Newk married a german player,isn' it?
What happened between you and Bobby in regards to Roche vs Newcombe?
I don't see any possible argument here!
Angie Dickinson?
A Joke
She can see herself fortunate,Newk charisma,blues eyes and moustache made him a woman dream in his heydays.
As for DC teams, the best Open era final we never saw was Spain vs Australia 1970
Laver&Rosewall vs Santana&Gimeno
Newk/Roche vs Gisbert/Orantes.
Medium paced hard or har tru
Bobby, you conveniently "forgot" about Newcombe's marathon win over Rosewall at Roland Garros in 1968, and Newcombe's win on clay over Rosewall at the 1971 Canadian Open.
"Perry and Budge grandpas at Scarborough"?
Here are some more results for Scarborough.
1948 Slazenger final at Scarborough
Fred Perry df. Yvon Petra 3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-1
(Petra was 1946 Wimbledon champion, Kramer also in that field)
1949 Slazenger Pro at Scarborough
semis: Budge df. Pails 7-5, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4 (Pails df. Segura on tour)
Kramer df. Segura 6-4, 2-6, 6-0, 6-3
final Kramer df. Budge 4-6 7-5 6-2 6-4
I am going to attempt to explain this again. I do not hate Rosewall. I love Rosewall's game but I don't think he's the GOAT. I know his game very well and I know all his stats. I simply think some others are better. I don't hate you. I know your personality and think you're a decent person. But people disagree at times. That's a fact of life. If everyone had the same opinion it would be a boring world. This is a forum for tennis debate. There is no need to argue. It doesn't have to be a battle. If you believe Rosewall is the best that should be good enough.[/QUOTE
pc1, Please tell your readers and me finally the reasons why you now refuse to say that Rosewall is a "super great GOAT contender". About a year ago you believed that Muscles is possibly the GOAT (that means "super great GOAT contender").
Of course you hate me: You have finished our good friendship without any reasons (contradicting you and disproving you in a few points are no serious reasons).
A few days ago YOU made the battle when you insinuated some rubbish: that I distort threads; that I am partial; that you were not upset even though you were annoyed that I disrespect your analysing of history; that we were not in disagreement even though you wrote in the SAME post about our disagreement and so on.
You never use insulting words but I would prefer you would be honest and frank and would call me an idiot or obnoxious man like NatF once did (but reconciled with me) instead of always being "CALM" and making unfair claims, insinuations and unclear hints!!!!!!!!! I just cannot stand such a behaviour!
Another bad behaviour: You almost never answer my serious arguments! It's because you don't have any good contra-arguments.
Get serious and come back to fair tennis discussions! If you get serious, I will not write critical things about your behaviour anymore!!!
Narrow-Minded Instrument Obsessive Disorder: The first recorded statement of the concept was Abraham Kaplan's, in 1964: "I call it the Law of the Instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding." Abraham Maslow said in 1966, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.
Other forms of Narrow-Minded Instrument Obsessive Disorder include: déformation professionnelle, a French term for looking at things from the point of view of one's profession, daily activity, or obsession, and Regulatory Capture, the tendency for regulators to look at all things from the point-of-view of the industry they are regulating.
Moi aussi.
Bobby, Bobby!
How could you forget that Newcombe outlasted Rosewall in a marathon five-setter at Roland Garros in 1968?
That is very odd.
Did you "forget" on purpose?
Bobby: biased.
No I did not know the exact head to head Bobby. I only knew Rosewall led. I give that information quickly because I was in a rush to take care of some work. I did point out that I believed that Rosewall led. And to be honest Bobby if I counted correctly you didn't know the exact head to head either.
I have some major responsibilities that are more important than this website. I wanted Kiki to at least see some of the scores of the matches. You read too much into things. I do not mislead. You assume the worst and that was not the case.
And while my memory is fine I cannot assume everything I remember is correct unless I check. I may believe Rosewall is ahead but I could be wrong.
This is an example of how you accuse me of being misleading. You are wrong.
Newcombe would clearly be number one.
Here are the stats I have for the head to head between Newcombe and Rosewall. Of course bear in mind I'm human and can make errors.
