Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by TheFifthSet, Nov 28, 2012.
Have some sense of humor my man, you will age much better
The true and unique Dali, Salvador got most of his inspiration to paint from Kenny's backhand
ARFED, My sense of humour is a bit different...
Many who saw Ken's backhand would call it a masterpiece.
Hey ARFED, take it easy. BobbyOne, like you and everyone else here is serious about his tennis and its history. You probably have more in common than you may think. I'm actually amused by BobbyOne's jokes as well as Kiki's.
He WOULD have a viable case if he had played more. The fact that he dodged so many events puts a question mark above his record.
What' s wrong with them? Did I offend Vines or his marketing agent for that matter?
But Dan he did play tours of over 100 matches like the one against Gonzalez. He played 89 matches against Riggs. He played a 92 match tour against Segura and 95 against Sedgman. And against these great players (admittedly Gonzalez not in his prime but still superb) he won the large majority of match. You add the one night stands and the tournaments and he played a lot. And these tours were on many different surfaces.
His average level of play was super high and this was over many years.
He was lucky beyond belief.
The only real challenge he got in his amateur majors was from Drobny, who beat him at Wimbledon and nearly did the same at Forest Hills.
Otherwise, he beat Tom Brown and Frankie Parker, both below his class.
He beat Riggs, sure, but only after Riggs' shoulder gave out.
He beat a Segura who had just lost a series to Dinny Pails, and Kramer claims that he taught Segura how to play tennis during that tour.
At Forest Hills that year, Kramer dropped out and let Segura and Gonzales finish the tournament.
Gonzales had some good runs in 1949-50 against Kramer, winning 8 of 12 matches on the California stretch, and beating Kramer at Philadelphia in a great final. Gonzales' knee injury (perhaps caused by the cruddy portable carpet they played on?) prevented him from closing the gap further.
Sedgman apparently led Kramer 12 to 6 after the Australian portion of the tour, but pulled a shoulder muscle on his serving arm, and went on a 20-match losing skid.
Kramer refused to allow Gonzales and Sedgman time off to heal their injuries, and this puffed the score in his favour.
Kramer dodged the major clay events, and the Wembley in the early fifties.
He knew how to manage his career to make the most out of it, and avoid the worst challenges.
Kramer wanted to sign Hoad to a head-to-head tour against himself in December, 1953, but the 19-year-old wanted to develop his game first.
Otherwise, Kramer could have racked up another "win" on his favourite format.
You can't be lucky in a long tour. Everyone gets injured to some degree. Crushing Riggs by 69 to 20 isn't luck. Crushing Segura by 64 to 28 is not luck. Beating Gonzalez by 96 to 27 isn't luck. Sedgman was tougher but you know what, I'd bet that Kramer had some injuries too on that tour that wasn't mentioned in his book. When you play 95 matches you're bound to have some injuries. And remember Kramer was 32, had arthritis and was over the hill. Despite that he still beat Sedgman by 54 to 41. It was the only tour that was somewhat close but a gap of 13 is safe margin.
Dan I've already wrote that I don't think Kramer is the GOAT but I do believe that he has some arguments to be the GOAT. For example I don't think Riggs does or Djokovic does yet. But many people do think Kramer is the GOAT. Many players like Sedgman thought Kramer was the GOAT and Sedgman played Gonzalez and Hoad.
Among the players and experts who thought Kramer was the best ever--Budge, Sedgman, Vic Braden, Paul Metzler, Lew Hoad (I think you heard of him), to quote Hoad, "At his peak (meaning Jack Kramer) he was as close to perfection as you can get."
Vic Seixas ranked Kramer second to Don Budge.
Opinions of course are just that, opinions but it does give an indication how impressive Kramer was as a player and his greatness. I think he played enough and his peak along with his accomplishments were fantastic. Ask Lew Hoad.
Sedgman made that comment when? When Kramer was still his boss?
Kramer claimed that he was injured, too, during the Sedgman tour, but did it last 20 matches? Actually, it was just his usual chronic arthritis, a much less serious problem than a pulled shoulder muscle in the serving arm.
Sedgman said that when Kramer was no longer his boss.
Again, was Kramer still Hoad's boss when this was said?
Gonzales was less enthusiastic about Kramer's game, and they were at odds.
Read the post 113 above your last post. When Sedgman said it Kramer was no longer his boss.
Dan, you are joking again: You blame Kramer for reigning the amateur scene so clearly. Could it be that this was fact because Kramer was so strong and not because his opponents were so weak?
Parker was a potent player. He won the French Championships twice after the war.
You should be precise: Kramer did not beat Segura "who had just lost a series to Dinny Pails". The Pails/Segura series was in 1948 and the Kramer/Segura tour was in 1951! Between the two years was Segura's rise to his peak...
Actually Gonzalez ranked Kramer number one before he played Hoad. After that he ranked Hoad number one when Hoad wanted to play.
The Segura of 1951 would have destroyed Pails.
When did Hoad make his remark? When he was still playing for Kramer?
This must be the season for jokes, Bobby.
Do you think that Kramer beat a strong field at Wimbledon? When PC1 refused to list their names? Doesn't look like it.
Frankie Parker was how old in 1949?
Segura only rose as a result of his tutelage from Kramer during the 1950-51 series, according to Kramer.
True.Somebody named it the eigth world wonder but I call it a monument to neoclassicism
I think Kramer peak play is above Sedgman's andf course Segura'a but a bit beliw Gonzales peak and, of course,Hoad's
I think he is about Budge or Rosewall' s levels ( extremelt high level)
When you write a bit below Hoad's peak, I assume you mean for just few matches. I think Kramer's average level of play throughout the year is higher than Hoad's.
