Don Budge: The Greatest Player of All Time
- Thread starter chaognosis
- Start date
joe sch
Legend
This is the truth, most of the posters that dont appreciate the greats from the wood era have not played woods so cant appreciate the difference between these eras. Federer and Sampras would have had nice matchups with Gonzales, Kramer, Vines and Budge.
Great footage of Budge and Riggs in 1942, showing Budge at his peak, too much for Riggs.
That would be Budge's last peak showing, after the war Budge's physical conditioning declined, and Riggs could then win.
Much like what happened to Hoad and Rosewall after Hoad declined post 1961.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Budge suffered a shoulder injury in a jeep accident during military service the year following this match. He never returned to quite the same form.
Nice one, I hadn't seen this before. This was the '38 Newport final, Budge d. Wood 6-3, 6-3, 6-2.
I noticed the commentator said that Budge is the "American, French, British and Australian champion." This was before the completed his '38 Grand Slam but he already held all 4 of the titles (he'd held them since winning the French, a couple of months before Newport).
Also noticed that when Wood puts a BH service return into the net on match point, the announcer says it's an ace for Budge. Which probably means little in itself; the script may not have been written by a knowledgeable tennis fan (in fact it probably wasn't). But I've posted stats from this time period in which the term "ace" was used for what we would call either service winners or just plain unreturned serves. I've seen that with certainty in British publications of the 30s.
I also remember a Wimbledon final (was it Smith-Nastase?) for which I took stats some years ago; one of the commentators called "ace" on what was clearly just a plain return error. I think the commentator was either Jack Kramer or Dan Maskell.
Thanks for the video, good stuff.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Bud Collins once said on the air that some regarded an ace as a serve that is unreturnable even if you touch it. I think now the term ace now is clearly defined as an untouched serve. I serve many untouched serves, but they are double faults!! LOL!
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
We have to see if we have some video of Budge past 1942 to check it out. I think there is some but I'm not sure if it shows him serving.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't know if Budge hurt himself in the military yet but here's Budge and Kramer in 1944. Budge's serve still looks okay.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/597281628
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/597281628
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Wow! That's some of the best footage I've seen. Regarding Budge's shoulder injury, one indication that I have seen in certain post 43' Budge videos is a noticeable reduction in the extension of the windup, the inverse "L" shape of the arm and racquet, of his serve swing path behind him. That reduction is not clear in this video. But, I have read that he was not quite the same player post injury, and his results bear that out.
Rosewall and Laver also had a similar swing path reduction (especially Rosewall), in their later years. I suspect some degenerative arthritis may be the culprit.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think it was Newcombe who wrote that Laver's serve declined to the point where it could be attacked.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Possibly. There's a lot of wear and tear after so many years of serving.
Today's guys are way more technical, bigger , faster and way more athletic
No comparison of any kind from post and pre Lendl era
The players of today could not begin to handle the weight lifting regimes of Hoad or Sedgman.
I rather keep it as 2 eras
joe sch
Legend
Sorry, you dont get it and as @Limpinhitter pointed out, you probably just werre never a player that played wood.
Again, there is no technical nor athletic diff between Federer, Sampras, Gonzales, Kramer, Vines and Budge.
The only shame is that todays game has turned into mostly a baseline blasting battle !
NatF
Bionic Poster
There clearly are technical and athletic differences between players today and then. The question is how much is due to modern techniques and technology. But to say there's no absolute difference is ridiculous.
joe sch
Legend
Technically correct
but my point was that like Federer, I think any of the guys I mentioned would have adjusted for the equipment.The others may not even have adjusted as much as Federer and played a more allcourt game.
Fed knows best as he has out survived all the other modern greats while racking up the most slams in open tennis history.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Technically correct
The others may not even have adjusted as much as Federer and played a more allcourt game.
Fed knows best as he has out survived all the other modern greats while racking up the most slams in open tennis history.
I think that's fair, obviously the comparison with Federer and Sampras is fairly easy as they're not far removed. I do believe Kramer and Gonzalez especially would have been phenomenal athletes able to compete with the guys today and be #1 etc...
I think Federer is about as all-court as you can be in today's era tbh.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Technically correct
The others may not even have adjusted as much as Federer and played a more allcourt game.
Fed knows best as he has out survived all the other modern greats while racking up the most slams in open tennis history.
True enough but I do think a Djokovic in top form is pretty all court also. Sampras would be great with wood.
As Joe wrote I do think some of the old time greats like Kramer, Vines, Budge and Gonzalez who would do extremely well today with the current racquets. I think Bjorn Borg would have thrived with the current racquets. Tilden would have done well also. As a person who started with wood I found it very easy to adapt to the current string and racquet technology. I think the old time players would adapt easily. It may be harder the other way around imo.
Check this article out.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-20-raquet-tech_n.htm
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
There's more to the inquiry than whether a wood era player would play at a higher level with modern equipment. There is the question of whether their stroke production technique would enable them to fully exploit the potential of modern equipment.
In my view, the players who had the technique to fully exploit modern equipment would include players such as Hoad, Laver, Okker, Roche, Nastase, Vilas and Borg.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okker is a great choice with his topspin strokes. I didn't think about Okker. I think his opponent in the 1968 US Open Arthur Ashe would be very good there also.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic approaches the net a fair amount, despite not looking quite secure up there. I think the guys you name would all excell.