Here's the head to head, hopefully I didn't make any mistakes which is possible.
1. Newcombe wins 6-4 6-1 5-7 1-6 6-4 at the French Pro
2. Rosewall wins 6-4 4-6 7-5 6-4 at the Jack Kramer T of C
3. Rosewall wins 6-2 6-0 at Corpus Christi
4. Rosewall wins 5-7 7-5 6-1 6-2 at the 1970 Tennis Champions Classic
5. Rosewall wins 8-6 7-5 at 1970 WCT St Louis
6. Newcombe wins 7-5 6-3 6-2 3-6 6-1 1970 Wimbledon final
7. Rosewall wins 6-4 6-4 at the 1970 Green Welsh Open
8. Rosewall wins 6-3 6-4 6-3 at Forest Hills at the 1970 US Open
9. Newcombe wins 7-6 7-5 at 1970 WCT Chicago
10. Newcombe wins 6-1 6-1 6-3 1970 Wimbledon
11. Newcombe wins 7-6 6-2 1971 Canadian Open
12. Rosewall wins 7-5 6-2 5-7 6-3 1971 WCT finals
13. Rosewall wins 7-5 6-3 1972 CBS Classic
14. Rosewall wins 6-2 7-5 1972 WCT Charlotte
15. Newcombe wins 6-4 7-6 1972 WCT Las Vegas
16. Newcombe wins 5-7 1-6 7-5 6-4 6-4 1972 WCT Fort Worth
17. Newcombe wins 6-4 7-6 6-3 1973 US Open
18. Rosewall wins 6-1 6-4 1973 Tokyo
19. Rosewall wins 6-1 1-6 6-0 7-5 1974 Wimbledon
20. Rosewall wins 6-7 6-4 7-6 6-3 1974 US Open
21. Newcombe wins 3-6 6-2 6-3 Tokyo Outdoor
22. Rosewall wins 7-5 4-6 6-1 1975 Gunze tournament Tokyo
23. Rosewall wins 7-6 6-2 Pacific Land Player
24. Rosewall wins 6-3 6-3 1977 Gunze
If I added correctly it's 15 to 9 in favor of Rosewall.
There were no lies Bobby and I couldn't delete the posts. You just did not understand. The mods deleted these posts because the posts were not appropriate and I agree. Your past posts were deleted because the mods thought they should be and they deleted the last two posts here from you and myself. The post they deleted had you complaining about me and the next post was me giving my story of the dispute. It was should and clearly should be deleted.pc1, Enough is enough! I'm used to read wrong claims from yours but this time (Edit: pc1's newest post which he deleted only minutes ago) you surpass even yourself! And you wonder why I call you my enemy...
So many wrong statements and even lies in ONE post. Astonishing....
It's NOT right that I ever asked you to help me! I'm not a child. I did not e-mail to you for help. I did know even without you that Newcombe has a much better record than Roche. You did not offer to give me stats.
Right is: There was a short discussion between kiki and me: kiki said that Newcombe is better because he won much more. I meant that Roche had the higher level of play as he showed in 1968 and 1969 before he got handicapped by his elbow injury during 1970.
You read this discussion and commented it without deciding who is right. Then I wrote to you: "I say Roche's peak level was higher, kiki says Newk's. You say?". I did not want any results or stats from you (and you know it), just your frank opinion about Newcombe and Roche (and if BobbyOne or kiki is right).
It's not right that you agreed with me that Roche's best was superior to Newcombe's. For weeks you plead for Newk even though you assured me in every e-mail that you would support me against kiki's Newcombe's preference...
Only at the end of our friendship, in your very last e-mail, you suddenly stated that Roche was better....
The true reason why you ended our good friendship was that you got angry that I dared to contradict you and to disprove you and to blame your bad behaviour (not answering most of my serious arguments, as you still do...).
Our quarrel was NOT of minor significance. Fortunately I have kept all your and my e-mails...
I wish you all the best for your future and that you may be able to recognize yourself including your strange behaviour, according to the Oracle of Delphi: "Gnothi sauton!" (Recognize yourself!)