Kramer was a pre Borg in the sense that he is one of the players that best maximized their strenghts and limited exposure to his shortcomings
Both were, along Tilden, the true maestros of percentage tennis
They did it in an opposite way with Kramer perfectioning the big game and The Swede perfectioning the backcourt game through top spin
But, the concept behind was the same for both
When did you ask me to list the names for that field? I was giving info on the scores of Wimbledon in 1946 (not 1949) because Kramer still holds the record for fewest games lost. I'm a very busy person and sometimes it's faster to just give the information and not add a trillion things to it because it wastes my time.
Here's the game scores
1. 6-0 6-1 6-0
2. 6-2 6-2 6-2
3. 6-0 6-2 6-0
4. 7-5 6-2 6-3
5. 6-0 6-1 6-3
6. 6-1 3-6 6-1 6-0
7. 6-1 6-3 6-2
The players in order are Bill Moss (unseeded), Spychala (unseeded), Cucelli (unseeded), Johansson (unseeded), G. Brown (5th seed), Pails (4th seed), Tom Brown (3rd seed).
You're too suspicious. There were no ulterior motives with me not listing the names. Just take it easy and we can discuss these things without accusations.
I understand. But to me, the most interesting facts are, WHOM DID HE BEAT to win his majors. This is much more important than simply winning a major, which can happen against a weak lineup rather easily.
The only "names" in this list are Geoff Brown, Dinny Pails, and Tom Brown, none of whom are world beaters. This is the point I was trying to make.
(I think you mean the 1947 Wimbledon.)
How old was Frankie Parker in the 1947 Forest Hills final? No longer a youngster.
I guess we're both wrong. I did mean 1947 Wimbledon.
But your point is very valid and correct. Still the games scores were very impressive.
Hello clown, Parker was 33 in 1949 and won the French against strong opponents in 1948 and 1949. In 1947 he was even younger...
Segura was in his peak in 1950 already...
Ah, my fellow joker, more fun, I see.
Parker was getting a little too long in the tooth to be a credible opponent in a major final, which shows how pitifully weak the field was that Kramer dominated.
Segura was 30 years old before he learned how to play tennis. Wow!
What does this tell you about the great Jack Kramer?
As an amateur
1946 US Championships F: Jack Kramer def. Tom Brown (9-7, 6-3, 6-0)
1947 Wimbledon F: Jack Kramer def. Tom Brown (6-1, 6-3, 6-2)
1947 US Championships F: Jack Kramer def. Frank Parker (4-6, 2-6, 6-1, 6-0, 6-3)
As a professional
1948 US Pro F: Jack Kramer def. Bobby Riggs (14-12, 6-2, 3-6, 6-3)
1949 Wembley Pro F: Jack Kramer def. Bobby Riggs (2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
YAWN! This illustrates exactly what I mean.
Silly me for not thinking that Bobby Riggs was a nobody
He sure looked like an also-ran in the films of the 1942 US Pro against Budge, or against Kramer.
That was Bobby Riggs in his first year as a professional against a still prime Don Budge. There was very little professional play in the years after this, particularly in 1943, but by the end of the war, Riggs was better and proved it on the 1946 world pro tour that he had with Budge, winning 24-22, as well as beating Budge in US Pro finals.
Dan, I apologize for calling you a clown. But sometimes (or should I say rather often?) you provoke such labels...
Parker beat the strongest amateurs in his French Championships, even at 32/33.
Segura was 29 when he peaked. Already before he was a solid player reaching the US SFs four times in a row....
Dan, I have bad news for you: You just lost the label "tennis expert".
That was Riggs before he was at his peak. Riggs improved his serve tremendously, so much that a number of people thought thought it was superior to Budge's at its peak. Whether it was better or not it certainly was at least relatively close.
Riggs also improved his volley.
Riggs defeated Budge on several tours after the war and was clearly the top pro.
If you saw Gonzalez on his tour against Kramer you would have thought Gonzalez was an also ran too but as you know he improved rapidly.
Gonzales was playing with an injured knee which weakened his ground strokes.
After the war, Budge was not the same player. Kramer stated that Budge had a battle with the bottle, he was overweight and out of shape.
Bobby, I have good news for you. I have never regarded either one of us as a "tennis expert".
At that time Kramer was just the superior player to Pancho Gonzalez.
I think Budge just came out of the armed forces and was in decent shape. He did have a shoulder injury which according to some people hampered his serve.
Riggs clearly was the dominant player on the Pro Tour. I believe he won about 14 tournaments to Budge's 3 or 4. Riggs was clearly the superior player. On their head to head tour Riggs jumped out to a 12 to 1 lead before coasting to a 24 to 22 win. According to another source they played another tour which Riggs won 12 to 6.
Riggs was a very versatile player with great touch and surprising power if he needed it.
Dan, at least I'm convinced that both of us do know a bit about tennis history.
If only we could PLAY worthy of our knowledge!
To be honest I think the both of you have a great deal of tennis knowledge, far more than most. And as you know Dan I may not agree with you but I believe you have a great deal of knowledge of the game. I wouldn't write that about everyone.
PC1, I always read your posts with interest.
Dan and pc1, I also use to read your posts with interest.
Do you still read them?
Yes but often with a grudge about your stubborness...
Bobby, you wouldn't want someone with a genuine belief to pretend otherwise. That's what free speech is all about.
Arthur Ashe and Stan Smith both served in the army.
I thought Jack Kramer wasn't an actual guy just a type of wood racquet with a cool and manly name.
Separate names with a comma.