15 greatest players of all time

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

However some of your answers are not surprising given that sometimes you can be insincere and just willing to contradict me even without writing any argument to back up your replies.
Did you give any good argument or example about Riggs’s supposedly unfounded statements about Budge ? Not a single one.
And about Barrett the main problem was that he (or perhaps Tingay as suggested by urban who told in one of his post that it was possibly Tingay who wrote that sentence) stated that Laver could have won 9 Wimbys in a row if the tourney had been open while this assertion is pretty bold not to say more and is a clear evidence that Barrett (or Tingay) wasn’t aware at all of the pro players levels.
Another and last point about Barrett : I do not denigrate his whole work which is superb however as everyone he is not perfect.
To give you another example about some of his opinions :
Barrett ranked Connors #1 in the world in 1978 which is very debatable to say the least.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…Budge do figure in the debates -- I am not arguing about that. I just think, and many with me, that Budge's record doesn't quite hold together in comparisons with other super-dominants under close examination from any perspective and not one comment from his country-men contemporaries like Vines, Riggs and Kramer have arguments to convince me otherwise. Not even you have that. Pc1 has very similar views on Budge's achievements as I have. I still have a the door open to Budge. The question isn't settled yet. But the door is only slightly open -- if you catch my drift...

a) In http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3348132&postcount=382 last April I wrote to pc1 :
“About Budge's ranking in tennis history since WWI, I haven't changed my mind for a very simple reason : I haven't got time to reconsider it (and in particular to read in details your arguments that I have carefully recorded for future readings) but I have no choice other than to analyse in detail Budge's career after your comments. I don't know when I do it but I can't avoid it.”
So it is clear that my Budge’s rating is not fixed at all because I haven’t clearly studied his record in the finest details. However I think that many underrate very very much Budge. You don’t forget to put Borg’s burnout forward to explain why he had obstacles and retired early but you seldom do the same with Budge about WWII. One of the reasons why Budge had not a great 1941 season was that the pro circuit was rather demoralizing with no economical perspectives and Budge being “forced” to play grandpa’ Tilden. In 1942 it was easier for Budge to be motivated because he could face new fresh blood with Riggs and Kovacs leaving their amateur status. And of course his career was severely interrupted after Forest Hills 1942.

I mean you go by Vines and Riggs words about Budge like gospel. I wish you instead listen to Mac who called Borg the greatest athlete tennis ever had and it's not even close. Actually Mac's statement is backed up by other evidence to this as well -- but since your negative to Borg you of course ignores such statements...
But if it's self-confessed court-hustler Riggs himself -- it's honesty personified and cannot be questioned. Only blindly believed...
And if Riggs says something -- it's hearsay -- I'll say...

Not only Vines and Riggs but also Tilden and Kramer lauded Budge. You say you can’t be convinced by countrymen but you baulk when someone recall that whenever you or Hellberg laud Borg, both of you are Borg’s countrymen.
However it is not strange to cite these American players because they were the #1 world players before and after Budge. Tilden was close to the top until 1931 (Ray Bowers ranked him #1 that year and he stated that probably E.C. Potter deemed Tilden better than Cochet). Vines was with Perry (and Nüsslein) the best player before Budge. Riggs and Kramer were Budge’s successors. But which other great players witnessed Budge in the 1937-1942 years ? Perry, Nüsslein, Parker, von Cramm, Henkel, Quist, Bromwich. It would be interesting to know their opinions (I own Perry’s autobiography and books about Nüsslein, Parker but I haven’t yet read them). What I know is that Bromwich considered Budge as the greatest player he ever met. Even when Laver made his open Slam in 1969, Hopman (who beat Budge in his last amateur match) deemed Budge as the best player he ever saw ahead of Rocket.
If you consider that whenever Riggs says something is just hearsay then I can retort you that whenever McEnroe speaks of himself it is pure fantasy at its extreme.
Mac wrote in his book that if he had won Garros he would have been the greatest player ever. What a thoughtless show-off that Mac !!!
Once he was invited at the French TV, Canal +, and was asked a comparison between him and Sampras. Mac dared say that at their respective best, he would have won the majority of matches against Pete. I was shocked by such a bold statement and by Mac’s boastfulness.
Mac revealed in his book that on the court he could get hysterical because he perfectly knew that the tournament promoters and organizers couldn’t fire him because as a very commercial attractive player Mac was the financial guarantee of a tournament success and if I remember well (I haven’t his autobiography to hand and besides I was offered the French edition of his book so I can’t be 100% sure of what he originally and truly wrote) he even said that he could be a little insincere in some of his tantrums.
I also know that you entirely refute people’s thinking that McEnroe’s threat was Borg’s main reason of the Swede retirement.
However Mac, if I’m not mistaken, stated in his autobiography that he was perhaps one of the minor reasons of Borg’s retirement.
Mac also claimed in Becker’s autobiography that no one in tennis history had to bear such a pressure of burden of glory as Becker had to put up with since his 1st triumph at Wimby.
I know that you strongly contradict these Mac’s assessments and given what he thought about himself as a player (see above when he compared himself with Sampras and how he rates himself if he had won Roland in 1984) and how he could behave on the court (and also off the court : read for example Mansour Bahrami’s own book)
you should be very careful, very cautious, very circumspect with every McEnroe’s claim.
If Riggs can’t be trustful in your opinion then McEnroe has to be not even read or heard at all.
However I don’t call Borg’s great athleticism into question at all : Bjorn's resting PR around 35, his beating of Guy Drut, the Olympic 110m hurdles Gold Medallist, in the European Superstars 600m event, his numerous successes on clay, say a lot for his athleticism and stamina. He was very probably the best tennis athlete of his time.
What I eventually question is “greatest … ever” and above all “it's not even close” in “Borg the greatest athlete tennis ever had and it's not even close”.
I already gave you Emerson’s example : Roy was always cited as an example of great stamina by his peers (in particular his countrymates such as Sedgman, Rosewall, Laver & al) and Stolle even as late as 1985 considered Emerson as the greatest tennis athlete he had ever seen (but I recognize that all his sources can be subjective).
Earlier Perry was often cited as the fittest player ever seen on a court.
And I also talked about Wilding as possibly the “inventor” of physical training in tennis.
And though Lendl wasn’t probably as physiologically gifted as Borg and couldn’t rival his elder in 1981-1982, the Czech work very hard and dramatically improved in the mid and late 80’s and was then perhaps not so far from Borg’s peak in the late 70’s-early 80’s.
And athleticism is not only stamina and speed or quickness. Power or strength is also a criterion : and apparently Hoad or Becker were one of the most gifted ever and very probably superior to Borg in that domain (but on the other hand the Swede was apparently less fragile than these players because he was less or less deeply physically injured).
And Nadal, at least until early 2009 (now he is apparently in bad condition) was considered as a physical monster by his peers.
How can you claim that Nadal (until early 2009) or Emerson or Perry or Wilding or even prime Lendl were not even close to Borg as tennis athletes ?
Have you any 100% certain proofs ?
Once again Borg was the best tennis athlete of his time, he is one of the all time greats and possibly (but not certainly) the best tennis athlete ever (remember of Wilding or Emerson or Perry for instance) but I don’t think he was far ahead of every other player.

…Why did I chose Borg on the grass-courter poll? Well, I certainly think polls here are only a fun thing. Not serious. … Borg has 41 straight at Wimby. …Still the longest streak on grass in history. After 29 years….

Yes this “fun thing” is just the clear proof that you are completely biased towards Borg to the detriment of all the other players except your new love, H.L. Doherty.
And once again you dismiss Federer’s record though the Swiss has also won 41 matches in a row at Wimby though officially his defeat of Haas (a walk-out) in 2007 is not counted but wrongly.

…Rafa … Fed … Borg had better clutch than either of them in the many close fight I think they would have. The records are very clear about this. …

I would like to have some precisions about these clear records.
Yes Fed has sort of abdicated in the fifth sets of the Australian and US Open in 2009 and very early in the Roland Garros 2008 final but since his mononucleosis in December 2007 the Swiss has never recovered his peak form : now physically he is perhaps as good as before but mentally he has lost something and if Fed is #1 again this is mainly due to Nadal’s injuries in 2009 (and early 2010).
But if we consider Federer at his true peak (2004-2007) then had peak Borg really better clutch ?
I would enjoy some explanations, details, stats, … from you.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

]…Borg, Sampras and Laver's comments about Roger being the best in modern times? Did Laver define "modern times" without any reasonable doubt? No. I believe he meant Federer is best now -- this era -- nothing else. For which I agree. …

“Modern era” in MY mind and about that precise point meant more or less Federer’s era (or perhaps including Sampras’ too) but Lendl’s, Borg’s, Connors’, and I don’t talk about pre-open era, were “ancient eras” in my view about the point we are talking now because I have more or less interpreted Laver’s assessment. Originally I thought Laver has said that Federer was the greatest of the modern era but in fact I have too much interpreted Laver’s thought given that I have no quote of his at all in L’Équipe.
In fact L’Équipe, after Federer’s success at Wimby 2009 has exactly written :
« Oui, dit Sampras, Federer est le plus grand de tous”. Même si, comme Rod Laver, on serait plus enclin à ne comparer que les joueurs d’une même époque ».
A word for word translation gives “Yes, say Sampras, Federer is the greatest of all” Even though, as Rod Laver, we would be more disposed to compare only players of the same era”.
This is what I too quickly interpreted as “…Laver is more prudent and ranks Federer as the greatest of the modern era only”. However it is likely Laver’s thought.

… I don't have the time to explain my 10-7 or 10-8 Borg vs Mac H2H tally because I don't have time. I wish I could call off everything I do from now on and spend 10-14 days going really 100% novel-length detailed on all of this stuff but it's not feasible I am afraid.
However, we can do it the quick way without doing it really wrong:
In Borg and Mac's matches include every match up until Borg arrives in Sweden in late November 1982. After the AKAI-tourney, which was a stunning success for Björn, he felt empty again. Didn't rejoice or feel anything positive even after his defeat of both the super-indoor-streak-holders Mac and Lendl. Clear-cut burnout symptoms.
Take away every match that Borg and Mac played after mid- November 1982 and include every match before that and you have the H2H, including several burnout perfs by Borg but since he made serious effort after some of those before his motivation finally bottomed out completely in November 1982.
That's 7-7 in their official H2H. 3-2 to Borg in invitational tourneys. And 4-2 to Borg in exxo's = 14-11 to Borg in H2Hs when Borg was at least gunning forward somewhat seriously.
And this is of course meeting only on McEnroe's favorite surfaces. Could you imagine Federer being anywhere close to being 14-11 in H2Hs against Rafa on clay?! But some think Roger is better against Rafa on his worst surface than Borg was against Mac on his worst, even though Borg had to fight under faster and slower circumstances and that is undisputed fact...