It's not really important if Newcombe or Roche were better. But it's very important how human beings make discussions and if we are honest or untruthful...
Edit: Why do you delete your post? Hope you have realized that your report was totally wrong.
There were no lies Bobby and I couldn't delete the posts. You just did not understand. The mods deleted these posts because the posts were not appropriate and I agree. Your past posts were deleted because the mods thought they should be and they deleted the last two posts here from you and myself.
No Bobby I am not to blame for everything.
You realize that in debates you have to look at all the facts and when the facts are negative, discuss them and how to go about getting around that problem. That was what I was attempting to do which you didn't understand because you got angry. Yes I do think Roche's best is better than Newcombe's but I cannot prove it by statistics. You realize that Kiki had access to the same stats so you have to decide how Roche can be superior if the stats are in Newcombe's favor. That's how you deal with debates. So I suggested looking at head to head records if you recall. When doing this I was trying to work out a plan for you but you got angry before any of this happened.
What's that old saying, don't kill the messenger.
pc1, It's really better for you and me and the readers to stop our discussion now. You will never understand. I hoped you would and would even reconcile...
I'm astonished that you did not delete your last recent post. Why should the administrator delete it? You did not write any insulting or teasing words! You just wrote several untrue words....
I don't know that the admin. has deleted any of my recent posts. I was very glad he did not!
For the last time (hopefully ) in my life: If you thought the stats say Newk is better then why did you always write you give them to me in order to SUPPORT me against kiki?????? It's just crazy!
I did not get angry before you were trying to work out a plan for me. Which plan???
The 1969 achievements show clearly that Roche was better than Newcombe in that year which was the last before his injuries.
Good bye, pc1. I'm at the end of my wisdom.
pc1, Enough is enough! I'm used to read wrong claims from yours but this time (Edit: pc1's newest post which he deleted only minutes ago) you surpass even yourself! And you wonder why I call you my enemy...
So many wrong statements and even lies in ONE post. Astonishing....
It's NOT right that I ever asked you to help me! I'm not a child. I did not e-mail to you for help. I did know even without you that Newcombe has a much better record than Roche. You did not offer to give me stats.
Right is: There was a short discussion between kiki and me: kiki said that Newcombe is better because he won much more. I meant that Roche had the higher level of play as he showed in 1968 and 1969 before he got handicapped by his elbow injury during 1970.
You read this discussion and commented it without deciding who is right. Then I wrote to you: "I say Roche's peak level was higher, kiki says Newk's. You say?". I did not want any results or stats from you (and you know it), just your frank opinion about Newcombe and Roche (and if BobbyOne or kiki is right).
It's not right that you agreed with me that Roche's best was superior to Newcombe's. For weeks you plead for Newk even though you assured me in every e-mail that you would support me against kiki's Newcombe's preference...
Only at the end of our friendship, in your very last e-mail, you suddenly stated that Roche was better....
The true reason why you ended our good friendship was that you got angry that I dared to contradict you and to disprove you and to blame your bad behaviour (not answering most of my serious arguments, as you still do...).
Our quarrel was NOT of minor significance. Fortunately I have kept all your and my e-mails...
I wish you all the best for your future and that you may be able to recognize yourself including your strange behaviour, according to the Oracle of Delphi: "Gnothi sauton!" (Recognize yourself!)
It's not really important if Newcombe or Roche were better. But it's very important how human beings make discussions and if we are honest or untruthful...
Edit: Why do you delete your post? Hope you have realized that your report was totally wrong.
Statistic you realize cannot be made up. One and one will always equal two. So I was looking at the information for both Newcombe and Roche for the Open Era to get a better idea of how to help you debate Kiki, What I realized was that Newcombe had several years superior to Roche's best year in 1969 in which he won seven tournaments, the most important being the US Pro. Newcombe for example in perhaps his best overall year won ten tournaments plus the more important WCT Championship. Newcombe won two majors in 1973. He won Wimbledon in 1970 and 1971. A few of those years can be argued to be superior to Roche's best year in the Open Era. In order to conduct a proper debate you have to totally analyze the facts. Yes I am sure you knew Newcombe had the better stats but I found out he had the superior stats for one year, five years and for the whole Open Era. You have to know the facts clearly to be on the other side of the debate.
