kiki, I wished you would write so seriously in every post! ;-)
Rosewall: "The Australian Championships was still a difficult tournament to win...."
- Thread starter AngieB
- Start date
- Status
kiki, I wished you would write so seriously in every post! ;-)
kiki, I did not forget that Santana beat Laver at the French "Open": Laver just was not at his peak (far from it!).
Santana did not almost beat Laver at Wimbledon.
Your amateur darlings are still over-rated. You can find them in every book. The old pros are still under-rated: They often are not mentioned at all, if yes, only the giants like Gonzalez. The great Gimeno can hardly be found in tennis books, f.i.
kiki
Banned
Well, he's hardly going to say to an Australian broadcaster 'Our Championship was a piece of ****, and although I won it, it didn't mean I/it was any good', is he?
And for those who decry the Australian Championship, just two questions -
1) how easy/hard are the Jamaican sprint championships in the 2000s?
2) how easy/hard would a closed US Tennis Championship be in 2014?
Re Court. I can't believe anyone who saw her career would think anything other than she was one of the greatest tennis players ever.
this is the real problem: how many actually followed her career?
kiki
Banned
As for the old pros, I agree on their underrating in terms of the general public.Something that must be fought, IMO.
But here, we are in a forum where there are suposed to be true tennis experts or, at least, with a feeling for the game´s history.
Thus, no need to underrate or overrate, just give to each one what is owned.
kiki
Banned
I never understood what peak means here.Laver at 23, if not peak, was certainly prime.
people here use peak and prime in the way it suits them better.I firmly disagree with this biass.
AngieB
Banned
Let's take a closer look at Rosewall's combined wins of amateur grand slam events, Pro-Slam wins and Open Era Grand Slams:
8 of Rosewall's 22 wins were on grass, and none at Wimbledon. I would argue that indoor/clay/wood were his best surfaces, especially during his pro-slam career in the 60's.
Of the 8 grand slam events (Amateur plus Open Era) that Rosewall is credited with historically, 2 were at the French Open on clay, 2 at the US Open on grass, and 4 at the Australian Open on grass. That translates into only 2 wins of grand slam events on grass outside of Australia.
This debate reminds me of Nadal's anemic grand slam wins on surfaces non- clay surfaces: 5 out of 14. Even generously including Rosewall's pro-slam grass result, he is 8 out 22 on grass, without a win at Wimbledon.
To say Rosewall was "great" on grass outside of Australia is very generous when his results suggest otherwise. There are valid reasons for people to question Rosewall's assessment of the strength of his grass wins at the Australian Open when the best players in the world weren't always playing there which represented half of his credited amateur + Open Era grand slam results.
AngieB
Last edited:
AngieB
Banned
Court was a 22-time grand slam singles champion when she defeated Evert in the 1973 French Open Final. Evert had yet to win ONE grand slam event facing Court in the finals. Was that result really such a surprise or make Court even more a beast? No.
I've seen you on more than one occasion reference the 1973 French Open final during discussions in an effort to prop Court's greatness by highlighting her defeat of Evert, who eventually became the all-time greatest woman player on clay. Your argument doesn't hold merit and you shouldn't continue to use the 1973 French Open as an example of Court's greatness. It was only one piece of the puzzle for Margaret when Evert had yet to win a grand slam singles title.
#PTL
AngieB
AngieB
Banned
Wow, Kiki. Of course Rosewall thought winning the Australian Open on grass was significant, because the great majority of his amateur and Open Era grand slam wins were at the Australian Open. Most of his overall major wins including the pro majors were on surfaces not grass. Christmas? Really, Kiki?
AngieB
Last edited:
AngieB
Banned
If Wimbledon were played on clay or indoor, Rosewall would have been golden at Wimbledon. Margaret could only muster three wins at Wimbledon out her 24 grand slam singles titles. Rod won four Wimbledon singles titles, most of any Australian man in history.
Margaret and Rod are largely considered the greatest by many, yet had anemic results at Wimbledon when compared to other greats in the game.
I don't know what it is about Wimbledon, but the Aussies couldn't penetrate Wimbledon like they could Australia. /sarcasm
#PTL
AngieB
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Angie,
Laver from 1961 to 1970 won 31 straight Wimbledon matches. If you include the Wimbledon Pro of 1967 he won 34 straight Wimbledon matches. He was in six straight Wimbledon finals that he entered. Laver had a great record at Wimbledon.
