How do we measure achievements of players in the pre-open era?
- Thread starter 1477aces
- Start date
Seriously?
Yes. When you're winning majors at the age of 38, you shouldn't even lose matches when you're in your peak (at the age of 24 on average). That's 14 years of decline, but he's still walking around winning majors. If that isn't lack of physicality and/or weak competition, I don't know what is. Just remember that since then, the no one has even won a major at the age of 33+.
1477aces, Yes, Rosewall in his peak years lost seldom a match. Actually he won all 9 pro majors that he entered from 1960 to 1963...
True, Rosewall would have won at least one Wimbledon.
But how many?
Probably not Rosewall's best location, a five-time bridesmaid.
Apparently, Rosewall was physically allergic to Wimbledon grass, unlike the drier Australian grass.
What?!! So Rosewall didn't defeat Hoad on grass in 1955 and 1956. Mal Anderson and Marty Riessen didn't exist. Rosewall didn't defeat Newcombe on grass in 1974.
And in more recent times Murray didn't turn around a series of slam final losses and start winning, and Lendl ditto.
Some of the ascribing victories, and not ascribing victories, in these forums is just bizarre.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Rosewall would have had few real chances to win Wimbledon. Hoad would have continued to best him in the late 50s (as would Gonzales if he had also been on the amateur tour). Then Laver came along, and would have developed a bit earlier if he'd been competing against the top pros, so he starts dominating from 1961 onwards.
I don't see Rosewall winning Wimbledon.
Dan, Probably four times, according to Kramer and considering the pro grass feat of Muscles.
kiki, Again wrong even though I informed you that Rosewall had the big 1965 win against Laver in the US Pro.
Phoenix1983, Your "argumentation" is breathtaking. LOL.
Phoenix1983, Your "argumentation" is breathtaking. LOL.
Not worth to disprove your faulty points...
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
^ BobbyOne, we are never going to see eye to eye on this issue. Please respect that others hold different opinions to you re: Rosewall's place in history...
Again, you ignore the realities of Rosewall's grass allergy at Wimbledon and his sub-par performances there.
In an open game, the competition would have been even tougher for Rosewall than it was in 1953 or 1956 or the early sixties.
The U.S. Pro is not Wimbledon.
The U.S. Open is not Wimbledon.
Phoenix1983, I doubt that you really have these strange opinions. I rather guess that you want to make me angry.
But in case you really believe that Rosewall would not have won at Wimbledon. I just wonder that Muscles has won 23 (or25) majors, more than any other player, and at least 137 tournaments: has he done it by doping? by cheating?
Again I want to inform you that Rosewall has the edge against Laver in big events including the big wins in the French Pro and US Pro. So I cannot understand that you have Laver ahead since 1961!!
Dan, Thanks for this important information. Don't feed the trolls!
True this. It's pointless in trying to convince someone over something that is purely conjecture. It's like trying to prove Borg would have won 20 slams had he didn't retire early, or Serena would have won 25 slams in the 90s.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I consider Wimbledon the most important, prestigious tournament in tennis (as do many others).
I cannot have a man who failed to win in five finals there as the GOAT.
I don't care what else he did in his career.
Why can't you accept this opinion?
Well, yes, your statements are clear, but no, your point is not. Nor their relevance to my post.
I was commenting on kiki's categorical statements about Rosewall's chances against Hoad and Newcombe, which I believe are unjustified by the facts. Hoad was brilliant, but not the most consistent player ever. Newcombe too was not invincible on grass, far from it, and in the specific case of Rosewall lost to the 40 year old, at Wimbledon, while ranked ATP #1. I was also pointing out that tennis teaches that players can and do change apparent losing streaks, hence my referral to Murray and Lendl. I could as easily have referred to Federer at RG, or Sampras at the USO at the end of his career.
The arguments of some who say Rosewall could never win at Wimbledon, at his peak playing age, based on results at a young age and extreme (tennis) old age seem to me as valid as saying Murray or Lendl could never win a slam, Federer never win at RG, Sampras end his career with a win at the USO.
