1/Gonzales
2/Kramer
3/Rosewall
4/Hoad
5/Sedgman
6/Trabert
7/Parker
8/Schroeder
9/Drobny
10/Patty/Seixas
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.
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...
No Budge, really? Dominant for the early years, still very good until the mid-1950s. He, Riggs, Kovacs are all big omissions IMO.
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.
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.
How many slams for Segura compared to Patty,Seixas or great Tex?
How many slams for Segura compared to Patty,Seixas or great Tex?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...