It’s annoying you haven’t time to explain you 10-7 or 10-8 tally because once again I can’t find it
however according to your selection of Borg’s peak years I agree with your new tally of 14-11 in favour of Borg.
From my http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3967793&postcount=477 post here is the extract of Borg-McEnroe results until the Akai Gold Challenge Tennis in Sydney in early November 1982 :
a) ATP stats’ : Borg - McEnroe = 7 - 7
Year (or date) Tournament Winner & Score
1978 Stockholm McEnroe 63 64
1979 Richmond WCT Borg 46 76 63
1979 New Orleans McEnroe 57 61 76
1979 Rotterdam Borg 64 62
1979 WCT Finals Dallas McEnroe 75 46 62 76
1979 Canadian Open Toronto Borg 63 63
1979 (Jan 80) Masters New York Borg 67 63 76
1980 Wimbledon Borg 16 75 63 67 86
1980 US Open McEnroe 76 61 67 57 64
1980 Stockholm Borg 63 64
1980 (Jan 81) Masters New York Borg 64 67 76
1981 Milan McEnroe 76 64
1981 Wimbledon McEnroe 46 76 76 64
1981 US Open McEnroe 46 62 64 63
b) Invitational tournaments UNTIL MID-NOVEMBER 1982 : Borg - McEnroe = 3 - 2
Year (or tournament dates) Tournament Winner & Score
1979 March 6-7 Vienna Velo Tennis Cup Borg 36 61 64
1979 Nov 26-29 Milan Brooklyn Masters Borg 16 61 64
1981 Feb 4-8 Toronto Molson Light Challenge McEnroe 63 36 76
1982 Nov 1-3 Perth Swan Lager Super Challenge McEnroe 61 64
1982 Nov 5-7 Sydney Akai Gold Challenge Tennis Borg 36 64 75 62
c) Invitational team competitions UNTIL MID-NOVEMBER 1982: Borg - McEnroe = 0 - 0
d) Exhibitions UNTIL MID-NOVEMBER 1982: Borg - McEnroe = 4 - 2
Year (or exhibition date) City Winner & Score
1979, Mar 7 Münich Borg 64 75
1979, Mar 8 Oslo McEnroe 63 26 63 57 76
1979, Mar 9 Randers Borg 64 64 64
1981, Feb 19 Sydney Borg 60 64
1981, Feb 20 Melbourne Borg 62 64
1981, Feb 21 Melbourne McEnroe 64 16 76 64

…And this is of course meeting only on McEnroe's favorite surfaces. Could you imagine Federer being anywhere close to being 14-11 in H2Hs against Rafa on clay?! But some think Roger is better against Rafa on his worst surface than Borg was against Mac on his worst, even though Borg had to fight under faster and slower circumstances and that is undisputed fact...

Yes it’s true that Borg was clearly better than Mac on clay until 1981 though both players never met on that surface.
I open the brackets here : I always thought that seedings should have been granted according to the surface (grass is a problem because they are very few grass events) and for instance Mac shouldn’t have been seeded until 1982-1983 as high as #3 or #2 at Roland Garros. Given that he was relatively weak in these years on that surface he was unable to reach the semis or the final and therefore to meet Borg. Had Mac been seeded let’s say #6 or #10 which was more or less his true ranking on clay before 1984 he and Borg could have faced in a round of 16 or a quarterfinal at Garros (or in another clay tourney). In “recent” years the most stupid seedings at Garros were in 1990 when both Edberg and Becker were #1 and #2 but lost as early as the first round. Edberg and Becker were good claycourters (after all they faced each other in the semifinals the previous year but in 1990 there were some true specialists better than them but unfairly seeded lower or even not seeded). I close the brackets about the seedings according the surface.
So I completely agree that until the early 80’s Borg was strong enough to rival Mac on fast surfaces while in reverse Mac wasn’t able to compete with Björn on slow surfaces so there is no doubt that Borg was better than Mac until 1980 included.
But we can also say that Mac played Borg when the latter was at his very peak from 1978 to 1980 while the reverse didn’t happen : you seldom (or perhaps even never) mention that Borg never met peak McEnroe in 1984 (except in mere exhibitions all won by Mac).
So on one hand Mac never faced Björn on clay but on the other hand the Swede never met in an official meeting very peak Mac.

Finally, you shouldn't take anything of this so personally Carlo. This is a debate and if my "that's the craziest thing I've ever heard"-comments feels like a punch I don't know what to say...

I noted that in the course of the weeks when I have prepared these long answers of mine that you decided to quit the forum (on November 11, 2009) probably because you took so personally some replies by other members such as Krosero, CyBorg, jeffreyneave … It just shows that some “heated” discussions can be hurtful.
P.S. : You came back on Dec. 17, 2009.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Carlo,
In a quick glance of your recent posts here I am amazed on how you misinterpreted a number of things I wrote and what the intent was.
Incidentally you're an adult, you should realize that if I write that I thought some argument was absurd, it's not exactly what I call an awful statement. I was surprised by your reaction.
I'll definitely respond soon and it shouldn't take months.
I notice you mention how great you are with disagreements with other people in discussing tennis history. You mention just a few names. Is it the case with all the people you discuss tennis history with, that is, are you always so open to people disagreeing with you, aside from myself and Borgforever of course? Just curious.

In these discussions I agree with you on one point : there were several misinterpretations. I am not so great or so open that you suggest.
What I don’t like is gratuitous aggressiveness which sullies any human relationship.
I considered that you had hurt me at the time (July 2009) whereas I had never hurt you before that date.
By the way I sort of liked your reaction in these September 2009 posts, I will detail later.
About people with whom I can have sometimes different opinions I can also name for instance SgtJohn or urban and as elegos7 and AndrewTas they always behave as gentlemen.
And with gentlemen (or ladies but in that forum very few women discuss) I can’t be disrespectful : it is as simple as that.

… no one is correct all the time… The Kramer book is excellent also but you also have to take it with a grain of salt..

First assertion I fully agree and second too. In the latter case do you really think that I don’t take many information without a grain of salt : there are many Kramer’s assertions I don’t agree with.

… The point is that we all learned from each others analysis and information...

I entirely agree

…I repeat my earlier question, have any of my posts made an impression and which ones?...

I don’t even understand why you ask this question. I agreed with many of your posts so no example is necessary.
This is your disrespectful attitude in these early Budge&Borg posts that irritated me at the time, nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi
Thank you once again pc1 for supporting me.
Lendl in 1980 was already the 4th player in the world (though only 6th in the bad ATP ranking) behind Borg, McEnroe, and Connors, by reaching the final of the Masters (in January 1981), by winning the Davis Cup (undefeated in singles with wins over Vilas and Clerc), the River Oaks tournament at Houston, the Canadian Open (over an injured Borg), the Basel tournament (over an healthy Borg) as well as the Barcelona, Tokyo outdoor (clay) and Hong-Kong tournaments.
Carlo,
This is proof here I have supported you in the past and I will continue to support you if I agree with your statements. You conveniently forget that I have supported you in the past.
And I will mention any clear disagreement I have with you on any topic also but I will do it in a civil way.
Incidentally the irony I mentioned in my previous post has nothing to do with the above quote although I find this ironic also.
I believe Borgforever has supported you quite often in the past also.

I don’t forget at all that you supported me in the past. Once again I repeat our point of contention : you didn’t mention your disagreements in what I call a civil way in those posts of July 2009. This is what I blame you for. Nothing else, as simple as that.
As for Borgforever he had continued to be uncivil since this time whereas I have appreciated your “parking lot” story.

Borgforever,
Vines was more interested in golf in the late 1930's and still played Budge close. Second, the idea that Budge was number one for a zillion years opposed to Borg's few years is amusing in that Borg won more tournaments and more majors. Borg won 100 tournaments to Budge's awesome amount of 42. What is really impressive is that Borg did far more than Budge in a few years than Budge in a longer career ...

This is your own opinion. Once again I repeat that we can’t compare Borg’s career with Budge’s simply by numbers.
I think you trust too much numbers and consider them as holy truth. Pc1 you are comparing numbers that aren’t comparable at all.
Borg could play zillions of tournaments every year of his career while Budge could play very few tournaments in the 1940’s.
In particular in 1942 Budge was clearly the best player in the world though he entered and won only one tournament (without losing a set). Had Borg so few opportunities to play tournaments in his peak years ? Of course not. There is no year when he played only 1 tourney. Even in 1980 and 1981 when the Swede slowed his pace he played about 10-15 tourneys a year.
I’m not sure that Budge played as many tournaments in any year of his career as Borg played in 1980. In particular among his pro years, 1939 is the year when Budge played the most with at best 10 tournaments (of which he won 6 or 7). Borg in the seventies played that same number of tournaments in only 4 or 5 months.
Remember that in the 30’s-40’s there were many problems of transportation, money and also WWII.
When he got to Australia in the summer 1937-1938 Budge “lost” almost 2 months just to make the trip and come back.
And even when he came to Europe the outward journey took 3 weeks to cross the Atlantic and of course as long to return.
Of course Borg didn’t lose as much time because he lived in the airliners’ era.
So to come back to your stats’ analysis : if I go through your logic I would say that Borg in 1977 has done 13 times more than Budge in 1942 because Borg has won 11 ATP tourneys + 2 non-ATP tourneys whereas Budge won only 1 tournament. Was Borg in 1977 13 times better than Budge in 1942 ? Certainly not. Budge in 1942 was probably as good (if not better) as Borg in 1977.
This is why in particular you can’t compare the number of tournaments won by Borg with Budge’s.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Second, the idea that Carlo proposes that there is no doubt that Rosewall is superior in his domain and globally (incidentally I admit I like the sound of saying domain and globally as Carlo puts it) to Laver is unbelievable to me. All I wrote was that both can be the GOAT and there can be doubt. I put stats out, tournaments won, majors won, winning percentage, percentage of tournament won and no player crushed the other. Carlo seems to indicate that Rosewall is CLEARLY SUPERIOR to Laver. I am not saying either one is superior. I'm just saying there is DOUBT who is the best. Ken can be the best or Rod.
I'm amazed he is steadfast in this stance. I just don't see how any objective analyst would be so steadfast that Rosewall is clearly the GOAT.
If he wrote that he thought Rosewall was the GOAT, I would think, excellent choice, logical. If he thought Laver was the GOAT, I would also think excellent choice and logical. But to write Rosewall is the top in his domain and globally clearly, well I just don't know what to think.
The only Master of his Domain is Jerry Seinfeld but that's another story. lol. An American in-joke.

and

If we break it down simply. Here's the crux of the discussions-Is Rosewall clearly superior to Rod Laver in every important category? My answer is no and Carlo is yes… Here's my question CAN ANYONE TRULY BELIEVE ROSEWALL IS SUPERIOR TO LAVER IN EVERY IMPORTANT CATEGORY? We're talking about Laver here, not Andy Roddick. Is there no doubt?

… The other disagreement was whether in comparing Rod Laver to Ken Rosewall that in looking at the information that we know about both, whether there would be any doubt on who was the better player ...

Another of our (and yours in this case) misinterpretations.
I didn’t say that Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver or that there was any doubt on who the best player between both and even less that Rosewall was clearly the GOAT. Never.
Yes I wrote that Rosewall is the top in his domain but you mistake the domain where I think Ken was better than Rod. And so I repeat for the second time what I wrote on April 30, 2009, in http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3370542&postcount=34 :
Rosewall has a better overall record :
he won at least as many majors as Rod if not more, he reached many more finals in majors than Rod, he reached many many more semis in majors than Rod. So in majors, Ken has a very clearly better record than Rod. I’m not restricting it to (1963-)1964-1967 as you’ve done in your explanation.

