Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by LazyNinja19, Apr 8, 2014.
Can they prove it, that the competition Novak has faced is greater than Lendl's?
They've not said it's a fact so they do not have to prove it.
The poll results of this thread are also the masses' opinion. No one has to prove anything to you.
Living in denial is your job!
Rosewall won the Channel Slam from 1960 to 1962: He won at Paris (French Pro, on clay) and one week later (!) at London, Wembley which was the top event of the year and more important than Wimbledon!!! At Wembley he won on wood which is the fastest surface at all...
The term "Channel Slam" is not an official one like "Grand Slam". You have the right to refer to Wimbledon. I have the right to refer to Wembley. So easy is the case...
1983, You are an idiot pretending to be a poster about tennis!
I never said that Bud agrees with all I say. But he called my the "Authoritative Austrian" and agrees regarding Rosewall as one of only four GOAT candidates...
Noleberic, Djokovic is already ahead of Emerson. Emmo was never a top four player, Djokovic was and is a No.1 player! Don't count only amateur majors!!!
Ridiculous is that a man who does know about the importance of the old pro events, blames me for just mentioning Rosewall's pro achievements including his fantastic streak of three Channel Slams in a row...
Just because your list aren't the same as the experts from the tennis channel doesn't mean you have more merit. These expert team are well respected for knowledge. Stop insulting them.
Steve Flink doesn't have Gonazles in the top 5. His top 5 are
No, Rosewall has never won the Channel Slam.
Channel Slam means winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, at least in minds of people who live in reality. A term "Channel Slam" doesn't need to be recognized and accepted by ITF, it's a colloquial term in tennis which refers to impressive achievement of winning both FO and Wimbledon in the same season and it's widely recognized as it.
You obviously cannot live with the fact that your beloved childhood hero Rosewall failed to win Wimbledon (partially because he wasn't able to compete during his best years), so you chose to deliberately change the meaning of the "Channel Slam" term just to make your idol look superior. Sorry, he didn't win the Channel Slam, deal with it.
Still greater than Emerson and still lesser than Lendl. Will take one more slam at least to talk about changing things.
Thanks for providing all this information BobbyOne- very interesting indeed. Before the semi finals started last week Jimmy Connors was discussing his very first SF at Wimbledon against Rosewall[I think he said it was in 72] and how it was a privilege for him to play against such a great player. They showed a couple of points from the match- a delight to watch. Also Rosewall was in the crowd during the Raonic/Kyrgios match and John Lloyd was saying that Ken's still a terrific player even now and that his backhand is as deadly as ever!
I love watching the modern game but I think it's also important to remember the greats like Rosewall because let's face it, if it weren't for players like him one could argue that the game wouldn't have ever evolved like it has done. A true legend of the sport!
But it also doesn't mean that Bobby's list is without merit altogether.
Neither of them played the Wimbledon semis in 72
Smith vs Kodes and Nastase vs Orantes
It was the 1974 Wimbledon final.
Considering Federer has more "Majors" than Rosewall, and that all of his came against professionals, Bobby's list is dubious at best and ridiculous at worst.
Oh I must be mistaken then, I was sure he said it was the Wimbledon SF. Did they not meet in the QF instead? Perhaps Jimmy was having a slight memory lapse at the time. :wink:
Yeah I just googled it to see for myself. Thanks mate!
Edit: I See you've seen it now, nevermind.
If memory serves well, Rosewall did not play that year and Connors lost to Nastase in the last eight round.
I think 2 more slams will put him above Lendl and who is Emerson? Nobody talks about him!
Martin J, Equal how you call Rosewall's fantastic achievement 1960-1962, if Channel Slam or The Grand Double or Shistyshasty, the Paris/London double is arguably his greatest feat at all. When I told Ken this my opinion he did not contradict in his next letter. But I think that Muscles rates his two Dallas finals as his greatest achievement.
I would not want to live in your universe of wrong reasoning and wrongly considering tennis history!
Phoenix1983, I would be cautious calling me a fraud. You know there is a rigid administrator who banned me for much milder words.....
TMF, You are about the only person who cares what that idiotic T.C. list claims!!
Steve Flink: Sampras ahead of Laver??? Kramer ahead of Gonzalez?? Very strange. Learn history,TMF, my friend and don't trust troll experts who claim that Emerson is much greater than Pancho Gonzalez!!!
You are an ignoramus: You concede that Channel Slam is not an official term (by the way, it was not known even ten years ago) but yet refuse to accept that Rosewall has won three of them! It's ridiculous! By the way I doubt you will find that term in a tennis book...
My childhood hero was NOT Rosewall! It was Roy Emerson till I realized (by studying the pro records) that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez and Hoad were much greater.
A question: How should I call a feat when a player wins the top claycourt and the top pro event at all (Roland Garros and Wembley) in the same year (even in the same two weeks) other than Channel Slam???
From this day forward, the winner of the Channel Slam shall forever be known as the:
OP: Seles and Lendl way too low.
Margeret Court , 24? Why isn't she #1? I had heard the name before but know nothing else about her. Time to hit youtube/google.