If you truly believe we had a good friendship as you call it why do you call me an enemy so quickly? I find that strange and very sad for you. Tennis is not true war.
Big deal if I think Laver, Gonzalez and Tilden are superior to Rosewall. I say that and I'm your enemy. Strange considering that I think I've spoken to you far more than Rosewall has. I couldn't be that much of a friend.
Roche was considered the heir to Laver in 1969 but even in that year Newcombe was battling him. I believe the high level of Roche was higher than Newcombe. But Newcombe had maybe the best serve in tennis, first and second. One of the great forehands and volleys. He was extremely gifted so Roche wasn't imo that much more talented than Newcombe. If you had let me I would have suggested you simply look at 1969 and his record. And also to look at the head to heads at that time. Problem is that I cannot prove that much like I cannot prove Hoad's best is greater than anyone's. It may be true but cannot be proven.
Alas you got mad.
Bobby, I know this is a personnal quarrel, and I don´t mean to interfere.I hoe not to have added more fire with my slight prefereance for Newcombe¡¡.You should let it go, it is getting nowhere and you both are good connaiseurs.
Look, I think peak vs peak they are very close.Roche had a better BH and Newcombe a better Fh.Both great servers, Roche´s BH volley is probably even better than Mac´s,Laver´s and Edberg´s, which is saying a lot.Newcombe´s FH volley is better than those of Panatta,Sampras and Becker.
When both were on, there was no more exciting late 60´s match to watch than Newcombe vs Roche.Look at their terrific W and USO SF in 1969 or their AO sf in 1975, when Roche was fully recovered of his injuries and came back strong ( he lost a very close sf to Ashe at Wimbly as well).
I just enjoyed so much that kind of rivalry, specially on grass, it was really what you would call a die hard match for both.Maybe their mutual knowledge and friendship had a lot to do with it.Just a bit like Borg vs Gerulaitis classics, to name an analogue case.
But it was even better when both were in the same side of the court.Pretty unplayable; it was like a 1-2 punch from Foreman or Frazier.
Bobby, I know this is a personnal quarrel, and I don´t mean to interfere.I hope not to have added more fire with my slight prefereance for Newcombe¡¡.You should let it go, it is getting nowhere and you both are good connaiseurs.
Look, I think peak vs peak they are very close.Roche had a better BH and Newcombe a better Fh.Both great servers, Roche´s BH volley is probably even better than Mac´s,Laver´s and Edberg´s, which is saying a lot.Newcombe´s FH volley is better than those of Panatta,Sampras and Becker.
When both were on, there was no more exciting late 60´s match to watch than Newcombe vs Roche.Look at their terrific W and USO SF in 1969 or their AO sf in 1975, when Roche was fully recovered of his injuries and came back strong ( he lost a very close sf to Ashe at Wimbly as well).
I just enjoyed so much that kind of rivalry, specially on grass, it was really what you would call a die hard match for both.Maybe their mutual knowledge and friendship had a lot to do with it.Just a bit like Borg vs Gerulaitis classics, to name an analogue case.
But it was even better when both were in the same side of the court.Pretty unplayable; it was like a 1-2 punch from Foreman or Frazier.
kiki, Yes, I think pc1 and me will end that quarrel now. All has been said from both sides.
I don't mind you that you were the cause of the whole dispute...;-)
Don't even joke about that. Kiki was not the cause. Don't blame others even as a joke.
Don't even joke about that. Kiki was not the cause. Don't blame others even as a joke.
Oh¡ thanks but, you know, I have been used to Mr Bobbyone´s special humour sense.
I can understand that Roche/Newk rivalry, one of those rivalries that made great the so called dawn of the Golden Era.Unfortunately, we will never know what would have Roche turned into had he not been hampened with injuries.
I don´t think it is fair to other great champions who were a case of injuries to get overlooked because Hoad,Roche,Bueno ( even if being one of my all time faves),Seles were so unlucky.