I do agree with you that Court clearly underachieved at Wimbledon. She should have won more but winning 24 majors isn't exactly bad.
kiki, I find peak and prime good names to describe a players career regarding his/her best times.
I would say that Laver was at his absolute peak from 1966 to 1969, and in his prime from 1962 to 1972.
Please realize that Laver was a rather late bloomer and not very strong in 1961. He improved significantly in 1962, then again in 1963, then again in 1964 and for the last time in 1966 or arguably in 1967 a bit more.
If we don't agree about this, we will ever have our discussions about "Fraser beats 1961 Laver" vs. "Roche wins sets and even matches against 1969 Laver"
A 14 years old boy cannot lift weights as good as a 22 years old man...
Every sportsman or -woman has a low beginning, a high plateau level and a declining phase. But there are differences: Rosewall f.i. had an extended long plateau level, longer than Laver's.
AngieB,
Rosewall won 23 majors (excluding his WCT finals' titles).
Australian Championships and partly AO were easier to win than Wimbledon and US Open, thus Rosewall' and Emersons more titles in Down Under.
After my 44 years of studying tennis history I can say that Rosewall was (at least a bit) stronger on grass than indoors (wood and carpet). He won more indoor majors than grass and clay majors because in his prime there were more indoor events.
The two US Pro titles are very important but if you mention them to show an even greater disproportion between Wimbledon non-titles and other grass titles, it's just unfair because you neglect the fact that in Rosewall's peak and (top-) prime he could play 5 grass majors (US Pro) but zero Wimbledons.
I'm confused: You did read my LONG list of non-Aussie grass majors' titles and other top placings but you still claim Rosewall was not great there. I'm taking this as an annoyance and as a silly remark! Sorry!
In 1971 most top players entered the AO. Much better draw than in Emerson's events.
As told even the 1955 Australian Championships had strong competition.
By the way, the 1970 US Open had all top players!
Generally I don't understand that several posters try meticulously to find weak points in Rosewall's career even though there were no significant ones. No other fellow GOAT candidate gets belittled that way.
I value this also a personal defeat because I have written many serious posts
about Rosewall's greatness including impressive data, facts, results and records since two years now, but only a few posters, among them krosero, Mustard, Nathaniel Near, kenshin, Djokovic2011, Spicy Curry1990, harryz and partly kiki, urban, hoodjem were ready to follow me, at least for a certain distance.
I guess I would have got more followers for my arguments if I would claim that Emerson is greater than Rosewall because he has won two Wimbledons whilst Rosewall has not won one. That's not ridiculous if we consider that the (in-) famous tennis Channel list ranks Emerson ahead of Rosewall (and ahead of Gonzalez as well)...;-)
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
So, Becker at 18 wins Wimbledon...not his prime? is it at 27, in 1994 when he wins nothing?
Wilander at 18 wins FO....not his prime? is he better at 26, in 1990 when he wins nothing?
Last edited:
AngieB;8603605 Of the 8 grand slam events (Amateur plus Open Era) that Rosewall is credited with historically said:
Nit-picking Rosewall's career on grass in this way is ludicrous, in my opinion. If you ignore their results between the ages of 22-34 how many Wimbledons did Sampras and Federer win, answer - 1 each. How many finals - 1 each. How many finals for Rosewall - 2.
How many hard court slams did Sampras win outside the US - 2. How many grass slams did Rosewall win outside Australia - 2. How many hard court slam finals did Laver even reach in his career - 0.
When you nit-pick you end up with all sorts of silliness, IMO.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
I fully agree, it makes no sense at all.
Just a bracket, in Laver´s time hard courts didn´t have a slam title but just one important event, the SA Open, which Laver won twice if I am correct.
In 1969, he won the traditional GS plus the most important indoor carpet tournament at NY and the most important outdoor hard tournament at Johannesburg ( he describes it as a fifth slam)...he only left the Italian Open to John Newcombe
best year ever, at least since the inception of the open era..and with off charts competition.
kiki, I told you that Laver was a late bloomer! At 18 he was No.54 or 63 or so. At 20 he was No.33. At 22 he was No.19.