I must correct you: Rosewall and Connors never met in a Wimbledon SF or in another SF at all because very old Rosewall was still so strong that he always reached the final against Jimbo! Bad luck because I'm sure that Rosewall would have had better chances against peak Connors if they met in a first or second round (old R. not as much tired as in a final after winng all matches before the final). Their Wimbledon match was in 1974. Muscles had beaten strong grasscourters, Tanner, Newcombe (No.1 of the world at that time) and Smith before the final, the last after a five set match when Stan Smith had a matchpoint in the third set tie-breaker.
Connors and Rosewall also met in the 1974 US Open final (bad loss of R.), in the 1975 North Conway final, in the 1976 Las Vegas final and in the 1977 Sydney indoors final where Muscles gave Jimbo a great fight even though he was 43 at that time and Connors was the No.1 or 2 indoor player.
But these two great players had played a match at Los Angeles already in 1972 (an early round) when Rosewall defeated Connors 6-3, 6-2 who even at only 20 had already won six tournament before that encounter.
I doubt that Rosewall's backhand is still terrific at 79 but probably still a delight to watch...
Ken informed me that this year is probably the last year of visiting Wimbledon.
Yes, without Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez there never would be a modern pro circuit. They played so good at the old pros that finally open tournaments were founded in 1968.
Thanks, man from the Antarctica penthouse.
I must concede it's not too difficult to make better all-time rankings than those of Tennis Channel... They (almost) only counted who has won more GS tournaments and "forgot" that a Gonzalez could not participate for 18 (!) years and Rosewall for 11 years but both (and Laver of course) won so many big pro majors and were No.1 in the world for many years whereas Emerson never was a true No.1 player. Thus they rank Emerson ahead of both of them even though every true expert knows that he was not better than them...
Rosewall has still more majors than Federer even if we omit his four amateur Grand Slam tournaments...
Note: the discussion was about the stupid Tennis Channel list (Emerson far ahead of Gonzalez and so on) and NOT regarding majors won!
kiki, Yes, in 1972 no pro entered Wimbledon.
Mate, if you only count GS titles you will crash...
Court won 11 Australian "Open" where there was sometimes a weak field participating.
Emerson is vastly overrated- He only won amateur majors.
Yes, but everybody was there when she won the GS
I understand that and I am fine with minor discrepancies, but there are few people who exist with any legitimate argument over Pancho Gonzales. I personally have Pancho #2 behind only Laver, but would be willing to concede arguments for Rosewall, Tilden, and Federer. Really anyone else has no business being mentioned.
Agreed, I'd say the only # to be definitively above purely on slams is 11 (same as Borg), 9-10 you have other factors, but most likely 10 would pass him. I would actually say 9 is unlikely to pass him because of the sheer volume of what Lendl has done.
Lendl is basically the gatekeeper to tier 1, passing him is pretty much akin to joining that elite club.
Who is Emerson? Indeed! Take a listen...
An performance of the 3rd movement of Emerson's Piano Concerto:
Emerson, himself, is featured here:
Now hold on one second here. Lets not lump that all into one group and think Lendl was facing all of these guys at once.
Lendl caught the very end of Borg. His first two seasons in the top 10 were Borg's last in his career. He denied Lendl of 1 slam and Lendl was not a consistent top tier performer yet.
When Lendl came up in 82-84, becoming a top tier player and started hitting his prime, his main competition was Connors/Wilander/McEnroe. Connors took two slams off Lendl in this time and Wilander took 1. McEnroe dominated 84 shutting everyone out besides Lendl who won his first slam off McEnroe.
By 85 Connors and McEnroe both declined and neither would ever win another slam ever again and were shells of their former selves. Tennis had just gotten so big during the late-70s and early-80s that Mac and Connors were content to stick around making QFs of every slam and getting bounced for the publicity and recognition and then just fighting to win lower tournaments (250/500). At this point they basically devolved into a modern Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer level players.
From 85 on saw the rise of Becker and Edberg to contend with Wilander and Lendl. Pat Cash was merely a modern Del Potro at best and Yannick Noah a Stan Wawrinka.
So at any given time Lendl had 3 chief rivals
80-81 was Borg/Connors/McEnroe (Borg retires end of 81)
82-84 was Connors/McEnroe/Wilander (Mac/Connors never legitimate top guys starting in 85)
85-forward was Edberg/Becker/Wilander
80-81 was monstrous with Borg/Connors/McEnroe, but Lendl was akin to 06-07 Nole at this time and only really lost out on 1 legitimate title due to the era (prime Fed at USO 07 vs prime Borg at FO 81).
I would say the rotating window of big 4s Lendl was part of is equally as tough as the consistent Fed/Murray/Nadal Nole's had to face for his career. (So far at least, it will be until Fed totally falls off the planet and Dimitrov/Raonic/Wawrinka don't prove to be suitable replacements).
Lendl was a central-late Golden Erer and that says it all
Rosewall great as he was should not imho be ranked above Fed. What I was referring to was that TFM (a fanboy) should not be lecturing anyone about which "experts" to bow down to, in this case the Tennis Channel. Further, TFM telling Bobby "not to insult them" just because he disagreed with them? Please, talk about presumptuousness….