And your specific argument about W grass would imply you believed a few years ago that Djokovic would never overcome gluten intolerance.
Well we all know how those predictions would have turned out. If tennis teaches one thing it is that players can, and do, change things.
hoodjem, Of course we will never know the exact numbers but it's reasonable to go along the probabilities. For instance it's not too bold to speculate that Tilden would have won more than 20 GS tournaments if he was allowed to play at Paris in his peak years and if he had entered Wimbledon and Australian Championships often.
Don't trust the trolls!
Last edited:
1983, Because it's a totally wrong opinion. You ignore the peak years of Rosewall which is even that you claim he did not have a peak at all. You (and intelligent TMF) are the only ones to think that way. Even my long-time opponent, NatF, is fair enough to believe that Rosewall would have won at Wimbledon...
krosero and Carlo Colussi have already explained you the whole thing, maybe better than I did.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
An opinion can't be wrong, it's just different to yours.
And no, I don't believe Rosewall would ever have won Wimbledon. I am sorry if this offends you.
DMP, Thanks for your words. I daresay that you are a huge valuable addition to this forum.
Hoad and Newcombe were never dominating a full year. F. i Rosewall outclassed Hoad in their 1957 Australian grass tour. Lew was at the most equal to Gonzalez in 1959. Newcombe was never an undisputed No.1 player. He shared that place with Rosewall, Laver, Smith and Nastase.
If Rosewall really was handicapped by a Wimbledon grass allergy, he would not have beaten players like Trabert, Seixas, Smith, Roche, and Newcombe at Wimbledon.
As far as I know Muscles was only handicapped in 1969 when he lost in the third round.
1983, Are you silly? Of course opinions can be wrong, for example the opinion that earth is flat or that Jews are bad human beings per se. (Naturally there are bad people in all peoples) . Or at tennis that Bill Scanlon was a better player than Roger Federer. Get serious!!!
You still don't have any serious argument to back up your strange opinion but the experts do have strong arguments for the opposite opinion!
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
well, Bill Scanlon could have been better than Federer...if he had played a weak era ( and those nice looking curls wouldn´t have had that bad effect on his brains)...
I don't think so either. It's pointless to argue just like Bobbyone is trying to convince Phoenix about Rosewall and Wimbledon.
You may not think that when I say that I think your comments about Federer and weak eras are as unjustified as kiki's comments about Rosewall's chances at Wimbledon.
But that is for another day and another thread
THE FIGHTER
Hall of Fame
we dont ..........
You may not think that when I say that I think your comments about Federer and weak eras are as unjustified as kiki's comments about Rosewall's chances at Wimbledon.
But that is for another day and another thread
Yes. But it's mostly Phoenix who belittles Rosewall regarding Wimbledon. And it's kiki who agrees with me that Federer's peak was mosty a weak era...
I did not know that you rate Federer's era (peak years) as a strong one. I just hope you don't join the stubborn Federer Armada...
Last edited:
Both of you should stop because none of you is going to convince one another. We can only accept fact, Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon and that is it. Bringing in hypothetical situation can only invite bias.
Funny TMF, If we consider only facts and omit the difficulties of tennis history (split fields, world tours vs. pro tournaments, and so on) then we all must accept that Seixas, Drobny, Trabert, Cooper, Olmedo, Fraser, McKinley (Chuck), Santana, Smith, Kodes, Ashe and so on are better players than Gonzalez and Rosewall because all those formerly mentioned did win Wimbledon (once) while Pancho and Muscles never won Wimbledon. That would be the end of any researching and valuation of those times!!! Do you really want to think that way??? I just cannot believe it.
Bias comes when neglecting tennis history...