Rosewall had better overall rankings (except of course the 1st places as I indicated in my exceptions) than Rod. In my mind Ken was in the Top2 in 1957, 1960-1967 (perhaps a co-No2 in 1968 because many overrate(d) Ashe feats who except the US Open won mainly amateur tournaments with at best 3 players of the Top10 each time), 1970 (and perhaps 1971). Longer than Rod. Ken was in the Top5 in 1955 (Sedgman ill or absent from the pro circuit, most of the time), 1957-1972, longer than Rod. Ken was in the Top10 from 1953 to 1974 (I think that Ken was close to the Top10 in 1975 and not 6th as in the ATP ranking) and in the Top20 from 1952 to 1977. Longer than Rod.
In conclusion Ken was superior to Laver in majors’ record (once again I repeat because Kenny reached many more finals and semifinals), in global rankings and in longevity (the last point is very forgotten or underrated in many judgments).
Laver was superior in potential (peak Laver superior to peak Rosewall and to peak Gonzales,…) and had clearly more (at least twice as many) years than Kenny as #1.
So these claims don’t state at all that Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver or that Rosewall was clearly the GOAT.
In particular I said that Laver’s potential was clearly superior to Rosewall’s in my mind which isn’t a little argument in favour of Rocket and also that Laver was #1 many more years than Ken which is too another great point in favour of Rocket when one compares both players.
In these statements I didn’t talk about tournaments won, winning percentage and so on because in my mind it is less important than majors’ record, potential, rankings and longevity : for instance Wilander in 1988 had “poor” percentage stats but did a little Slam and that last point is more important in my mind.
In extreme examples with players entering about 25 tournaments in a given year,
you can have a player A who has won 105 ( = 21* about 5 rounds in each tourney) matches in the year but lost 4 meetings, each time in the 1st round of the Slam tournaments so his win-loss match record will be superb because superior to 96% (=105/109)
and another player B who has lost in the first round of 21 tournaments but has won the Grand Slam so his win-loss match record will be slightly superior to 57% (=(7*4+0*21)/(28+21)).
So on the one hand a player A with a superb win-loss record but a very poor major record
and on the other hand a player B with a poor win-loss record but a glorious major record.
It is clear for me that the player B is greatly superior to A though his win-loss record is definitely inferior.
It just shows that majors’ records are more important than win-loss percentages’ and other similar records.
So once again I didn’t claim that globally Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver even though I emphasized Rosewall’s record in majors.

…Second topic of discussion-Is Budge better than Borg or vice versa? I say Borg. He says Budge. I've given arguments. He's given arguments.
I've decided some of the logic he uses IMHO is faulty and he disagrees. That's fine also.

About Budge I wrote on April 23, 2009 in http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3348132&postcount=382 :
About Budge's ranking in tennis history since WWI, I haven't changed my mind for a very simple reason : I haven't got time to reconsider it (and in particular to read in details your arguments that I have carefully recorded for future readings) but I have no choice other than to analyse in detail Budge's career after your comments. I don't know when I do it but I can't avoid it.
Since that date I haven’t analysed Budge’s career in detail so I can’t say more but I continue to think that you consider his stats’ too coldly without taking into account the tennis context in the 30’s-40’s which was different from the 70’s context.

Quote from Carlo-So yes it’s true that Borg once he reached the top was never #6 but on the other hand once Budge wasn’t the #1 he was still at the top (and even came back to the very top in 1942) while once Borg had quit in the 1st place he became #2 the next year and then completely disappeared except for a few invitational and exhibition tourneys. So please explain to me how you can rank a player so high who gave up so early?
Carlo,
The answer is very simple. The greatness of a tennis player is judged by not how long he is good but by what he accomplished. Essentially Borg retired at age 25 while Budge played into his forties. Borg accomplished more than Budge ever did by the time Borg retired.
I’ll gave the example of two great cars. One car speeds along at an average speed of 200 mph for 15 hours. This car goes 3000 miles. Another car speeds along at 100 mph for 25 hours. This car goes 2500 miles. The latter car was driven for a far longer time but didn’t go as far. The former car, despite traveling for 10 hours less went 500 miles further. In this analogy Borg is the former car, didn’t go for as long a time but went a far greater distance. The latter car is Budge, travel for a longer time but didn't go nearly as far.

I don’t contradict your logic here at all and I have never said that the greatness of a tennis player has to be judged on how long he is good. I have never said that longevity was the main criterion to judge a player, far from that : my first one is player’s record in majors.
What I am contradicting here is your measure : I’m not sure that Borg went 3000 miles and Budge only 2500 miles : it is possible that Budge went more and I think that you underrate in particular Budge’s record in 1942 because I repeat Don only entered one tournament that year.

…
I was trying to make some points about certain subjects here in regard to tennis history. Yes I did believe there was inconsistencies but this is hardly what I call a major putdown. However for the record I don’t mind Carlo calling me MULISH in return. In fact I kind of like the sound of mulish and intend to use it regularly in my vocabulary. As a New Yorker I’ve been called far worse, especially from the New York City cabbies….
QUOTE]

Thank you for your indulgence.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

I’ve written this before but I guess I’ll write it again.
Let’s look at the stats between the two.
Borg won 100 tournaments when he retired at 25.
Budge won 42 in his entire career.
Huge edge for Borg. Borg won almost 2.5 times as many tournaments as Don Budge.
Borg won 11 majors.
Budge won 10 majors if we include Pro Majors.
Slight edge to Borg.
Borg had a lifetime winning percentage of approximately .855
Budge had a lifetime winning percentage of approximately .750
Edge to Borg
Borg’s peak five year winning percentage is .916
Budge’s peak five year winning percentage is .815
Big edge to Borg
Borg’s % of tournaments won in best five years is .655
Budge’s % tournaments won in best five years is .700
Edge to Budge
Borg’s % of Big Tournaments won lifetime is .417
Budge’s % of Big Tournament won lifetime is .344
Edge to Borg
Borg’s number of Big Tournament won best five years is 8
Budge’s number of Big Tournaments won best five years is 9
Edge to Budge
Borg’s total tournaments won best five years is 55.
Budge’s total tournaments won best five years is 21.?

As said in my http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3348132&postcount=382 post I haven’t studied those stats but I have to because they are important and worth it.

… Budge… Borg clearly accomplished more.

I’m not so sure that Borg CLEARLY accomplished more than Budge because as I explained before Borg could in particular play and won many more tournaments than Budge.

My goodness, of all things to call me dishonest. Your posts are the size of the Milky Way galaxy. …

That’s a very good argument that I can’t contradict.

…The thing is that Laver won these tournaments not because he was born at the right time but because he was immensely gifted and talented. He was the complete player who could play on any surface. …

I completely agree that Laver was immensely gifted and talented and one of the most complete players ever if not the most.
However it is true that
Laver was born,
I wouldn’t say at the right time because the only players “born at the right time” are the players since the Lendl-Noah generations judged on their performances in the 4 biggest events which are the 4 Slam tourneys,
at a better time than the previous generations (Rosewall, Gonzales & al).
It is also true that
Laver was born at a worst time than the players of the late 60’s (Newcombe, Roche, Okker, Nastase, Kodes, Ashe, Smith) and the early 70’s (Connors, Borg, Vilas, …)
themselves born at a worse time than the next generations (Lendl, Noah, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Hewitt, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic) :
Gonzales was clearly a grandpa during the open era,
Rosewall was past his prime during the open era,
Laver was more or less at his peak in 1968-1969 at the very beginning of the open era
Newcombe & all reached their peak in the early 70’s when they could play at least 2 Open Slam tourneys a year
Borg & al could play at their peak Wimby, Forest Hills and Garros which were more or less the 3 greatest events then
The modern players enter(ed), whenever they want, the 4 Slam tourneys considered as the very greatest events.
You can clearly notice that the earlier the players were born the more unlucky they were.

So if Laver was less lucky than the next generations he was luckier than the previous ones including Rosewall’s.

…Laver won a greater percentage of majors while Rosewall won more majors. Laver won two Grand Slams and Rosewall one. Again it is quite debatable whether Rosewall’s majors record is superior to Laver or vice versa and that’s all I’m saying.

This perhaps reveals one of our main disagreement :
for me winning more majors is far greater than having a greater percentage of majors. Incidentally I’m not so sure that Rosewall has truly won more majors than Rod (you and I don’t consider majors in the same way) but Kenny clearly reached many more finals and semifinals of majors than Rocket this is why I give the edge to Kenny in that department. The fact that Kenny reached so many semifinals (including his finals and his victories) just shows that he was at the very top or near it much longer than Rod and that’s a positive point in favour of Rosewall in my view.
To come back to percentages those stats always wrongly favour the player who plays little : if I take an extreme example, Riggs was undefeated at Wimby never losing a singles or a doubles or a mixed doubles match (he only came once at Wimby (in 1939) if I don’t consider the seniors events and won the 3 events). Does it make him the best player to ever walk on the Center Court ? I don’t think though he has the best ever percentage stats ever at Wimby.

… It is also debatable whether either Laver or Rosewall were superior to each other in overall surfaces or as you put it GLOBALLY. …

Yest it’s perhaps debatable but it is likely that Rod’s better serve was the ultimate weapon letting him beat Kenny on fast surfaces : I think the Dunlop Open Sydney final in 1970 was a good example : both players, at their very best or near it, were very close but in the fifth set though Rosewall served 78% of first serves (see krosero’s great post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2001626&postcount=1) , the best percentage among the five sets of the match, Kenny was broken twice by Rocket and as krosero wrote in another post “Rosewall was broken in two consecutive games in the fifth set despite making 15 of 16 first serves”. Sure Rosewall was 35 years of age and so was possibly more tired in that 5th set than he would have been in the same situation 7 or 8 years earlier : so perhaps it explains why Ken only won 3 games in the decisive set. But it also gives an indication of Laver’s and Rosewall’s strengths : when both were at their peaks, Laver’s serve could decide of the final result. This is why I think that a “very peak” Laver was probably slightly better than Rosewall at his very best.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Quote by Carlo-“THE TENNIS CHAMPIONS CLASSIC WAS A MISTAKE…/ONE –NIGHTERS WERE DEAD…/REGARDLESS OF THE MONEY INVOLVED, THE CLASSIC SEEMED AN EXHIBITION.”
Another Carlo quote-Why, I or any other person, could not assign what is a major and why is not?
I would agree with you on that point for most of the other sports but, in tennis, politics have been so unfair, so stupid, so badly structured, so horrible. Why the ATP has been created? Because players, either amateurs or pros, had absolutely no power and couldn’t decide at all what event to play or not. The officials of the amateur tennis forced their players to blind obedience and the professional promoters imposed their competitions on their contract pros.
Carlo, you didn’t finished the entire quote and made it sound like Laver thought the tournament shouldn’t have been played. Here’s the entire quote verbatim—The crowd in Boston told me something: the Tennis Champions Classic was a mistake. Just as when I’d faced MacKay and pro tennis was a zero, there were about 2000 customers in a building holding 15,000. They looked like the same people left over from 1963—the hard core you could expect to show up at any tennis event. Tennis was appealing to a wider audience than that hard core. One nighters were dead, and the Classic couldn’t revive them or anything but my savings account. Regardless of the money involved, the Classic seemed an exhibition. The customers wanted tournaments.
Now since English is my first language, I interpret this as Laver calling the tournament a mistake because it didn’t draw crowds and that is what everyone wanted to promote Pro Tennis at the time. He did not say the tournament was not a top tournament. If you check the following quote it seems that Laver did value this tournament highly.
Here’s another paragraph from the book on that tournament on page 304 to 305 that you LEFT OUT—Thus ended a season that began with the BRIGHTEST tournament concept yet for pro tennis as well as an event I called “The Rod Laver Benefit.” That’s not what Fred Podesta, the promoter, called it, but he might as well have because Laver was the only one who made any money out of it. The “Benefit” was a $210,000 series of one-night stands across the U.S. actually named the Tennis Champions Classic. Rosewall and I launched the series at Madison Square Garden in New York, and the idea was that the winner would take $10,000, the loser nothing, and at the next stop another pro would appear to challenge the winner. I loved it.
My point is this, perhaps no one in the history of tennis ever faced such a field to win a tournament and Laver also had to win more than seven best of five matches to win the tournament. The field was super strong and the tournament had great prestige. No one was expected to sweep the field and yet Laver did it. Laver defeated Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Taylor, Ashe, Okker, Emerson, Ralston, some of them several times. Laver won 13 matches against this awesome field without one loss! If I was to use the Carlo method, I may consider this tournament as the same as two or more majors.
But I can’t do that because it is NOT a major. Also Laver had rest in between matches.
People and players alike were awestruck by what Laver did in this tournament. It was big stuff. At the same time, I’m sure Rod would have traded this tournament victory and all the money if he entered the weakened 1973 Wimbledon and won it. Why, because despite the weakened field, the 1973 Wimbledon was still Wimbledon and had far more prestige. When I see people lowering the values of majors because of certain factors I tend to cringe. Why, because while there may be some logic to it, the person who assigns the values may not be correct and if the person has preferences or their own agenda, he or she may tend to assign the values to suit their preferences or agendas. …