Becker, Rosewall, Chang, Wilander and Borg were early bloomers. That's the difference. Not all players have the same career's curve.
Exactly. When people start nit-picking (or cherry-picking) you get all sorts of highly spurious arguments. An equivalent to Philippousis that I've seen is Pioline, whose name is used to belittle Sampras sometimes. Yet as we all know, Pioline was playing out of his skin when got to those slam finals. It was his purple patch.
So what really matters IMO is the quality of the tennis being played, not the names of the opponents, or the name of the competition.
Re the Australian Championships ...
There was a reason my parents took me to watch Rosewall and Hoad pass through Calcutta on their way to Europe as 18-year-olds. That was because they were big stars and tennis was an important sport, and because they were top Australians and Australia was recognised as a hotbed of tennis talent.
Just as these days Jamaica is recognised as a hotbed of sprinting talent.
So, is winning the Jamaican sprint championship as tough as winning the Olympics - no. But is it a difficult tournament to win - you betcha.
And if we didn't have the actual times to validate what is being achieved, what do you think they would be saying sixty years from now? I'll tell you. They would say that victories there couldn't possibly matter because it was the championship of a tiny island of of 2.8 million. No way could that possibly be as tough as the championships of, say, the US.
But we know different.
People assume that vast numbers play tennis, or run sprints (which is, after all, the simplest form of track and field possible and doesn't require any expensive technical equipment). But in fact people play all sorts of sports, so really quite small local hotbeds can breed champions just as easily as the big population centres.
So, right now, if there was a closed Swiss tennis championship, would it be as tough as winning a slam? No. But would it be tough - you betcha. And would it be tougher than winning a closed US championship? Yes.
So Rosewall was quite right. It wasn't a fully open slam, but it was a difficult tournament to win.
I'll just add two other little tidbits.
How many Wimbledons did McEnroe win if you ignore his results betweeen the ages of 22 and 34? Answer - zero, zilch, nada.
How many finals? One.
AngieB
Banned
It doesn't matter who Roger beat at Wimbledon before age 22 because he won 7 in his career. It was Rosewall's choice to turn pro at a time the historically most important and recognized tournament was played at Wimbledon.
Rosewall is one of the best tennis players to never win Wimbledon.
AngieB
AngieB
Banned
A prime example of cherry-picking would be those who decry Emerson's results at the Australian Open and his place in tennis history, yet attempt to say the Australian Open was tougher than many thought when Rosewall won it.
If you agree with Rosewall's assessment about the Australia Open, then you must be consistent and give Roy Emerson the respect he deserves.
AngieB
NatF
Bionic Poster
Rosewall is second after Pancho Gonzalez.
kiki
Banned
I think it does, because the quality of who you beat is always important. However if you have lots of finals, as Federer has and Sampras did, then you will have some easier ones and some harder ones. Philippoussis just happened ro be one of the easier ones. Nadal had an easier one with Berdych. It happens.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
I do. I think Emerson either gets excessive praise (from those who don't really understand tennis history, for whom slam totals are the only thing that counts), or a very raw deal (from those who only partially understand and who think he was a no-hoper because all the best players were pros and the amateurs were a bunch of bumbling amateur toffs). He was a very good player and should rank highly among players of the post-WW2.
I said Rosewall was right, the Australian Championship was difficult to win. He didn't say, and I wouldn't say it was the most difficult to win, because it wasn't. Neither was Wimbledon for many years, simply because the very best players were the pros. It didn't make them easy though, and the difference may have been less in the mid-late 60s when Emerson was playing, because players were choosing not to go pro who would have done in the past. They were waiting to see what happened.
The respect owed to Rosewall and Emerson is not due to their slam wins, or major wins, or whatever. It is due to the totality of what they achieved, in the times they played, and against the quality of opposition they met.
As it should be for every player.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
kiki
Banned
Something even seasoned posters seem to never understand
heard about the word PRESSURE?
Because of public exposure, amateur slams had a big deal more of pressure compared to the relatively " unknown" pro slams.Not that they had a better field.
Just more pressure
pressure is big in life and is even bigger in a major tournament
heard about the word PRESSURE?
Because of public exposure, amateur slams had a big deal more of pressure compared to the relatively " unknown" pro slams.Not that they had a better field.