If we don't reflect about probabilities and improbabilities, if we don't make comparisons and so on, we can stop running many threads in this forum. Then we can make only ONE list about the greats and their valuation:
1 Federer 17 majors won
2 Sampras 14
3 Emerson 12
3 Nadal 12
5 Laver 11
5 Borg 11
7 Tilden 10
and so on. Every little child can make this list. Also your "experts" from Tennis Channel (with the glorious exception of Bud Collins) went that way. Shall we really follow??
Last edited:
True, you have to look at the strength of the field when evaluating the worth of a title.
But, Bobby, Rosewall was at a disadvantage at Wimbledon because of his allergy to grass (a PHYSICAL allergy), which bothered him more at Wimbledon with its lush, wet grass, than at Aussie events (short, dry grass) or Forest Hills.
This may explain why he was usually overpowered in the five finals he played in.
Rosewall may have won one or two Wimbledons in the early sixties, but would be hard-pressed to beat Hoad or Gonzales until 1960, and Laver beginning in 1961.
I don't think he belittles Rosewall. He just appears to believe that a Wimbledon title is essential if a player is to be considered GOAT. Well, people have all sorts of daft ideas , including IMO yours that Federer's era is weak, but since there is no rule about how to decide who is GOAT, any opinion is equally valid.
I don't know about it being strong, but I certainly don't see it as weak,and I do see it as a bit of a golden era. A thrilling champion playing beautiful, stylish tennis, with a powerful challenger playing different, but in it's own way also thrilling, tennis, joined and then succeeded by two players who have proved to be not one slam wonders but genuine champions. Top players who appear to respect each other, and who take time to engage the media. No schisms in the world of tennis. Yes, it is a bit of a golden era, and not lacking in competition.
By the way, of all the all-time greats I have seen In my watching life the two who have given me the greatest pleasure are Rosewall and Federer.
Dan, I don't believe that Rosewall was plagued by a grass allergy more often than in 1969.
And of course Laver was far behind Rosewall in 1961, 1962 and 1963.
Now this is strange, Rosewall allergic to grass? Forest Hills had the most humid climate of all and the wettest grass, yet as you know that's where Rosewall did best. Why didn't his "allergy" affect him there?
DMP, Yes, both of them have a fluid movement.
I referred to the years before Nadal grew up. I still am convinced that an era with Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and other greats was stronger than the early Federer years with old Agassi, with Roddick, Hewitt and Baghdatis. But we recently and currently have four great players.
krosero, I guess the Rosewall allergy is of the same kind as the Hoad disadvantage in the smoky air of Wembley...
Yes the smoke "disadvantage" came to mind for me too...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Why do you constantly mention Baghdatis? It only shows your lack of knowledge, he made one final against Federer and actually played much better than some other bigger name stars who made GS finals. If Baghdatis was more dedicated he could have been a consistant top 10 player. He was only 21 when he made that 2006 final. Even past his best he gave Murray an extreme challenge last year at Wimbledon. He's a talented underachiever.
Amazing certainty you have, considering 1) that you're making a hypothetical claim and 2) that Rosewall won the US Pro on grass over Laver twice, both in '63 and then over peak Laver in '65. Both times Ken beat him in straights sets -- handing peak Laver a 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 defeat in '65.
Those are actual facts, yet your hypothetical goes entirely in the other direction.
Kiki, your statement (the part I bolded) is not even a hypothetical, it's flat-out wrong: see above.
krosero, Thanks. It's an old bias that Rosewall did not dominate in several years and was totally overshadowed by Gonzalez, Hoad and Laver. It might be right that Muscles lost some lesser tournaments to Laver including 1965 and 1966 grass court events in Australia, but it's a fact that Rosewall won those two big grass events and the four French Pro Championships in a row.
Generally spoken Muscles was a man for the big opportunities reaching a top placing at 52 majors and winning 23 of them. He not only won 9 pro majors in a row (where he participated) when he was the favourite but also succeeded several times when being an outsider or second favourite (US Pro 65, French Pro 65 and 66), French Open 68, US Open 70, AO 71)...Thus I believe he would have had excellent chances to win Open Wimbledons more than only once and even outside of his peak years.