Remember Gene Mayer? and worse, remember Manuel Orantes? I was some day talking with him and asked him how many times did he really have gone through surgery.He said 7 times, and I think 5 were from different injuries.Still made it in time to win some big tournaments.
borg #1, i also grew up in houston playing at memorial park---i know its off topic but did you ever play there?
Let's keep the discussion to tennis topics and cut out the personal arguments. It's tiring to read these same types of posts in every thread. They don't belong and such posts should and will be deleted in the future I'm sure. Stick to the tennis, not personal attacks BobbyOne. We as posters should not have to read about this when we're trying to discuss Newcombe and company. Thanks in advance.
borg number one, You blame me (alone) after having read all those attacking posts from your close friend??? I just wonder...
PC1 responding "you are wrong" and "don't attack the messenger" while you post about enemies in post after post about your "former friendship" is not equivalent in any way. You consider him to be a former friend now, ok we get it. We don't need to hear about it and don't want to hear about it in every thread. If it continues, the posts will be deleted and posters will get banned as warranted. Move on from this topic and stick to the tennis discussions, with facts and opinions presented and the understanding that if you ask 20 great tennis experts about great players, you'll get 20 different opinions about relative strengths. We all make subjective assertions as to great players. It just comes with the territory. Many differences about the nebulous term "greatness" arise due to the distinctions between peak play versus totality of accomplishments.
Dan, If I'm biased, then what are you with your idiotic Hoad worshipping and your about 100 wrong claims about Lew???
When did I ever make a wrong claim about Nüsslein or Rosewall or Gimeno or Roche, you funny and curious person??
pc1, It's really better for you and me and the readers to stop our discussion now. You will never understand. I hoped you would and would even reconcile...
I'm astonished that you did not delete your last recent post. Why should the administrator delete it? You did not write any insulting or teasing words! You just wrote several untrue words....
I don't know that the admin. has deleted any of my recent posts. I was very glad he did not!
For the last time (hopefully ) in my life: If you thought the stats say Newk is better then why did you always write you give them to me in order to SUPPORT me against kiki?????? It's just crazy!
I did not get angry before you were trying to work out a plan for me. Which plan???
The 1969 achievements show clearly that Roche was better than Newcombe in that year which was the last before his injuries.
Edit: You have often deleted your posts and written "delete post". It's not a crime but strange.
Alas, We did not have only harmless discussions about tennis matters. We actually had quarrels about your wrong claims and about right behaviour in public discussions. You never were ready to place yourself for honest and frank discussion (answering serious arguments of the partner, recognizing yourself and your mistakes and so on). When being attacked and blamed unjustified, I try to defend myself...
Good bye, pc1. I'm at the end of my wisdom. I truly wish you all the best. I will try to end these quarrel discussions.
did you play in high school, if so what school? what level player are you now? i go the the river oaks clay tournament every year, im a 4.5 level. maybe we could hit sometime.
I have cancelled my post because it referred in general terms to some deleted posts. Think of "Captain, my Captain" and be peaceful.
Yes but Davis Cup was a big deal and the match against Smith was huge. It was dramatic but Newcombe pulled it out against Smith.I never really cared about DC
Newk was clearly the best five sets specialist which speaks volume about consistency at both, menthal and physichal level.
His serve is top 5 ever and his FH volley is most likely also
Best offensive FH of the 70´s, a bit better on the offense than Borg or Nastase´s, yet not nearly as good on deffense.
Decent lob and decent sliced BH
great character, amusing and charismatic
Fact is Newk belonged to the truly greats like Laver,Rosewall,Emerson even if he was the little brother
Roche is a tie below being Fraser and Cooper little bro,on par with Anderson and Stolle
kiki, Sorry, I must contradict you several times.
Emerson is not in the same league with Newcombe, and Newk is not in the same league with Laver and Rosewall.
Roche is not a tier below Fraser and Cooper. In fact he is a tier above them and surely ahead of Stolle.
open era, he certainly is
I can´t see what Roche got to be above Fraser
open era, he certainly is
I can´t see what Roche got to be above Fraser