Well I don’t think that in the end Laver in his book valued this tournament as highly as the WCT Finals :
Rocket stated that it was initially a great concept … “the BRIGHTEST tournament concept” …
and he was delighted because he earned more money in less than 3 months (Jan.2 to March 19, 1971) than ever (before AND since)
but he noted that the public wasn’t interested any more in one-night stands and that the concept ended as a flop.
In his book he mainly focused on the WCT Finals and not on the Tennis Champions Classic when he summed up his late career given that he seldom played Wimby in the 70’s.

… If I was to use the Carlo method, I may consider this tournament as the same as two or more majors …

No, you use my method to the extreme. I never said that tradition doesn’t count and that only fields should determine a competition’s greatness. I say that in some cases tradition doesn’t mean much when fields are pretty weak : in the open era the Australian Open between 1972 and 1982 was a joke, a farce but didn’t deserve at all his Slam label. Many top players eluded Roland Garros in the early 70’s : from 1970 to 1978 the best field was the 1973 one with Rosewall, Laver, Emerson and Riessen missing from the Top20 players and in particular in 1970 and 1972 none of the WCT players came. So tradition has its limits.
In my method the Tennis Champion Classic wasn’t at all the equivalent of 2 majors or more : this tournament had no tradition and above all was not a main goal for the players while the WCT Finals were the climax of the WCT season especially as many WCT players didn’t enter Roland Garros and the US Open in 1971. So I would rank the Tennis Champion Classic below the WCT Finals that year (my list of the greatest events in 1971 being : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) the Australian Open, 4) the WCT Finals-Houston&Dallas or the Italian Open (Rome)).
About the field I am not sure he was as super strong as you think. I have already talked about it with you : only WCT players were invited to enter this tourney. In particular players such as Smith, Nastase, Kodes or Graebner were absent and Laver lost successively to Kodes and Nastase at Stockholm and Wembley that year.
What was more impressive is that he won successively 13 matches against Top10 players (and jeffreyneave in his own subjective ranking grants Laver, undefeated in that event, bonus points).

I missed your logic here. What does the politics of tennis have to do with you in your wisdom in deciding what is a major or not? I agree with you that the politics of tennis have been awful. The politics to do with American Football and American Baseball has also been awful. They don’t change the winner of the World Series or Super Bowl because the politics were bad …

By politics I meant that officials or promoters prevented players to enter and therefore win tournaments they would have played if they hadn’t been forbidden to enter them. Politics prevented the pros to play the Davis Cup or the amateur Slam tourneys. Politics prevented the WCT players to enter the Davis Cup until 1972 included. Politics prevented these same players to play Garros and Wimby that last year. And in the amateur circuit, politics prevented amateur players to enter the tournaments they wanted : for instance in 1939 no top Australians could play Garros, Wimby and all the other European events because Brookes, then president of the ALTA wished his country win again the Davis Cup so the Aussies had to go to America to play all the eliminatory rounds in order to recapture the Cup held by the USA.
So to state that for instance Wimby in 1966 was a major because the British had decreed in the XIXth century that their championship was the World Championship is a little too much in my mind.
Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Earl Buchholz, Barthes, Hoad and Malcolm Anderson were forbidden to play Wimby in 1966 :
a modern equivalent would be to forbid Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro, Roddick, Youzhny, Ferrer and Stepanek to enter a Slam event. So let me doubt about the supposed greatness of that event.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

What happens here now? Do we analyze every field and see if it’s stronger than a major? …

Of course not in every case
But why not when a so-called major has a clearly depleted field.
Why consider for instance the Australian 1953 as a major given that so many great players didn’t enter it in particular because most of them were forbidden to play it.
Not only Trabert, Drobny, Patty, Larsen, Nielsen, Sven Davidson and other great amateurs didn't enter that championship but ABOVE ALL EVERY PRO WAS FORBIDDEN TO COMPETE THERE. It means that Segura, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, McGregor, Budge, Kovacs, Pails, Riggs and others were also absent.
So it is very unfair to consider this event as a major given that so many players were rejected.
Another example, Wimby 1973 : as Tennis de France rightly put it, Kodes didn’t win Wimbledon 1973 but won a tournament at Wimbledon to make understand everyone that the Czech hadn’t won the greatest tennis event of the time but had won a depleted tourney held on the famous courts.
So yes I agree with you that it is dangerous to assign events in a subjective way
but it is far more dangerous to consider the Slam tourneys in the amateur days as the major events
whereas for several decades the pro competitions were tougher to win and besides when other amateur events were at the time more important than the so-called majors : for instance the Davis Cup was undoubtedly a greater event than Wimby from 1920 to 1959. The Davis Cup was roughly as important as Wimby in the last amateur days (1960-1967) and even before WWI the Cup was sometimes considered as more important than Wimby.
Nowadays the Davis Cup is more or less considered as the 5th or 6th event (see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=291794) and it will probably decline in the future (the fact that the ATP grants that event no more points than a “500” tournament will likely downgrade that team competition).
It just shows that the hierarchy of the greatest events has ALWAYS changed.
In the early 1890’s the Irish Championship was perhaps the greatest event of all while nowadays there is no tournament at all in Dublin
It is very possible that the 4 present Slam events won’t be the 4 pillars of the game in some decades. Perhaps the French will have lost some of his importance, perhaps Wimby will be an ordinary event or even will have disappeared. No one knows.

However you perfectly know that
a) before the open era the true top players were the best pros forbidden to enter the traditional major events,
b) in the first years of the open era the pros under contract were too prevented from playing some of these so-called majors,
c) that the Australian Champs were often stupidly held during the year’s end celebrations therefore couldn’t draw many top players,
d) that until 1978 included Roland Garros wasn’t on par with the British or the US Champs because happily not the majority but however many top players skipped the French because
either some considered the WCT circuit and in particular the WCT Finals more important and so hadn’t play the clay-court circuit to prepare the French and besides were too tired to have good chances
or others still considered the French as a “minor” event compared to Wimby and Forest and preferred to play the WTT circus which offered much money than Garros.
All these reasons are strong enough to contradict the supposed greatness of the so-called majors.

Do we look at who someone defeated to win a major and downgrade the major if that player played weak opponents? Do we lower Federer’s 2009 French Open victory because he defeated Robin Soderling instead of Rafa Nadal? Do we check the level of play of the opponents and decide if he defeated an opponent that played well? Where do you stop? …

One doesn’t have to downgrade Federer’s win at the French Open because he was clearly the best of all in that tournament where no one was forbidden to enter as were the best pros in the 50’s or the WCT players in many of the Slam tourneys in the early 70’s. You can’t compare these circumstances with the fact that Nadal has declined in 2009. In June 2009 Nadal wasn’t physically as strong as in June 2008, simply because of his injured knees. As I have several times mentioned the first quality of a sport athlete is to be in good wealth and condition. In June 2009 Federer was physically clearly stronger than Nadal and so it helped Federer to win (or to be more explicit it partly caused Nadal’s defeat) (I also mentioned, in another post, that Nadal’s new forehand in 2009 was simply less efficient than before). Federer beat Söderling whereas Nadal lost to Söderling so Federer was clearly better than Nadal in June 2009.
So Federer’s victory at Roland Garros 2009 is completely deserved (it doesn’t contradict the fact that the best Federer ever on clay is less good than the best Nadal ever on clay : in June 2008 Nadal was possibly clearly better than Federer in June 2009 but at this last date Nadal was below Federer (and of course Söderling).
So you can’t compare this and Federer’s success with Santana’s victory at Wimby 1966 with Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales & al forbidden to compete against the Spaniard and his amateur peers at Wimby.

…Do I include the information that Rod Laver won 13 Master Series Equivalent tournaments after the age of 30 in the Open Era? What percentage of a major is this? Do I include Borg's 16 Masters Series tournament Eqivalents? What about Lendl and McEnroe? Where does it end? …

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1299912&postcount=20
Please don't try to give a long explanation why you should change what is a major to a player. The point of the previous paragraphs was to point out the potential problems of what you are doing. I do not think some of these things should be done.
I think instead of lowering or increasing values for majors and other tournaments we simply look at the year and see what tournaments he won and if it is very strong, you consider that when you decided how the person ranks for the year. I do think that in some years, the importance of some events, like the Australian Open in the 1970’s was not as high as for example the WCT tournaments in the early 1970’s. However when for example Vilas won those majors, they are still majors and no one can take them away from him, even Carlo. …[/QUOTE]
Of course you don’t have to include the Masters 1000 equivalents.
The problem here is that nowadays people judge players more or less on how many majors they won and endlessly there are those official lists taking into account the so-called majors and heading those lists of course are Federer, Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg, Tilden and &al. So every time players as great as Doherty, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall are not considered as much as they deserve because they didn’t win as many “official” majors as the former players I mentioned.
The great problem in these list of so-called majors is that the players who won it are nowadays (and also at the time) wrongly considered as the true best players :
In 1950 Sedgman, Patty and Larsen won these so-called majors whereas they were clearly inferior that year to Kramer, Segura, and Gonzales.
There are many other examples such as 1958 with Cooper and Rose winning these events but not in the same class as Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall & al.
Even Laver in 1962 clearly behind Rosewall
And in 1967 Newk and Emmo were far from Rocket.
Numerous other years were in that case.