Just more pressure
pressure is big in life and is even bigger in a major tournament
AngieB
Banned
Ken Rosewall faced an important decision very early in his career which would frame his place in tennis history. He chose money and the pro-tour over playing amateur grand slam tennis history. My question is, why should Rosewall be historically credited for his non-sanctioned pro-slam '60's results now, when he knowingly made a decision which would effect his place in tennis history?
The ITF and ITHOF only recognize Rosewall's grand slam results from the 1950's and Open Era, not the pro-slam events:
http://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/ken-rosewall
Just because Wikipedia lists Rosewall's pro-slam events, doesn't make them sanctioned events included in tennis history. In tennis history, the pro-slams of the '60's were no more sanctioned than a local tennis league at a public park.
I take issue to Ken Rosewall being included in any Tier I or Tier II GOAT discussion, not just because he chose to play pro-slams and was banned from Wimbledon for several years. Rather, to uphold the sanctity of sanctioned amateur tennis that was the standard of tennis for decades.
Ken Rosewall should be credited for helping to promote paid, professional tennis that supported the bridge to the Open Era. But to usurp tennis history by crediting Rosewall for non-sanctioned pro-slams is a revisionist dream and affront to the tradition and greatness of the Wimbledon Championships and all those who won sanctioned grand slam tournaments in the 1960's.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how great or poorly Rosewall played on grass. While it may be dreamy, magical fodder to discuss the "what-ifs" and "coulda" of the pro-slam events, the man never won Wimbledon. There appears to be a whiff of willful ignorance in the air as it relates to the importance of the Wimbledon Championship historically.
You really shouldn't take any discussion about tennis in a discussion group personal. It is a great past-time to discuss tennis with like-minded individuals and respect they fact they should agree to disagree.
#WouldaCouldaGod #AngiesListOfOpinions #DontTakeItPersonally
AngieB
Last edited:
hoodjem, I think we cannot value indoor wood as hardcourt.
AngieB, Rosewall is one of only four GOAT candidates in my opinion.
DMP, You seem to refer to me (among others) regarding Emerson. Yes, I rate Emmo relatively low but I'm of course aware that the amateurs were not a bunch of bumbling amateur toffs. I just give Emerson the credit he deserves. He might be No.20 or 25 in the all-time list (at the most).
Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver had a much tougher opposition than Emerson ever had. And he never reached the top three in any year whilst the other three were No.1 players for many years each.
kiki, I believe that the pressure for Laver and Rosewall in their 1964 Wembley five-setter was at least as great as for Emerson and Stolle in their 1964 Wimbledon final because the pros knew that they battled for the honour of being the best player in the world while Emerson and Stolle were aware that the winner of their encounter was NOT the world's champion. Wembley was a major tournament!
AngieB, I'm very disappointed by your post. You have an obsolete understanding of tennis history. True tennis experts nowadays know that the old pro scene must also be considered in any discussion about tennis history.
Since several years the experts are aware that Gonzalez and Rosewall are much greater than Emerson even though Emmo won 12 GS tournaments, Rosewall only 8 and Gonzalez poor two. And, a shame: they did not win Wimbledon!!!
It's almost common sense now that the old pro majors should rank above the amateur majors.
You seem to be obsessed by ITF and HOF and their strange politics of sanctioning and enshrining.
Some ITF idiots are guilty that open era has not begun in 1960 because one representative was on the toilet during the voting process and another one had fallen into sleep. These two have decided the case...
By the way, ITF did sanction the biggest pro event, Wembley.
HOF was always rigid in their policy. Tony Trabert, then the chairman, told me they could not enshrine the great Frank Kovacs because he never won a GS tournament. I answered Tony that HOF had already enshrined Pancho Segura who never won a GS t.
Meanwhile they became a bit more open-minded and enshrined two players who never even played a GS tournament: Karel Kozeluh and Hans Nüsslein, the two great pro champions whom I had proposed (via Bud Collins) for enshrinement.
The old pro events are meanwhile widely included in the valuation of the great players. Read Bud Collins's great encyclopedia!
You correctly write the sanctioned amateur tennis WAS the standard of tennis for decades. But we live in 2014!
You are the revisionist since you totally neglect the modern developments of the valuation of tennis history recently and currently.
Your words "usurp" and "affront" are just absurd.
