Search results

Sooner or later the Antwerp tournament will be recognized as official by the ATP. It was too important. It was bigger than the Championship Series tournaments for sure.

Roche reached finals in the Open era, Stolle peak was in the 60s against amateur fields. Not the same thing, sorry.

Blah blah blah. He was 8 years younger, is it so strange that he could beat him sometimes? Gonzales won 12 matches against Emerson in the Open Era, including the biggest one. Isn't that enough? 72 tournaments, the majority of which were amateur tournaments with depleted fields, while Gimeno had...

Newcombe and Roche were sooooooo before their prime when they lost these finals against Stolle. Stolle wouldn't have won against a peak-Newk, nor a peak-Roche. I agree on Kodes though.

Ok, I won't go on with this, it is simply becoming boring, sorry. Just another braggart who can't accept multiplicity of opinions, straight into my ignore list.

He declined, but not that much. I repeat, he has beaten Agassi, Rafter and Safin in sequence, that's enough for me. In my opinion he was way stronger than Emerson. I won't start an argument about this also, I'm pretty tired by this discussion. My god, you're just exhausting! Just stop it please...

You are just repeating this again and again, but I disapprove that point, so you can stop it. We don't read this in the same way, that's your opinion, not mine. Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this...

In my opinion you are overrating Tour in some years. In 1961 the tour was missing Rosewall, so Gonzales didn't faced his direct opponent there. I mean, it was surely a big event but I think we can't say it was more important than two Pro Majors with full fields (if Rosewall was on the tour...

What does "again" mean? You are still answering too, aren't you? It was not comparable in my opinion. Reaching a Major final by beating in sequence Rafter, Safin and Agassi is enough for me. I repeat, Emerson never did something similar. It was not his first loss with low-ranked players, so...

No, the 1975 edition was terrible. Apart from Connors and Newk, the third seeded was no. 26 on the chart at the time. It had a great final, the most famous AO match of the 70s, but the rest of the tournament was just lame. Still nobody says something about the 1970 edition? :?

Don't try to explain that to Dan, he would not listen to you at all :D

Frank Sedgman is my no. 1 in 1953 and 1958. Gonzales no. 1 from 1954 to 1957. Hoad no. 1 in 1959. Rosewall no. 1 from 1960 to 1963, co-no. 1 in 1965 and 1970, no. 1 again in 1971. Laver no. 1 in 1964, co-no. 1 in 1965, no. 1 from 1966 to 1969, co-no. 1 in 1970. Then I have Nastase two years...

That says a lot about Stolle and his real level. :D

Old man? He was 3 years older than Gimeno, not 8. :P I agree, Gimeno was not great between the amateurs, but he became great as a Pro - on the contrary some great amateurs were just weak when they turned Pro. So, the fact that he didn't win anything as an amateur, doesn't prove anything...

I agree, Stolle was not that great, he never faced the Pros until 1968. His two amateur Slam victories are not such a feat. On the contrary Gimeno was able to constantly beat Laver and Rosewall on clay in the mid 60s: this is something to take in great consideration. He has also beaten Rosewall...

Still no answers about AO 1970... :( ?

I wasn't taking away any credit from Sampras, I think he was impressive at both USO 2000 & 2001. :)

Safin literally destroyed him in 2000. In 2001 he has beaten in sequence Rafter, Agassi, and Safin to reach the final. Emerson never did something similar in 1968. Fact. Not in my opinion. Of course Emerson was physically stronger in his 20s than in his 30s, but I'm sure that if tennis was still...

nice, three answers, no one in-topic.. :D

According to Wiki a panel of the SID ranked the top-10 players of 1969 as follows: 1) Laver, 2) Roche, 3) Newcombe, 4) Okker, 5) Ashe, 6) Rosewall, 7) Gonzales, 8. Drysdale, 9) Gimeno, Stolle (tied) The AO was played in Janaury and it was entered by Roche, Newcombe, Okker, and Ashe. That means...

I wouldn't say that, except for 1959. In 1958 he had a lot of troubles, he was winning the tour by an 8 matches margin, and he lost it by a 15 matches margin! Backtrack? The Sampras example is not right, as I was saying. On Wilander, what I can say is: he has proved he could beat the big guys in...

Blah blah blah, stay in your parallel tennis history, I wouldn't give you credit anymore.

no doubt about it, great player for sure.

The fact is that Rosewall and Laver had only sporadic victories in 1964-67 on clay, while Gimeno won clay titles with constance from 1964 to 1966 (I can't remember if in 1967 too). In the Open Era he clearly declined, except for the RG title.

I have to correct myself too, he won Milano in 1965, but Noordwijk was in 1964, not 1966. Anyway, he was probably the strongest on clay from 1964 to 1967, it was a shame that the Pro circuit didn't have a clay Major in those years, he would have been much more considered now.

I've said 1965-66 because he won some nice clay tournaments in those years, such as Milano and Noordwijk, but 1967 was also a strong season, no doubt about it.

About Roy Emerson, I'm with BobbyOne, he's definitely overrated. Gimeno at his peak in 1965-66 would have crushed him.

I've also seen you contesting a lot of McCauley and Bowers statistics in the past, without providing any source, and now you say "Look at McCauley", it sounds funny. Couldn't care less about the USPTA. Even the Australian Open was nominally a Major in 1976 but nobody considered it a big one. In...

I agree. Dan Lobb is funny, he seems to live in another world, with another tennis history, which he totally invented. :D

I would say WAY better, without any kind of doubt. Emerson never faced peak-Kramer, peak-Sedgman, peak-Gonzales, peak-Rosewall, and peak-Hoad, while Segura did, and he caught 3-4 Majors title despite this enormous competition.