So of course it’s dangerous and subjective to propose a list different from the “official” list but SgtJohn’s or mine or any other one a little thought is very probably fairer than the official one which proposes for instance Emerson as one of the very very top greats whereas he was in reality possibly inferior or at best equal to Gimeno.

To post that “official” list on every occasion and in particular at the conclusion of each Slam tourney is perhaps objective because official but is very dangerous because it wrongly underrates many great pros of the past and therefore wrongly overrates the amateurs of the era : it completely distorts the truth.
I prefer that someone states that Tilden had won about 20 majors even if his estimation is rough and subjective
than another one states that Santana was the #1 in 1966 because he won (a very depleted) Wimby
because the former is nearer the truth than the latter.
Emerson wasn’t as great as his number of Slam tourneys won seems to suggest in particular to people of the 2010’s, very far from that. To display almost all the time the 12 Slam tournaments won by Emerson is surely more dangerous than propose a replacing list of subjective and controversial majors because the latter are very likely less controversial than the amateur Slam tourneys of the 40’s-50’s-60’s.

…Do we analyze every field and see if it’s stronger than a major? …

Why not when majors field are so much depleted ?
For me Kodes has never won a major though he has won the French twice and the British once.
In his whole career Kodes has never been able to win a tourney when all or almost all the top players were there, never.
For me his best ever performance is his final at the USO 1973 and so it is superior in my mind to any of his French victories.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…As far as what you call surprising defeats, I’ll just refer you to Borgforever’s post 533 in this thread.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3982000&postcount=533
I think you really reaching here Carlo as far as defeats by Borg are concerned. Borg did not have many defeats in his career and everyone loses at times with the possible exception of Suzanne Lenglen in many years.
The Bitsy Grant-Harold Soloman was a rhetorical question and I’m not going to exhaust my fingers typing out a side by side comparison of Bitsy Grant and Harold Solomon. Suffice to say Bitsy was no juggernaut and he was able to defeat Budge at times. …

Why always find excuses for Borg’s defeats and almost never for the other players. Yes Grant was able to defeat Budge but players were also able to beat Borg.

…I used to argue with a guy who owned a parking lot in Manhattan. He cursed at me, threw more four letter words at me and I always replied to him that he’s the main reason I went to the lot. He laughed, cursed at me more and the guy thought I was great. Reason for that was that I didn’t take it too seriously and I wasn’t easily insulted. Heck the guy used to give me a spot when he told others the lot was full. We got along very well because I could take the insults. …

Funny story and great attitude.

…However in all of this I have noticed that Carlo reads my posts and Borgforever's with great interest. Could it be that perhaps he may have learned a little from my posts and Borgforever's? I’ve learn some things from Carlo’s and Borgforever’s posts. I’m not ashamed to admit that.

I never contradicted it.
I simply say that I didn’t like your and Borgforever’s reactions that last summer (see my comments earlier).

…Rosewall's 1962 season was excellent and I believe it was perhaps Ken's best year. Still while he won both pro majors he entered he did NOT win the Pro Grand Slam. Using your logic Billie Jean King would have won the 1972 Grand Slam because she won three of three majors she entered and would have been an overwhelming favorite in the Australian. Fact is no one gives her a Grand Slam for a probable win and you can't do that with Rosewall. Rosewall was 52-7 in 1962, winning 9 of 15 tournaments with a Games Won Percentage of 59.38% which is excellent, especially considering the top competition he played. But you cannot assign a Grand Slam to Ken in 1962. By that logic I should remove Ken's Grand Slam in 1963 because, aside from the Grand Slam, he didn't have a particularly good year by his great standards. Admittedly he played a lot of matches with Laver and Hoad on tour and couldn't enter as many tournaments but it was still an off year for Rosewall. At the end of the year Rosewall actually lost three matches in a row!
There is an old story that I think is appropriate in discussing your assigning a Grand Slam to Rosewall in 1962. A man prays to God asking him if God will allow him to win the big Lotto prize. God speaks to him and tells him that he will let him win it. Well, weeks later the man didn't win Lotto. He asks God why he didn't win. God says to him, "Well you have to buy a ticket to win."
That's the point here, Rosewall didn't buy the ticket in 1962 to enter the last tournament to win the Pro Slam. You can't assign it to him. You can only give him great credit for a super tennis year. If that is what you mean then I would agree with you.

The great problem is that the ticket price was pretty high in Rosewall’s days compared to Laver’s
or in your example between King’s era and the modern players’ era.
The problem is that once again you compare numbers which aren’t comparable :
in the post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3370753&postcount=42 you wrote
“I am of the opinion a player should be especially recognized if they won the Grand Slam so Rod won two of them and Muscles one. This should count for something when we consider the player's record in majors. I suppose you could say it is giving extra credit for a spectacular accomplishment which of course the Grand Slam is.”
So you consider that Laver accomplished a better performance than Rod in terms of Grand Slams.
I contradict you on that particular point because I think you don’t compare elements comparable.
As I stated elsewhere Laver had no problem to play the US Pro in his banned years because the US circuit was based on the US Pro at his time. All the top players entered the US Pro from 1963 to 1967 because there were no other locations and opportunities to play then. In 1963 Laver was enlisted to play the 6-man US tour and, when the latter was over, these 6 players had no other choice than to play the Cleveland, the Los Angeles tournaments and then the US Pro and in the following years the US circuit climaxed with the US Pro at Longwood. Therefore Laver had no problem to buy the ticket because this one was free.
From 1957 to 1962 (Rosewall’s first years as a pro and when the US Pro was held at Cleveland)
if you weren’t selected to play the US tour then IT WASN’T EASY AT ALL TO MAKE A VERY LONG TRIP OVERSEAS JUST TO PLAY ONE TOURNAMENT WITH WEAK PRIZE MONEY.
Why Kenny entered the US Pro 1957 ? Because he was very near Cleveland at the time playing the US tour with Gonzales.
Why Kenny didn’t play that tournament from 1958 to 1962 ? Because he wasn’t selected in the US tour (except in 1960 but at the time the tour ended in Australia and not in the US so a trip from his country to Cleveland cost pretty much). And in particular in the spring of 1962 Kenny played a New Zealand tour not the closest place to Cleveland.
So ROSEWALL had to buy a specially HIGH COST ticket
whereas LAVER was offered a FREE ticket
because since 1963 the top players’s circuit always passed through the US Pro event (Forest Hills then Longwood C.C.)
So I strongly contradict your conclusion which gives an extra credit for Laver’s Slams.
Had Laver been in Rosewall’s conditions (in particular born 4 years earlier) Rocket would likely had never made a Pro Slam before 1963 because he simply wouldn’t have entered the US Pro as Kenny indeed didn’t.

And about 1963 the fact that Rosewall lost many matches at the end of the year doesn’t downgrade his Pro Slam at all, he deserved it. I don’t see why he shouldn’t be granted that honor.
If I take the extreme example of the player B I used elsewhere : a player who has lost in the first round of 21 tournaments but has won the Grand Slam so with a win-loss match record bad enough. That player fully deserves his Slam.

To come back to 1962 the US Pro that year was a farce with very ordinary players in the field but certainly not a major (for instance Riggs who was then a grandpa’).

…. I was NOT saying Riggs was on the verge AT THAT TIME of catching Budge. Riggs won 10 of 25 from Budge in 1942 before Riggs improved. That's only a difference of three matches. The difference between peak Riggs and peak Budge may not have been as great as we all have been led to believe. The point here is that Budge showed signs of great vulnerability and he was perhaps not the invincible juggernaut that many would lead us to believe. And that is why I don't see him as a GOAT candidate.
Please, no long posts comparing the two. It wasn't the idea behind the comparison.
No more replies anymore on this topic. I'm too worn out by the replies on this issue.

First I’m free to reply. If you are tired to watch my answers you are free in your turn not to read and answer them but you can’t tell me what I have or not to do.
Yes Riggs was close to Budge in the 1942 US tour and as you pointed out it was only a difference of 3 matches but at the end of that tour Riggs then wasn’t close to Budge’s level at all which Budge clearly proved at the US Pro.
So Budge wasn’t always an invincible juggernaut as his 1941 season shows however in mid-1942 (this is our year of contention here) he was.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Just allow one short comment on the ongoing discussion on the previous sides. All parties can speak very well for themselves and hold their positions well. But i see very much common ground, and deep passion for tennis history on all sides. It would be sad, if some thougthful discussions would be marred by irriations, personal attacks and slips of tongue. Carlo had done very much for bringing up forgotten facts on tennis history on the internet. His work for wiki on English and French versions is exceptional. Besides: the assumption of 9 Wims for Laver is, as far as i know, from Tingay, who wrote the short inlaid bios for Barretts book.

Thank you gentleman urban for your very kinds words.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi
e) the Australian has been mainly a national and not an international contest.
So most of the time the French and Australian Chps (and of course the Italian, German and SA Chps) were in my mind ordinary events compared with the PSW.
In conclusion I think that the most important amateur events from the 20’s were more or less the Davis Cup far ahead of Forest Hills and Wimby more or less tied (remember that in the mid-20s, in the late 30’s and in the 40’s the best amateur players were the Americans and therefore Forest Hills had often better draws than Wimby : for instance in 1923 the “world grass court champ” (and incidentally also “world hard court (clay) champ), W.M. Johnston was crushed at Forest Hills by Tilden, the latter being absent at the British tourney won by Johnston. Besides the US Nationals had a tradition almost as strong as Wimby in those years because the British event was only 4 years older (1st edition in 1877 versus 1881 for the US one). It’s only in the 60’s that Wimbledon really surpassed Forest Hills.
Our modern majors have become true majors only in the mid-80’s when the Australian Open has begun to attract the best players but before it was pure hypocrisy.
As soon as you mention the Australian Open your argument falls apart.
When Australia was the strongest nation in men's tennis (and in women's tennis) the Australian Open became the second most important event outside of Wimbledon. The reason being that, for Australian players, their financial success (for life after tennis and not including Kramer) depended on them winning what was considered, in Australia, to be the world's premier event (Wimbledon) and their national event (the Australian Open). The US and French were very much secondary. In fact, post WWII there was so much anti-US sentiment you'd get more mileage out of the French Open.
You recognise a similar situation occurring with the US Nationals (when America was the dominant nation) but not the Australian. That's either oversight or bias. Either way, it invalidates a large part of your argument.

I do not agree with you at all.
Most of the time the Australian has been mainly a national contest contrary to the US Champs.
Look at every draw from 1946 to 1967 and you will see that the US Champs had a better field than the Australian without any doubt.
When did Australia become the strongest amateur nation ? In 1950 at a time when Kramer, Segura and Gonzales were all pros but however the best players in the world (Australia really became the strongest nation only in the early 1960s when Rosewall overcame Gonzales at the top).
So let’s take as an example the first year of Australia as the first amateur nation : 1950.
(1st thing : the most important amateur event wasn’t either Wimby or the Australian but the Davis Cup so the Australian was at best the 3rd amateur event if I use your logic.)
At Forest Hills 1950 were present the following seeded players :
Patty US 1
Flam US 2
Mulloy US 3
Brown US 4
Seixas US 5
Larsen US 6
Cochell US 7
Savitt US 8
Talbert US 9 clearly underrated
Brink US 10
Sedgman Foreign 1
Drobny Foreign 2
Bromwich Foreign 3
McGregor Foreign 4
Torsten Johansson Foreign 5
Ampon Foreign 6
Worthington Foreign 7
Mottram Foreign 8
Philippe Washer Foreign 9
Gustavo Palafox Foreign 10

At the Australian amateur Champs in 1950 there were :
Drobny 1
Sturgess 2
Bromwich 3
Sidwell 4
Sedgman 5
Worthington 6
Long 7
Rose 8
McGregor became a good player at the time but was not seeded in that tourney.
So among the best foreign players were only Drobny and Sturgess. Look at the rest of the draw : among the best amateurs there was perhaps only Peter Molloy and that’s all.

