1940-1960

kiki

Banned
1/Gonzales
2/Kramer
3/Rosewall
4/Hoad
5/Sedgman
6/Trabert
7/Parker
8/Schroeder
9/Drobny
10/Patty/Seixas
 

josofo

Semi-Pro
i agree with you that segura name is a bit better than his game was. but i think he would be atleast 6-7th best in that era.

bobby riggs certainly belongs because he was the best player in the world for a bit. he out played budge and perry for a good 2-3 years.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
i agree with you that segura name is a bit better than his game was. but i think he would be atleast 6-7th best in that era.

bobby riggs certainly belongs because he was the best player in the world for a bit. he out played budge and perry for a good 2-3 years.

josofo, Segura at his peak was awesome: No.2 in the world for several years.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
No Budge, really? Dominant for the early years, still very good until the mid-1950s. He, Riggs, Kovacs are all big omissions IMO.
 

kiki

Banned
Playing level Budge and Kovacs could be considered, but their results suggest otherwise, except for the WWII years where Budge was the number one player.Maybe he culd be around 8 or 9.I omitted it.it´s hard to left out so many great names and he was my second best in the former group you know...
 

josofo

Semi-Pro
Playing level Budge and Kovacs could be considered, but their results suggest otherwise, except for the WWII years where Budge was the number one player.Maybe he culd be around 8 or 9.I omitted it.it´s hard to left out so many great names and he was my second best in the former group you know...

bowers had riggs winning more than he lost vs budge in the ww2 years.
 

kiki

Banned
the 40´s and 50´s look so different.maybe it was not a great idea to gather them in one tier.However, there was not a big scenario during the WW years, so the 40´s is a mutilated decade ( like the 1910´s) and I think it can be added to the 50´s.

The 1910´s are more similar to the 1900´s than to the 1920´s and that is why I also put them in the same tier.

In fact, we can talk about decades of 5 years.So unfortunately for obvious reasons.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
Budge or Riggs could be argued as high as #2 I think although I'd probably put them #3/#4. I did see you had Budge #2 from 1920-1940, but his career was almost entirely in this era.

The two were clearly the top players from 1940-1945, and Budge was top-10 through 1955. Comparatively, Hoad and Rosewall were just starting their primes at the tail end of the era.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No Budge, really? Dominant for the early years, still very good until the mid-1950s. He, Riggs, Kovacs are all big omissions IMO.

YaoPau, Thanks that you mention Frank Kovacs. This underrated player was in the top Five for not less than 12 times (in my rankings). It's a shame that Kovacs has not yet been enshrined in Hall of Fame!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Budge or Riggs could be argued as high as #2 I think although I'd probably put them #3/#4. I did see you had Budge #2 from 1920-1940, but his career was almost entirely in this era.

The two were clearly the top players from 1940-1945, and Budge was top-10 through 1955. Comparatively, Hoad and Rosewall were just starting their primes at the tail end of the era.

YaoPau, Budge as a top tenner till 1955 is too bold. His last fine year was 1953.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
this is by far his worst list. the omissions of budge, riggs and sergura are rather hard to justify.

Yes, especially if we consider that kiki included amateurs Schroeder, Parker, Patty, Seixas who arebelow Budge, Riggs and Segura.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
How many slams for Segura compared to Patty,Seixas or great Tex?

kiki, If you have learnt history you would know that the pros were far above the amateurs.

Segura was No.2 several times (19 times a top tenner), The "great" Schroeder was No.5 at his best, 6 times a top tenner. Who is greater??
 

YaoPau

Rookie
The sheer idea that Slam counts mean more to a tennis fan that Professional vs Amateur status is pretty amazing to me.

I'm not saying it's completely backwards, but I'd think it would default the other way... like I can't even imagine a fan of another sport saying "this guy is a champion amateur, this other guy is a pro, so the amateur must be better", but I see it all the time with tennis.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
The sheer idea that Slam counts mean more to a tennis fan that Professional vs Amateur status is pretty amazing to me.

I'm not saying it's completely backwards, but I'd think it would default the other way... like I can't even imagine a fan of another sport saying "this guy is a champion amateur, this other guy is a pro, so the amateur must be better", but I see it all the time with tennis.

Yes, YaoPau, The neglecting of the old pros is the main mistake of tennis history's description.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
The pro tour was great in the middle to late 50´s when Hoad,Trabert and Rosewall did more than replace Kramer and Sedgman was already in his peak years, so was Gonzales and maybe Segura.

But late 40´s, with only Kramer,Segura and rookie Gonzales does not seem too hard for me.I think the ams had better competition.Lots of secondary, draw filling pros in those days.
 

josofo

Semi-Pro
The pro tour was great in the middle to late 50´s when Hoad,Trabert and Rosewall did more than replace Kramer and Sedgman was already in his peak years, so was Gonzales and maybe Segura.

But late 40´s, with only Kramer,Segura and rookie Gonzales does not seem too hard for me.I think the ams had better competition.Lots of secondary, draw filling pros in those days.

late 40s budge, riggs, kramer were the 3 best players.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
The pro tour was great in the middle to late 50´s when Hoad,Trabert and Rosewall did more than replace Kramer and Sedgman was already in his peak years, so was Gonzales and maybe Segura.

But late 40´s, with only Kramer,Segura and rookie Gonzales does not seem too hard for me.I think the ams had better competition.Lots of secondary, draw filling pros in those days.

kiki, Segura was top in the 1950s and early 1960s.
 

kiki

Banned
Maybe, like Nusslein he is not considered at the other six guys level ( Hoad,Trabert,Kramer,Gonzales,Rosewall,Sedgman) because he won no traditional slam ever.

Olmedo and Cooper had been the best amateurs ( although just for a year, 1959 for Alex and 1958 for Ashley) and both won at Wimbledon; that gives them also a special status IMO...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Maybe, like Nusslein he is not considered at the other six guys level ( Hoad,Trabert,Kramer,Gonzales,Rosewall,Sedgman) because he won no traditional slam ever.

Olmedo and Cooper had been the best amateurs ( although just for a year, 1959 for Alex and 1958 for Ashley) and both won at Wimbledon; that gives them also a special status IMO...

kiki, I can't follow your opinion that Cooper and Olmedo (two second-rate players) have a better status than the great champions Nüsslein and Segura (plus Gimeno, Kovacs).
 

josofo

Semi-Pro
Maybe, like Nusslein he is not considered at the other six guys level ( Hoad,Trabert,Kramer,Gonzales,Rosewall,Sedgman) because he won no traditional slam ever.

Olmedo and Cooper had been the best amateurs ( although just for a year, 1959 for Alex and 1958 for Ashley) and both won at Wimbledon; that gives them also a special status IMO...

a theme of your post seems to be punishing guys who turned pro early.


as other have pointed out, what you are missing is since bill tildon turned pro in 1931 all the number 1 players in the world have been pros. most years the top 3-4 players in the world have been pros. with few exceptions. of say ellsworth vines, don budge, fred perry, bobby riggs, jack kramer, frank segman, ken roswell, rod laver final years as amateurs.
 
Top