These Tennis Channel 'experts' had Sampras over Laver (hmmm.…) and Kramer over Gonzalez (verrrry dubious), so they're not the be all and end all themselves. Too many fanboys that think that tennis began with Federer and Nadal, just like music fanboys who thought music all began with Nirvana.
Noleberic123 has stated it's a fact that Lendl has faced tougher competition than Nole.
Noleberic123, you've lost the argument.
Spicy, You have an excellent list of the greatest.
I agree that putting Gonzalez at place 22 (among the male) is not a minor discrepancy. It's pure nonsense!
Dedan's Penthouse, Thanks for your support. Putting Kramer above Gonzalez is not very bad but putting Emerson far ahead of Gonzalez is about he greatest joke in history...
I´ll never understand your despict for amateurs...I mean, bobbyone, all top pros were top ams before and some did not improve, rather played better tennis as amateus even if I agree the best competition forced them to improve...but Cochet ams is better than Cochet pro, Tilden am is better than Tilden pro and so was Budge.Maybe not the rare case of Nusslein but...take Ramillet,Plaa,Stoeffen,Bucholz,Van Horn,Ayala...would they seriously stand a chance against the best amateurs?
Maybe Emerson, your idol, disappointed you so much at one point? there must be a bitter cause for that disdain...
Don't get me wrong mad respect for Lendl's career and his accomplishments and he had some tough competition. I maintain Nole probably needs 10 slams to pass him, but I think Nole has had it about as rough in terms of competition if you break down the levels of all of the Golden Eras guys year by year like I did compared to the levels Nadal/Fed/Murray have been at in Nole's era.
There's nothing wrong with having Sampras over Laver. In 2002, many have anointed Sampras as the greatest of all time.
In 2009, Bud still conceded that Sampras is the greatest of all time despite Federer that year won the FO. Federer surpassed Sampras by winning Wimbledon to broke the record.
Funny how some tt posters believe they better than these historians like Steve and Bud.
While this is true Cochet/Tilden/Budge all these guys proved themselves on all levels to be dominant. Emerson never did such things and was shown to be not near the same level as Rosewall or Laver when when they clashed. If we were to include the pre-open era players with the open era guys, I would roughly place them as such:
open era tier 3: Becker/Wilander/Edberg/Newcombe/Nastase
open era tier 2: Lendl/Connors/Mac/Agassi/Djokovic
open era tier 1: Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg
above all open era players: Laver/Gonzales/Rosewall
kiki, There is no (secret?) cause. I just studied tennis history.
I know the amateurs were very good. But the pros just were better.
The most top amateurs since WW2, after turning pro, improved, even the amateur giants like Gonzalez, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad and Laver.
Of course Tilden was better as amateur because he was almost 38 when he turned pro!!
Budge was not better as an amateur, rather equal good in both periods.
Please use the correct names: Ramillon, Stoefen, Buchholz.
Buchholz, as told several times, almost beat best amateurs, Fraser and Laver, when he was only 19. He also beat prime Newcombe in open era and won five WCT tournaments after his peak. In the mid-1960s he was stronger than all amateurs. Maybe Emerson in 1964 was equal to him or a bit better.
Van Horn and Ayala did be top amateurs but failed terribly against the best pros.
You never acknowledged the greatness of the top pros!
Funny how a certain poster ignores updating: As I have posted several times, Bud Collins last year confirmed my supposition that Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver are his top three all-time. He added: "And Kenny".
Also a few years ago he did not rank Sampras among his five best players. It's obvious that Bud changed his mind since 2009. It's also possible that he referred to level of play when calling Sampras the GOAT and to achievements when he mentioned the other giants.
Many have called Sampras the GOAT when he played but meanwhile many have also realized that Federer is maybe greater and that Laver is ahead of Pete (alas, most of them "forget Gonzalez and Rosewall).
pc1 wrote that Laver is Bud's choice for GOAT.
Spicy, You truly have studied tennis history. Excellent list!! I only would omit Emerson because he never was a top three player whereas Riggs and Borotra were true No1 and No.2 players (respectively). But it's debatable.
I appreciate your kind words Bobby! I have studied a fair amount of tennis history, but there is still much to learn and I aim to learn more each day. I also know almost nothing about the Pre-1920s as my study pretty much starts with the Bill Tilden/Les Quatre Mousquetaires Era.
You have valid claims about Emerson, I certainly wouldn't mind moving him down to the top of tier 4 as I would have him rated as my weakest player in tier 3 right now. My tier 4 looks like this in case you are wondering:
Open Era: Vilas, Courier, Ashe, Kuertan, Murray, Hewitt, Smith, Kodes
with Trabert/Frasier/Crawford/Santana added in
I also seem to have omitted two individuals from tier 3 unintentionally. I would also add Pancho Segura and Frank Sedgman in with Riggs and Borotra. I always tend to forget about those two because how much Gonzales dominated the 50s.
Separate names with a comma.