So there is no comparison between the US and the Australian fields in 1950, the former being clearly the stronger either in local players or in foreign players.

Now let’s have a look at the other end of Australia’s domination in the amateur era : 1967.

Were present at Forest Hills :
the following seeded players,
Newcombe 1
Emerson 2
Pilic 4
Eric Clifford Drysdale 5
Roger Taylor 6
Graebner 7
Pasarell 8
Plus the following unseeded players
a) among the USA citizens :
Richey (unseeded at the US but seeded 4 at the Australian)
Scott (absent from the Australian)
Holmberg (absent from the Australian)
And among the foreigners :
Hewitt (absent from the Australian)
Owen K. Davidson (unseeded at the US but #7 at the Australian)
Leschly (unseeded at the US and absent from the Australian)
I recall that Hewitt, Davidson and Leschly were more or less ranked in the Top10 amateur list then
Tomas Koch (absent from the Australian)
Ronald Winston Barnes (absent from the Australian)
Ruffels

While at Adelaide (Australian Champs) there were :
Emerson 1
Ashe 2
Newcombe 3
Richey 4
Roche 5 clearly underrated
Cox 6
Owen K. Davidson 7
Stilwell 8
Bowrey 9
James McManus 10
Ruffels 11
Hombergen 12
Philipps-Moore 13
James Osborne 14
William Coghlan 15
David Power 16
So except Ashe and possibly Richey and eventually Cox (who had reached the quarters at the 1966 US) there were no great foreign amateur players (Stilwell, McManus, Hombergen, etc … were just journeymen).
You can note again that the US draw was clearly stronger
with several players not seeded at Forest Hills but given that the Australian draw was clearly weaker these same players were seeded among the Top8 in the Australia Champ (here I don’t refer to the #9 to #16 seeds in Australia because there were only 8 players seeded in America).
Also look at Mulligan’s article in World Tennis about the 1966-1967 Australian season where he made it quite clear his criticism of Australian officials’ management unable to attract most of the top foreign players in Australia and to the contrary considered that Europe and the USA were better to welcome great foreigners.

So as in 1950, the 1967 Australian field was clearly weaker than the 1967 US field.

I recall that for instance Manuel Santana, one of the best amateurs of the era, never played the Australian while he entered the US amateur Champs in 1964-1965-1966, his best ever years, and also in 1959 (he also came to Forest Hills when the tourney was open in 1969 and 1970).
There are many other top foreigner players who never played (or just once) the Australian : for instance Drobny (and Sturgess) only came in 1950 when they were invited whereas Drobny came 4 years in a row at Forest Hills (the years when he was invited there) from 1947 to 1950.

Even when the USA was not the dominant amateur nation there were some years when the US field was pretty equal to Wimby’s and clearly better than the Australian’s.
Look at 1953 or 1954 for instance.
In 1953 Trabert, clearly the best amateur in the world, as his defeat of Rosewall in the Davis Cup Challenge Round proved it, didn’t play Wimby while he entered and won the US amateur Champs (and that year the Australian draw was clearly depleted with no Trabert, Drobny, Patty, Larsen, Nielsen, Sven Davidson).

Now let’s compare more explicitly the year 1954 at Forest Hills, Wimby and the Australian.

Who did enter the Australian Champs ?
The seeded players were Rosewall, Trabert, Hartwig, Seixas, Rose, Richardson, Worthington, Talbert, Wilderspin, Robert Perry, Ayre, O. Williams, Bromwich, Segal, Neale Fraser, Grinda.
You can note that Jean-Claude Grinda was seeded in that Australian Champ though this player never made a great performance in his whole career. It’s a good indication of the weakness of the Australian field.
Among these seeded players Worthington, Wilderspin, Ayre, Bromwich didn’t enter both Wimby and Forest Hills.
Here is the list of the best amateur players who didn’t enter the Australian amateur Champs that year :
Drobny, Patty, Hoad (who was in the Army), Larsen, Sven Davidson, Bartzen, T.P. Brown, Moylan, Mulloy, L. Straight Clark, Kosei Kamo, Bergelin, Lorne Main, Roger Becker. . So there were many good amateur players absent from the Australian.

Now let’s have a look at the best amateur players who entered either Wimby or Forest Hills (or both events) in 1954.
a) Here is the list of players who entered both Wimby and Forest Hills :
Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, Seixas, Hartwig, Larsen, Sven Davidson, Mulloy, Bergelin, Neale Fraser, Lorne Main, Roger Becker and Owen Williams
b) Here is the list of the best players (if we consider the seedings at Wimby and the Australian) who played Wimbledon but didn’t play Forest Hills :
Drobny, Patty, Rose, Nielsen, Segal, Grinda played Wimbledon but not Forest Hills
c) Here is the list of the best players (if we consider the seedings at Forest Hills and the Australian) who played Forest Hills but didn’t play Wimbledon :
Hamilton Richardson, Bartzen, Thomas Pollok Brown, Talbert, Moylan, L. Straight Clark, Kosei Kamo, Robert Perry.

So in a comparison of the fields of Wimbledon 1954 and Forest Hills 1954
we had to compare the strengths of
on one hand Drobny, Patty, Rose, Nielsen, Segal, Grinda
and on the other hand
Hamilton Richardson, Bartzen, Thomas Pollok Brown, Talbert, Moylan, L. Straight Clark, Kosei Kamo, Robert Perry.
Was the first set of players really stronger than the second one ?
I’m not sure at all and therefore the Wimby field wasn’t clearly really stronger than the US field.
Yes on one hand
Drobny and Patty were probably superior to Richardson, Bartzen, Brown & all
however except at Wimby for Drobny and at Rome for Patty their respective record that year was poor. Therefore Drob’ and Budge weren’t that strong in 1954.
but on the other hand
Richardson, Bartzen, Brown & all could clearly rival, if not more, Rose, Nielsen, Segal and Grinda present at Wimby.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

I didn’t talk about Roland Garros 1954 but I will say that this year the French draw was unusually very strong because all or almost all the great top amateurs for once came to Paris (Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Larsen, Seixas, Patty, Hartwig, Drobny, Morea, Rose, Nielsen, Mulloy plus Falkenburg, Fraser, Becker, Main, etc …).

In conclusion
the US field in 1954 was comparable to the British one
and above all
the US field that year was clearly stronger than the Australian.
(besides I recall that in 1954 the Australian field was stronger than usual, the reason being that the Americans, Trabert and Seixas, had stayed in Australia after the December 1953 Challenge Round)
And this review is true for all the other years (from 1950 to 1967) when Australia dominated the amateur circuit.
Wimbledon and Forest Hills had the best fields and the French and the Australian had usually depleted ones.
And I repeat that in the Australian Champs you had mainly all the Australians but very few top foreigners. You can pick up every year from that era.
The Australian became a decent Slam event in 1983 (when Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe came but Connors, Noah and others didn’t) and a true one in the early 1990’s.

So since the very beginning (1905) until the early 1990’s the US fields were always stronger than the Australian’s
(except perhaps in 1971 and even then it is debatable)
and more top foreigner players came to New York (and Philadelphia and Newport before the 1924) than to Australia.
The Australian amateur Champs
were the second most important tournament for the Aussies only
(but not the second most important event because Australian players considered the Davis Cup, which wasn’t an usual tourney, as the most important amateur event of all)
but certainly not for the overseas players.

About the Davis Cup almost all the Australians in the amateur era considered that it was the most important event. Even in the late 50’s and 60’s Fraser, Emerson and Stolle considered the Cup as the Graal.
Fraser said that his most cherished memory was his wins from Olmedo and MacKay in the 1959 Davis Cup.
Stolle fight all his amateur career in order to be selected in the Australian Davis Cup team
and recently I read that Emerson placed the Australian Davis Cup victory at Cleveland in 1964 above his successes at Wimby (among the great amateur Australian players only
a) Laver possibly put Wimby above the Davis Cup but I’m not even sure because he considered that his loss to Olmedo in the 1959 Davis Cup was the most disappointing defeat of his whole career with his 1972 WCT loss
and b) Newcombe who considered Wimby at least as important as the Cup).

 

[jrepac]

Andre

One last comment, I would rate Agassi in the top seven at least due to the fact that he won every major on a different surface (that is why he and Steffi were made for each other). No other man has ever done that and he needs his true credit for such a feat.

technically, this is incorrect......Wilander and Connors won GS events on all 3 surfaces before Andre stepped on a tennis court....now you also have Fed and Nadal who have done the same....but only Fed and Andre have won all 4 of the GS events...that's the distinction

 

[CyBorg]

technically, this is incorrect......Wilander and Connors won GS events on all 3 surfaces before Andre stepped on a tennis court....now you also have Fed and Nadal who have done the same....but only Fed and Andre have won all 4 of the GS events...that's the distinction

Not to mention players who were accomplished all-surface greats before the open era and during the early days of the open era. Rosewall did not win grand slam titles on hardcourts, but did win important events on hard and carpet surfaces that could be considered the equivalents to what we consider to be majors now. Same with Laver. Possibly Gonzales. Also, what of Emerson? Tilden? Don Budge - definitely. I can list many others.

So, Agassi at seven is just absurd for those reasons - or any reason for that matter.

 

[hoodjem]

Agassi at no. 7 on a GOAT-list?

Funny.

 

[TMF]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this already but I’ll do it. Since slam count is the most important for goat criteria, I must point out the US Open was played only the best of 3 sets in the first 3 round before 1979. The French Open was before 1976 except it was only for first 2 rounds. Australian Open was before 1975 and also the first 2 rounds.


That means old school players required less playing time, thus less work needed to win and less taxing on the body. I think today’s players deserve more credit for having to play more.

 

[krosero]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this already but I’ll do it. Since slam count is the most important for goat criteria, I must point out the US Open was played only the best of 3 sets in the first 3 round before 1979. The French Open was before 1976 except it was only for first 2 rounds. Australian Open was before 1975 and also the first 2 rounds.

Best of 3 was used for these tournaments for a few years in the 70s, but before that they used best of 5. However, sometimes they gave byes in the first round, or had only 6 rounds.

For example in 1969, Wimbledon, the French and USO all used best of 5 for all 7 rounds. At the AO they had 6 rounds, and some of the players received a bye in the first round (including Laver) -- but all matches were best of 5.

 

[hoodjem]

Since slam count is the most important for goat criteria, I must point out . . .

Debatable premise.

 

[CyBorg]

What happened to that thread about a book Carlo recommended?

 

[anointedone]

Agassi at no. 7 on a GOAT-list?

Funny.