You don't discuss seriously: Recently you claimed in several posts that Rosewall was not great on non-Aussie grass. Now, after I have disproved your wrong thesis, you write it does not matter how great or poorly Rosewall played on grass! Yery strange...
There is no dreaming fodder to discuss the what-ifs and coulda of the pro events: They all are now well researched and documented. They are an important part of the experts' discussions about tennis history as you must have seen in many thousands of posts by maybe hundred of serious posters in both forums.
I do take your posts personal because you are biased, you don't comment my remarks and you change your discussion styles without considering that you contradict yourself (your statements about Rosewall's grass weakness vs. your new excuse that the grass issue is obsolete...).
kiki
Banned
No pro slam ( and the rest of amateur slams) has, by far the same pressure of winning Wimbledon.Laver himself testify to that.
It is historical data.Learn history¡¡¡
kiki
Banned
Do you think Emerson was never wold´s number one at the amateurs?
kiki
Banned
Angie is a purist, that is her ideology.
BTW, did you do that for Nusslein and Hozeluh? Kudos¡¡¡
( can you get me a place in the HOF?)
...if they create a " poster on the internet" cathegory, I am afraid I don´t have playing credentials for that..
kiki
Banned
Rosewall was not an hipocrital shamateur.pros loved tennis because they wanted to earn their lives from that...
I wasn't referring to you specifically. In fact I was more thinking of discussions I have read on the General forum.
Being ranked in the top 20-25 players of all time seems to me to be ranked very highly indeed, irrespective of whether I agree with your actual ranking. Personally I don't see how you can possibly distinguish between, say, the 5th best and 6th best players in history when they are almost certainly separated by different technology, playing structure, competitive environment, etc. I always say the only thing that I can see has remained constant in tennis is the court dimension. Everything else has changed, even the scoring. But that is just me.
As for Emerson. Yes, he was clearly not as good as player as Rosewall and Laver. I doubt he himself would claim he was. The Australians were a close-knit bunch and very supportive of each other, but also pretty clear-eyed about tennis.
But he was the standout player in the amateurs at a time when the amateur game was highly significant in the eyes of the public. For that reason IMO he has a status which is important and puts him much closer to Rosewall and Laver in the list of great/significant players in tennis history than a lot of people think.
kiki, After my many posts you should have realized that I always refer to TRUE No.1 places (=best player in the world) when writing about "No.1".
Angie is a purist, that is her ideology.
BTW, did you do that for Nusslein and Hozeluh? Kudos¡¡¡
( can you get me a place in the HOF?)
...if they create a " poster on the internet" cathegory, I am afraid I don´t have playing credentials for that..
kiki, Thanks. Yes, I had spoken with Bud Collins several times about Karel Kozeluh (there also was a Jan Kozeluh who was a good Davis Cup player) and Nüsslein, and I suggested Bud to talk about that with his colleagues from the enshrining committee which he one day really did (at London). And the following year Kozeluh (pronounced Koshelooh) and Nüsslein became member of HOF. I was glad to be able to inform Nüsslein's widow (then already 90) about that honour for "Hanne" who was neglected by German Tennis Association for decades...
I also have plead for enshrining Andres Gimeno several times and fortunately he became enshrined a few years ago, alas, only for his French Open victory and not also for being No.3 in the world for several years in the 1960s...
I will talk to Bud about a kiki's enshrinement in the "Contributers" category) but I fear he will say that you need to acknowledge Roche as greater than Fraser and Gimeno greater than Santana...;-)
kiki, Yes, but the best of them also were proud of fighting for the world's title. Rod Laver was eager after his first GS to show that he also can reach the true top spot which he did (partly) in 1964 and surely in 1965. I guess Rod is more proud of getting the No.1 place in front of Rosewall in 1965 than of his (albeit great) amateur GS.
DMP, Thanks. I agree to a great part. Yes, tennis has changed a lot. I still claim that most of the current very fast game is owed to modern technology.
Nevertheless many people including me are trying to make all-time rankings.
I only would contradict a bit that amateur tennis in the 1960s was highly significant. I do know that the organizers of the Slam tournaments eagerly wanted to get Laver and Rosewall which means open tennis ("butter instead of margarine").
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I have played on polished wood (basketball court). It ain't soft.
It is hard (and very fast).
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Then, I forget about it.
- Status
Similar threads
