just like Cooper and Olmedo, would not have improved much if turning pro earlier. He just did not have the potential of being a great player.

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

I think that you mean that Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo and others did not have great success on the pro tour, not that they didn't improve much.

Cooper claimed that the big difference between amateur and pro play was that in the pros, you had to be psychologically prepared to play a tough match every day, unlike the amateur tournaments (or the open tournaments today) where the early rounds were easier.

Emerson and Santana made more money in the mid-1960's than Laver and Rosewall were making as pros.
As Rosewall stated, "things were getting out of hand".
That is why they could not turn pro.

Emerson spent his greatest years as an amateur, so it is difficult to rate him against Laver or Rosewall at that time. Emerson seems to have had some great wins against Laver before Laver left the amateur circuit, such as the U.S. final in 1961, although Laver claimed that Emmo had the advantage of playing Osuna in the semi's to lift his game, while Laver had no real challenge before the final.

Click to expand...

urban said:

Yes, one should respect the history players, research their full results (which is a difficult task for itself) and try to put them into context. To compare them, is fun and nice, but don't await a fully comprehensive result. We see history with the glasses of today, and we measure the players under the modern schedule and scoring system. On the old pro tour for instance, no players was aware to play a major, when competing at Wembley or US pro. They knew, that it was for them an important title, but there was in now way a fix schedule with a pretold points system as it is today.
What to you do with pioneers as the Dohertys or Wilding? They were certainly more dominant in pure results than any other in history, but how to measure them? You have no footage, and you have only contemporary prose- good lively prose for that matter, but how to measure the standard of play? Take Lottie Dod, maybe the most versatile of all womens champions. She was an Olympic winner in bow arching, the best climber of her day ,and a multiple Wim champion. Can you imagine a Serena or Sharapova as Olympic champ in a different disciplin? Maybe Serena in bicycle racing.
I always think, that, what ultimately tells, is memory. Its more than pure results. Its about simple and easy to behold records like the Grand Slam or about lasting impressions, relying on playing style, personality and innovations, about the impact a player had on the history of the game. Tilden built the memory factor to mythical proportions, because he played and wrote on tennis, because of his complex 'Gatsby' personality. For his peers, Gonzalez will remain the dark and angry, Moctezuma like revenger. For all contemporaries, Borg is and will remain the cool nordic hero, the teen angel, with his Fila clothes, the headband and his golden long hair.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Dan, no, I believe that Cooper and Olmedo did not significantly improve after turning pro. At Anderson I'm not quite sure.

Cooper, Olmedo and Emerson were not talented enough to improve their games, unlike the great players from Gonzalez to Laver. The Rocket improved already in 1962, then even more in 1963 and 1964...

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

I think that if you examine the records of Cooper and Anderson in 1959, they did improve over the course of the year.
In January for example, Anderson lost to McGregor in all 3 of their head to head matches, but Anderson won Wembley in September.
Cooper was able to win the Slazenger against Hoad and Trabert in August, and won a European tour against Gimeno and Anderson in 1960.

Click to expand...

mightyrick said:

Fair enough, I agree. We don't have to rank them. Personally, I can live with that. I think I'm more interested in the correct players in all eras getting their due and proper respect... and being put in the proper "bucket" or "tier".

Federer deserves respect. But so does Laver. So does Gonzales. So does Sampras. Tilden and Budge absolutely. Borg? Yeah probably... but definitely under these guys.

Nadal? He isn't there. We can respect him for his unbelievable mastery of slow surfaces... but in his own era... he wasn't the best of the game in enough years. Maybe he will get a few more, I don't know.

I'm sure we can always continue to argue about how to rank within that top tier... but that is probably a fairly pointless exercise. As you pointed out... how do you compare accomplishments across era given the unbelievable amount of changes in schedules, ranking systems, rules, technology, venues, and surfaces. It can't be done objectively.

Good stuff.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

mightyrick, Emerson trails in hth against Laver and Rosewall (10:19 against the latter).

For 1964 I rank Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, Gimeno ahead of Emerson. Possibly also Buchholz, Hoad, Olmedo, Anderson and Sedgman were stronger then.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Olmedo is underrated, he was superior to Segura.The best southamerican player until Vilas.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Bucholz was a serviceable journeymen, used to fill the pro draws...you know, it is hard to make a draw with just 7 players...maths won´t work well...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

kiki, you get old...

Buchholz was a first class player. He was No.4 in 1963 and No. 5 in 1964, 1965 and 1966, thus ahead of pros like Sedgman, Olmedo, Anderson, and Hoad.

He won the US Pro, beat Laver at Wembley clearly and defeated Rosewall at leat 12 times. In 1968 he was the ONLY pro not to lose to an amateur. In 1969 he beat Newcombe in a five-setter. A journeyman? Only in your mind...

Learn mathematics!

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Bobbyone´s biasses downgrade his acquired knwledge as an expert.

Bucholz never did anything decent at a major, not even pro...and he underrates Olmedo, who defeated Laver at the Wimbledon final...and also won the 1959 Forest Hills tournament...besides being the stalwart of the US Davis Cup team.

What Bucholz brought in was a nice face, so he was signed as a part of the " Handsome eight campaign"...or maybe it was because, as I mentioned, tennis maths won´t work with a draw of seven?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

kiki, I did not want to insult you. But you had a blackout regarding Buchholz and Olmedo.

I gave you a few feats of Butch. Don't ignore them!

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

He beat Laver at Wembley only in 1963, Laver a rookie.
Then Bucholz lost in five sets to a Hoad who had a badly pulled hip muscle, and one-legged it through a stupefied Bucholz.
Come on, you have to beat a one-legged player!

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Bobbyone´s biasses downgrade his acquired knwledge as an expert.

Bucholz never did anything decent at a major, not even pro...and he underrates Olmedo, who defeated Laver at the Wimbledon final...and also won the 1959 Forest Hills tournament...besides being the stalwart of the US Davis Cup team.

What Bucholz brought in was a nice face, so he was signed as a part of the " Handsome eight campaign"...or maybe it was because, as I mentioned, tennis maths won´t work with a draw of seven?

Click to expand...