#17 might be more like it. And somewhat lucky to even be there since guys like Becker, Wilander, and Edberg who probably arent higher would be if they had the lucky horseshoe wedged up their ass Agassi had at times, especialy 99 and at the Australian Open in general.

 

[a10best]

My top 3 for each are:
Federer
Sampras
Borg


Steffi Graf
Martina Navratilova
Serena Williams / Chris Evert (whichever)

 

[VrafaV]

Federer at 7!? He should be 1 or 2...and i'm a rafa fan.

 

[robow7]

FWIW, and I know not much but because I've only followed tennis since the late 60's, I don't feel I can comment on the Tilden, Budge, Hoad, etc. crew so I will limit myself to the greatest 10 since the mid 60's which includes entire open era.

The first group were the goats:

Laver --------Boyhood hero bias
Federer---------Hard to be number 1 when you have such a losing record to another player while in your prime
Borg---------Had he played longer, in my heart, probably the best ever
Sampras--------It's a shame he couldn't find a way to win on clay more often
-------------------------------------------

Incredible longevity with so many wins

Gonzales--------This one may be getting slighted since he could be easily in the top tier but I only saw him at the end
Connors
Rosewall
-------------------------------------------

Just a touch less than those rated above

Lendl--------was the blueprint as to how tennis would be played for the next generation
McEnroe---------the greatest tennis player ever if you want to include both singles and doubles in the criteria
Agassi/Nadal------------My guess is Nadal bumps Agassi from this list pretty quickly

 

[pc1]

FWIW, and I know not much but because I've only followed tennis since the late 60's, I don't feel I can comment on the Tilden, Budge, Hoad, etc. crew so I will limit myself to the greatest 10 since the mid 60's which includes entire open era.

The first group were the goats:

Laver Boyhood hero bias
Federer Hard to be number 1 when you have such a losing record to another player while in your prime
Borg Had he played longer, in my heart, probably the best
Sampras It's a shame he couldn't find a way to win on clay more often
-------------------------------------------

Incredible longevity with so many wins

Gonzales This one may be getting slighted since he could be easily in the top tier but I only saw him at the end
Connors
Rosewall
-------------------------------------------
Just a touch less than those rated above

Lendl
McEnroe
Agassi/Nadal My guess is Nadal bumps Agassi from this list pretty quickly

Nice opinions and good choices. This is the thread that keeps coming back.

Also the thread with a lot of arguments and long explanations. lol.

 

[Limpinhitter]

FWIW, and I know not much but because I've only followed tennis since the late 60's, I don't feel I can comment on the Tilden, Budge, Hoad, etc. crew so I will limit myself to the greatest 10 since the mid 60's which includes entire open era.

The first group were the goats:

Laver --------Boyhood hero bias
Federer---------Hard to be number 1 when you have such a losing record to another player while in your prime
Borg---------Had he played longer, in my heart, probably the best ever
Sampras--------It's a shame he couldn't find a way to win on clay more often
-------------------------------------------

Incredible longevity with so many wins

Gonzales--------This one may be getting slighted since he could be easily in the top tier but I only saw him at the end
Connors
Rosewall
-------------------------------------------

Just a touch less than those rated above

Lendl--------was the blueprint as to how tennis would be played for the next generation
McEnroe---------the greatest tennis player ever if you want to include both singles and doubles in the criteria
Agassi/Nadal------------My guess is Nadal bumps Agassi from this list pretty quickly

All good choices for top 10. I would make some changes in the order, though. I would put Sampras in front of Borg, and maybe in front of Federer. Another point you might consider is that if McEnroe hadn't crashed in 84 for being a cocaine abuser, he might have one a few more majors and Lendl would have won a few less. In any event, IMHO, Mac at his best was better than Lendl at his best. Further, if Nadal's serve was a weapon, he'd be in the race for the top 3 or 4 by now. Arguably, Emerson, Newcombe, Becker, Edberg and Wilander could be in there, too.

 

[pc1]

All good choices for top 10. I would make some changes in the order, though. I would put Sampras in front of Borg, and maybe in front of Federer. Another point you might consider is that if McEnroe hadn't crashed in 84 for being a cocaine abuser, he might have one a few more majors and Lendl would have won a few less. In any event, IMHO, Mac at his best was better than Lendl at his best. Further, if Nadal's serve was a weapon, he'd be in the race for the top 3 or 4 by now. Arguably, Emerson, Newcombe, Becker, Edberg and Wilander could be in there, too.

McEnroe in 1984 was 82-3 and won 65.32% of his games played. Only Borg has done better than McEnroe in 1984 in the Open Era for percentage of Games Won. Even Federer has only been around 61% in his best years and 4% points is a huge difference at this level.

At his best McEnroe was more dominant than Sampras and Federer, at least for that year.

 

[piece]

FWIW, and I know not much but because I've only followed tennis since the late 60's, I don't feel I can comment on the Tilden, Budge, Hoad, etc. crew so I will limit myself to the greatest 10 since the mid 60's which includes entire open era.

The first group were the goats:

Laver --------Boyhood hero bias
Federer---------Hard to be number 1 when you have such a losing record to another player while in your prime
Borg---------Had he played longer, in my heart, probably the best ever
Sampras--------It's a shame he couldn't find a way to win on clay more often
-------------------------------------------

Incredible longevity with so many wins

Gonzales--------This one may be getting slighted since he could be easily in the top tier but I only saw him at the end
Connors
Rosewall
-------------------------------------------

Just a touch less than those rated above

Lendl--------was the blueprint as to how tennis would be played for the next generation
McEnroe---------the greatest tennis player ever if you want to include both singles and doubles in the criteria
Agassi/Nadal------------My guess is Nadal bumps Agassi from this list pretty quickly

Seem like good choices. The one thing I would take issue with is your stated reason for putting Laver ahead of Federer (although I have no issue with rating Laver as the greater of the two in general). Federer's prime was 2004-2007. From 2004 to 2007, Nadal and Federer played 14 times, Federer won 6, Nadal won 8. Which is to say, if Federer had won one more of those matches him and Nadal would have had an even h2h during Federer's prime. Take, for instance, Rome 2006, Federer had a match point involving a fairly easy forehand putaway that he flubbed. If Federer had put that ball in, would you consider him the GOAT? It seems quite a small thing to hang who the greatest player ever is on.

Hypotheticals aside, is such a small deficit really a blemish on his record?

 

[robow7]

piece, in my mind, though Fed may have been most dominant during 04-07, the last year hasn't been chopped liver, Aussie open,US open finalist, another Wimbly titile, and his French title. For God's sake, he's not that old that you can make excuses for the fellow at 26 thru 28. He's lost almost 2 out of every 3 matches to Nadal. None of the other greats have that type of losing record to anyone with that many matches and both near their prime. And for that reason only is he not my run-away best ever.

 

[davey25]

Men:

1. Laver
2. Gonzales
3. Rosewall
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Tilden
7. Budge
8. Federer
9. Lendl
10. Connors
11. McEnroe
12. Perry
13. Kramer
14. Nadal
15. LaCoste or Cochet


Women:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Evert
5. Wills Moody
6. Connoly
7. Lenglen
8. King
9. Serena
10. Seles

I expect Serena to have climbed up to atleast #6 by the time her career is over. Henin and Venus both have a chance to bump Seles and possibly King out of the top 10.

As for Nadal if he can stay healthy the sky is the limit. The kid is only 24 after all. If he can prove he can win on fast hard courts he could even make a push to be the greatest ever someday. If he wins atleast 12 slams he will be over Federer IMO, since their head to head play during a time both are head and shoulders above all others makes it pretty clear who is really the better player.

 

[pc1]

Men:

1. Laver
2. Gonzales
3. Rosewall
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Tilden
7. Budge
8. Federer
9. Lendl
10. Connors
11. McEnroe
12. Perry
13. Kramer
14. Nadal
15. LaCoste or Cochet


Women:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Evert
5. Wills Moody
6. Connoly
7. Lenglen
8. King
9. Serena
10. Seles

I expect Serena to have climbed up to atleast #6 by the time her career is over. Henin and Venus both have a chance to bump Seles and possibly King out of the top 10.

As for Nadal if he can stay healthy the sky is the limit. The kid is only 24 after all. If he can prove he can win on fast hard courts he could even make a push to be the greatest ever someday. If he wins atleast 12 slams he will be over Federer IMO, since their head to head play during a time both are head and shoulders above all others makes it pretty clear who is really the better player.

Nice list Davy25. I disagree with some spots but overall I like it.

 

[davey25]

Sorry I forgot to complete my top 15 women:

11. Gibson- taking into account all the obstacles she had to battle to get where she was.
12. Bueno
13. Venus
14. Henin
15. Goolagong- great player but I think she is overrated by some since while she won 7 slams in a tough era and was one of the most talented players ever possibly, 4 of her 7 slams were at the Australian which had depleted field those years though she did beat a prime Evert in one final. And other than possibly 1971 she was never really the leader at any point.

pc1, thanks. Just curious which areas would you differ in the most.

 

[pc1]

Sorry I forgot to complete my top 15 women:

11. Gibson- taking into account all the obstacles she had to battle to get where she was.
12. Bueno
13. Venus
14. Henin
15. Goolagong- great player but I think she is overrated by some since while she won 7 slams in a tough era and was one of the most talented players ever possibly, 4 of her 7 slams were at the Australian which had depleted field those years though she did beat a prime Evert in one final. And other than possibly 1971 she was never really the leader at any point.

pc1, thanks. Just curious which areas would you differ in the most.

Budge may rank that high but I do think he's been overrated over the years.

Budge traditionally has been ranked as one of the top players ever but when I started doing some research on the great players I was very surprised to see how poor Budge's record was relative to his "legend." I have also noticed how Budge seems to embellish his record in his favor. For example he states in his book how he defeated an old Tilden on tour 55 to 6 when it was apparently 46-7 with one tie. I noticed he won a tour in 1942 54-18 over Riggs, Perry and Kovacs and another player who escapes me now. That last player only won a few matches so the 54 to 18 record to me isn't that impressive. Riggs incidental won 10 of 25 matches on that tour against Budge and Riggs wasn't at his peak yet. Budge was not number one in 1941. He also won about 42 tournaments in his entire career.

The Grand Slam he won in 1938 was certainly impressive but he won it without Vines, Perry, Nusslein and von Cramm playing. The year he won the Grand Slam he was I believe 38-5. Good but you would think from the legends he never lost. In 1937 he was excellent but he also lost twice to Bitsy Grant, a terrific player but hardly a juggernaut. He was a retriever with little power and yet he defeated Budge twice.

When Budge defeated Vines 21 to 18 on tour, Vines had some minor injuries and was started to get interested in golf. Vines may have beaten him if he was interested and in shape.

Riggs defeated him on tour later by a close score but I wouldn't be surprised if Riggs made it close to keep the gate receipts high. To be fair Budge had a shoulder injury and was past his prime but results are results. Riggs, who improved immensely may very well have beaten a top form Budge. I have noticed that in some matches against Budge that Riggs had to win, he often crushed Budge. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps not. So it does make you wonder if Riggs was capable of defeating Budge much more often then the results showed.

