Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by kiki, Oct 7, 2013.
Borotra ahead of Nüsslein is a joke.
vines should be 2nd. he has a huge winning record over perry and i think he has winning record over budge as well. for that matter he certainly has a winning record over tilden.
id guess that nusselein and kozeluh were better players than von cram and borotra.
josofo, Budge had the edge over Vines. But I agree that Vines is underrated, also by kiki...
I think Vines should be 2nd or 3rd. I'm a huge Fred Perry Fan, but Vines had a winning record over him so Vines goes ahead of him. For me Budge vs Vines is a toss-up, they were both great players. In his 1979 autobiography Kramer considered the best player ever to have been either Don Budge (for consistent play) or Ellsworth Vines (at the height of his game).
You either have to decide which is more impressive, Ellsworth Vines dominance during the early and middle 1930's where he owned Tilden and Perry, Or Don Budge's dominance in the late 1930's where he won a Grand Slam and consistently edged out his rivals
Who exactly were Nusselein and Kozeluh? Were they kings of the professional tour who were ignored because of their professional status? I don't know if I'd rank Kozeluh ahead of Von Cramm though. Here's a clip of Kozeluh playing. I admit I like his forehand
Captain, Yes, Nüsslein and Karel Kozeluh (his brother Jan was an amateur) were pro kings who did not have an amateur career at all.
I also would rank von Cramm higher than Kozeluh who also had a soccer and ice-hockey career.
Nüsslein was probably the better of the two. He was arguably the best claycourter of the 1930s but also strong on grass and indoors: he lost the 1939 Wembley final (deciding match) against Budge by 11-13,6-2,4-6.
Thanks for introducing me to this guy! He appears to be one of the most underrated players in tennis history. He won 6 Pro championships (Couldn't seem to beat Ellsworth vines though) and he won another big pro tournament the International Pro Championship of Britain 4 straight times. I can't believe I've never payed attention to him before, when I think of German tennis players in the 1930's I think of Prenn, Von Cramm, and Henkle, but now I have to add another great to that list. Do you think that Nusslein was better than all three of those guys?
That's very good. I'd put both Vines and Von Cramm ahead of Crawford. Nusslein probably ahead of Riggs, as you stop at 1940.
Perry and Vines are difficult to rank, not the least because of the am-pro split. We had a good thread here about the 3 giants of the 30s a while ago, with good discussions and without personal attacks. Ray Bowers who did good research on the era, often ranked them equal. While Vines had a slight advantage on the pro tour since 1937 (mostly best of 3 on indoor or hard courts), Perry had his peak probably as amateur 1933-1936 in best of 5 competition and on grass. Vines was technically better, lanky and lean, a hard hitter with lethal swinging shots (especially on the serve and forehand), at his peak he was awesome, his Wim final against Austin in 1932 was the greatest demonstration of power tennis in the pre war years. His serve (and his clean flat hitting) was similar to that of Sampras.
Perry had a more compact crouching game, with an early hit forehand, he copied from Cochet. Perry was tough as nails, and the best pre war player in physical, athletic terms (he trained with Arsenal under Jimmy Hogan). Vines was a bit frail, and had some physical collapses in long Davis Cup matches. Its a real tough choice between them. The old experts are divided: Kramer who was a close friend and pupil of Vines, wrote that Vines carried Perry on their pro tours (he wrote the same about Gonzalez- Rosewall). Dan Maskell, who played the pros in the 20s and 30s, ranked Perry behind Budge but ahead of Vines. OK, he was an Englishman. Allison Danzig, who saw all the pre war greats, ranks Perry behind Tilden and Budge, but ahead of Vines. As i said, a real tough choice.
Difference is that Vines may have been more naturaly talented and had a big weapon Perry did not have ( that serve), but Perry´s record are better for he was more consistent and a quite bigger fighter than Vines when a major title was at stake.
Perry belongs to the likes of Borg,Emerson,Wilander, guys who played their best when something was at stake.
kiki you still didnt respond to the whole ranking riggs 10th on the 1920-1940 chart based on 1 amatuer year but not ranking him top 10 from 1940-1960. even though during those years was he actually ranked number 1 player by bowser 1941, 1942 ranked 2nd no ranking 43 and 44 number 1 1945, ranked 1 1946 ranked 1 1947 and 2 1948.
I think he was misfortunated that WWII made tennis exclusively an affair of a few US pros.That reduces his record.Riggs would be a top tenner had those days counted for much.
By 1947 he was done.
In a list of only 1940´s, he maybe second to jack kramer or third if we include Budge.
But, because competition in the 40´s was so much adulterated for historic reasons, i made a two decades list.I don´t think Riggs belongs to the top ten,
urban, I don't think it's so difficult. Vines beat Perry in both of their long world series.
I give Perry only one year as No.1: 1941. Vines seems to be the No 1 in (maybe) 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 (tied with Budge).
Vines did much better against Budge in 1939 than Perry did.
Vines lacks a Davis cup win. That he lost the vital rubber to Borotra in Paris 1932 at the peak of his powers (he did beat Cochet), remains a hole in his resume. He lost to Perry too in 1933. In a long best of five affair i would bet on Perry at his best between 1934-1936.
Perry is vastly underrated as a big match winner.He was one of the most corageous champions of all time.And hard to beat him anywhere.
Separate names with a comma.