So you have an amateur Grand Slam that he probably wouldn't have if there was Open Tennis. He wins around 40 tournaments in his career. He defeated an old Tilden, a Vines with injuries who was losing interest in tennis. He loses two tours to Riggs, who may have carried him. The tour record isn't that impressive either. He did win the Davis Cup. In his best five years I have Budge winning a bit over 81% of his matches. That's excellent but it's his best five years and many have had superior results over a five year span. Impressive overall record but it's not enough for me when you consider all the GOAT candidates he is up against.

Also there was no pressure of the Grand Slam because Budge invented it as he writes in his book. The pressure wasn't that of Connolly years later or Hoad as he tried to complete the Grand Slam or Laver, Court and Graf. If Budge lost in the finals of the US Championships, he still would have had a great year and I'm not sure if the writers would have known he was going for the Grand Slam.

You look at Tilden for example. Virtually unbeatable for years. Wins a ton of US Nationals in a row. Wins over 160 tournaments in his career plus a ton of majors and Pro Majors. Helps win the Davis Cup. In his best five years Tilden wins 98% of his matches! Now that's impressive. Heck a Tilden in his late 40's won 7, lost 46 and tied 1 against a peak Budge. I'm more impressed by Tilden's performance as an old man.

It's very probable to me Tilden would have been able to win a Grand Slam or so if he was willing to travel but there really was no Grand Slam in those days because Budge, as he said in his book invented it.

I may put Federer ahead of Budge and Tilden ahead of Sampras but frankly it's no big deal. Your list is superb and very well thought out.

 

[BTURNER]

Nice list Davy25. I disagree with some spots but overall I like it.

Personally Davey, I would have flipped Court with Navratilova and maybe move Wills up into third. Both those ladies have better records on slow surfaces as well as a fne record on fast ones. But by and large a fine list indeed.

 

[hoodjem]

Nice list Davy25. I disagree with some spots but overall I like it.

Moi aussi. I would put Tilden and Fed a little higher, but in any case, very respectable.

 

[piece]

piece, in my mind, though Fed may have been most dominant during 04-07, the last year hasn't been chopped liver, Aussie open,US open finalist, another Wimbly titile, and his French title. For God's sake, he's not that old that you can make excuses for the fellow at 26 thru 28. He's lost almost 2 out of every 3 matches to Nadal. None of the other greats have that type of losing record to anyone with that many matches and both near their prime. And for that reason only is he not my run-away best ever.

I wouldn't just look at his slam results (which, you must admit, have also declined, although less markedly) to determine whether he is still in his prime. He used to win at least ten titles a year and lose less around 5 matches each year. It's just not the same. And if he's caring less about the smaller events rather than just being unable to perform in them, it's still a decline in results from his prime. If you look even further, toward actual level of play, the differences are even more evident (to my mind, at least). His forehand is not even the best on tour anymore, when it used to be the best of all time. His backhand in '06 was a consistent topspin weapon, in '08 and '09 it was very shaky (although it has been good so far this year). His serve, while deadlier when it's on that it used to be, is more unreliable and can desert him during important matches. His movement has suffered, both in terms of loss of speed and footwork that can vary in it's efficacy from match to match. He comes to net less often than he used to, and seems less comfortable when he now chooses to come in.

If you think the negative h2h is a blemish regardless of this, that's a whole other matter. But if you think 7-14 is prime Federer's record against Nadal, I disagree strongly. That record is 6-8.

 

[krosero]

Also there was no pressure of the Grand Slam because Budge invented it as he writes in his book. The pressure wasn't that of Connolly years later or Hoad as he tried to complete the Grand Slam or Laver, Court and Graf. If Budge lost in the finals of the US Championships, he still would have had a great year and I'm not sure if the writers would have known he was going for the Grand Slam.

Not sure how many writers would have known about Budge going for the Grand Slam, but the AP was already writing about it the day before he won the French championships. We had a debate about this in some thread, can't remember which; so I looked it up in the New York Times archive.

I also recall that the Times in 1933 said that Crawford's quest for the Grand Slam failed when he lost in the final at Forest Hills (could have been a report by Danzig).

Certainly Budge would not have faced as much pressure as later players who went for the Grand Slam, but it seems too much to say that he invented it or that there was no pressure.

 

[boredone3456]

I think I did this in this thread...but i'll do my list again

Men:
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Gonzalez
5. Rosewall
6. Sampras
7. Tilden
8. Budge
9-11. Some order of Lendl, Connors, McEnroe
12. Kramer
13. Perry
14. Lacoste
15. Agassi

Women:
1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Court
5. Moody
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
8. King
9. Serena *
10. Seles
11. Marble
11. Dupont
12. Brough
13. Hart
14. Bueno
15. Henin *

* = likely to move up, Serena possibly to number 8, Henin maybe multiple spots depending on her results

 

[BTURNER]

Men:
1. laver
2. Federer
3. Rosewall
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Lendl
7. Tilden
8. Gonzales
9. Connors,
10. McEnroe

Women:
1. Graf
2. Court
3. Moody
4. Navratilova
5. Evert
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
8. King
9. Serena
10. Seles or Henin

 

[pc1]

Not sure how many writers would have known about Budge going for the Grand Slam, but the AP was already writing about it the day before he won the French championships. We had a debate about this in some thread, can't remember which; so I looked it up in the New York Times archive.

I also recall that the Times in 1933 said that Crawford's quest for the Grand Slam failed when he lost in the final at Forest Hills (could have been a report by Danzig).

Certainly Budge would not have faced as much pressure as later players who went for the Grand Slam, but it seems too much to say that he invented it or that there was no pressure.

Probably bad wording on my part to write NO PRESSURE but I would tend to believe there was less pressure on Budge than some others like a Laver in 1969 or a Graf in 1988.

 

[BTURNER]

Probably bad wording on my part to write NO PRESSURE but I would tend to believe there was less pressure on Budge than some others like a Laver in 1969 or a Graf in 1988.

OOPs I left out Budge on my list. I'll have to work him in after work today.

 

[dmt]

I think Sampras can get under rated these days, but i honestly dont see how anyone can place sampras ahead of federer. Federer is a better player IMO and certainly much better on clay.

 

[hoodjem]

Not sure how many writers would have known about Budge going for the Grand Slam, but the AP was already writing about it the day before he won the French championships. We had a debate about this in some thread, can't remember which; so I looked it up in the New York Times archive.

I also recall that the Times in 1933 said that Crawford's quest for the Grand Slam failed when he lost in the final at Forest Hills (could have been a report by Danzig).

Certainly Budge would not have faced as much pressure as later players who went for the Grand Slam, but it seems too much to say that he invented it or that there was no pressure.

"Used in golf since 1930, the term Grand Slam was first applied to tennis by NY Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and Wimbledon Championships, speculation arose about his chances in the U.S. Championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable."

 

[pc1]

Just going by what Budge wrote in his book guys. Title of Chapter six-The Grand Slam--My Favorite Invention.

Page 102-Conceivably, the fact that there was no such acknowledged entity as the "Grand Slam" made it somewhat easier for me.


I was probably incorrect to write it.
But I believe both of you. There probably was some sort of an acknowledgement of a Grand Slam in those days.

Some of the information in Budge's book is a bit off.

 

[hoodjem]

Budge may have thought he "invented" it in actuality by being the first to accomplish it.

But the "concept" (if not the successful achievement) pre-existed his accomplishment.

 

[urban]

I think, Kieran was the first who borrowed the term from bridge in 1933, before Gentleman Jack tried to make the last leg at Forest Hills. He barely failed, felled by Perry, the heat, his asthma and a bit too much grog. Then the Tennis writer Allison Danzig coined the phrase again and made it popular, when Budge was on his way in 1938.

 

[davey25]

I think Sampras can get under rated these days, but i honestly dont see how anyone can place sampras ahead of federer. Federer is a better player IMO and certainly much better on clay.

I cant speak for anyone else. However I will be happy to state why I rate Sampras over Federer at this point:

1. Sampras had a clear winning head to head vs all his main rivals or guys that would be considered amongst the very best of his generation. And the only remotedly top players he has a losing head to head with Stich and Krajicek, he does not have a losing head to head with in slams. Federer though is owned by the (at this point) clear 2nd greatest player of his own generation, both in slams and overall.

2. I dont consider Federer's record of 16 slams to be any better a record than Sampras's 6 straight year end #1s nor his 7 Wimbledons. Apart from maybe the 7 Wimbledons (which is already tied as a record anyway) none of those should really be a record in any case. There are multiple guys past who would have won more than 16 slams given what the equivalent of slams were or had it been Open tennis with the 4 slams equally valued as today. There are multiple guys past who have spent even more than 6 years as the true #1 player inthe World.

3. I consider Sampras having faced a tougher field of competitors than Federer. During atleast the first 4 years of his reign facing guys like Becker, Courier, Agassi, all going strong, and a slew of top notch surface specialists like Ivanisevic and Krajicek on grass and carpet, Muster and Bruguera on clay; and the supporting cast was on par with the majority of Federer's main cast- Rafter, Chang, Kafelnikov, Stich. Sorry but apart from Nadal I dont see Federer's competition stacking up to Sampras, and many other past greats at all. Not his fault of course, you can only play with is in front of you, but when the guys in achievements are so close it is hard to not look at things like that.

4. Having watched the two play many times, playing with almost identical equipment and almost identical situations in virtually everyway as far as the state of the game, except in the 90s the surfaces were far more varied creating a greater challenge, I feel Sampras is just the better overall player with the more complete game. Sampras at his best you said could play with the best from the baseline even though he was largely known for his serve and volley game. Federer you would not say could serve and volley with the best of them in a past era with alot of quality serve and volleyers, the same way you would say Sampras at his best could play with the likes of Agassi, Courier, or Muster from the baseline.

5. Sampras had more longevity at the top level at this point.

 

[krosero]

Probably bad wording on my part to write NO PRESSURE but I would tend to believe there was less pressure on Budge than some others like a Laver in 1969 or a Graf in 1988.

No doubt that's true; also some others like Navratilova who experienced the pressure in (late) 1984.

 

[pc1]

No doubt that's true; also some others like Navratilova who experienced the pressure in (late) 1984.

I would guess that Martina must have been a nervous wreck when she lost that match at the Australian. I've never seen the match but I have seen Navratilova when she was nervous. She must have felt incredible pressure to win the Grand Slam. It's a shame because winning six in a row is no doubt tougher than winning four in one year.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think Sampras can get under rated these days, but i honestly dont see how anyone can place sampras ahead of federer. Federer is a better player IMO and certainly much better on clay.

Sampras had a better serve, a better running forehand, a much better net game, and was stronger and faster than Federer. Federer's forehand overall is probably the best shot in tennis history. Federer is like the male Steffi Graf. Head to head at their best, it's a toss up on hard courts. I'd give Pete the edge on Grass and Federer the edge on clay.

 

[abmk]

Sampras had a better serve, a better running forehand, a much better net game, and was stronger and faster than Federer. Federer's forehand overall is probably the best shot in tennis history. Federer is like the male Steffi Graf. Head to head at their best, it's a toss up on hard courts. I'd give Pete the edge on Grass and Federer the edge on clay.

stronger ???? what exactly do you mean ???

faster ? linearly , perhaps, but federer covered/covers the court better than sampras did ...(though sampras himself was darn good in this regard { except on clay } )