I remember reading that article a little way back. I do think the top players would be fine though:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...erer-relishing-first-taste-of-real-thing.html
Of course stroke mechanics and grips would need to change.
Edit: This account is better:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/REAL...+favour;+Sally+Jones+discovers...-a0133342601
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You're right that Djokovic often seems like a nervous wreck up there at the net but he is okay. I think Nadal feels more comfortable at the net than Djokovic although I'm not sure if he's better. Of course with the overhead I have no doubt Nadal is superior to Djokovic.
I think Pancho Gonzalez or Rod Laver once said he felt like he was cheating when he was at the net with the larger heads of the racquets he used. Of course I don't know what they would say if they were exposed to the topspin of a Nadal at the net. Laver did face Borg with a wood racquet and Borg's topspin so I guess that's somewhat close.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's isn't but he did have the most topspin in the world at that time. I figured with the small wood racquet Laver used that it also makes it more difficult to volley so it may be close.I don't really think Borg's topspin is close to Nadal's
And yeah Djokovic can be effective up there, Nadal is better the more difficult volleys IMO. He also looks better up there, which is like 90% of it
I also think Nadal has more penetrating volleys than Djokovic overall. I think Nadal would be fine with wood also.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hard to say whether it equals out. I would think that the difference in the size of the racquet is more than compensated for by the angles, spin and pace of today's shots.
All these guys should be fine with wood, they'd just train in different ways. I think we have to assume they would be fine because otherwise we end up giving modern guys no credit.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think so. Tennis is a game of technique and these guys, if they were in the past would have trained differently but they would have learned easily.
Now if we transported them when they were 18 and already had their basic strokes down and the coach didn't try to change the basic swings I think they also would have adapted. I'm not sure if they would have done as well as a Borg because even guys like Laver mishit a lot when they hit topspin but they may flatten out some shots, hit with great topspin on others, come to the net when necessary. I think the modern serve technique would apply to wood easily and be superior to the old serve technique so in that way they would have an edge.
I wonder how they would do with a T-2000. Probably not well. I just used a T-2000 the other day. I hated it.
Last edited:
If you want more than one era, the break should come at the 1990's when new technology was being introduced, say, for example, during Sampras' career.
Using 1968 makes no sense.
I think that Trabert would adjust well, with his strong strokes.
Trabert stated on television recently that "I would like to see what Hoadie could do with these new racquets".
On the other hand, today's players would have great trouble developing the ability to play with wood racquets.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I don't really think Borg's topspin is close to Nadal's
And yeah Djokovic can be effective up there, Nadal is better the more difficult volleys IMO. He also looks better up there, which is like 90% of it
With a an oversized graphite racquet and polyester strings, Borg would hit heavier topspin than almost anyone today, except Nadal.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Most probably. But he doesn't come close with wood.
Borg would be a monster in today's game IMO.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure how close he would come with wood. They didn't have hard data on RPMs back then that they have now. However, according to Vic Braden, Borg's average groundstroke cleared the net by something like 10 - 12 feet. And, I can tell you he was a big hitter. That is a lot of topspin.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I remember that they actually did some sort of test on amount of topspin players put on the ball around 1976 or so. I think it was in World Tennis but I'm not sure. Borg was number one for topspin and Laver was allowed to use some sort of a different racquet and with that, Laver was number two in topspin. I don't know if Vilas participated but I would guess he would have been number two to Borg.
It was amazing the amount of spin and pace Borg could put on the ball with wood. And in his best years he also had a great deal of depth on the shots also.
Borg's hero by the way was Laver. Some may think the styles differ greatly but there are a lot of similarities. Great topspin of course but also great court coverage, stamina, excellent serves, coolness under pressure and great variety. Both were legends at Wimbledon.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Possibly, you could take an educated guess with the racquet speed he generated and his loop swing. He hit such great angles from both side. I think his backhand passing shot was superior to Nadal's.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Even rec players like me can get huge net clearance
You simply can't generate the same racquet head speed with wood versus modern sticks. There's a lot of similarities between Borg's forehand and Federer's, no doubt he'd hit the ball big and with lots of spin in this era with the right technology. But there's no comparison between what Borg was doing in the 70's and what Nadal etc...do today. Different ball game.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Even rec players like me can get huge net clearance
There's a lot of similarities between Borg's forehand and Federer's, no doubt he'd hit the ball big and with lots of spin in this era with the right technology. But there's no comparison between what Borg was doing in the 70's and what Nadal etc...do today. Different ball game.
Racquet head speed is one way to generate power. Racquet weight is another. Wood racquets are heavier than graphite racquets. My recollection is that Borg's racquet was over 400g. Yes, anyone can hit soft moonballs. But, Borg hit high arcing shots with tremendous power and spin. That was the point. BTW, Borg's forehand is not that similar to Federer's. But, Borg's game is very similar to the modern game.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's vastly different. The combination of spin and pace today is in a different league. Borg on his comeback couldn't win a match playing with wood against graphite racquets let alone the bazooka's of today - and yes Borg was far removed from his peak but he was getting bageled by players only just inside the top 200.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Not it's not. (I edited my post BTW). Borg's comeback was irrelevant to this issue. He was out of shape and out of practice.
PS: You're way off on the rankings of the players he played on his comeback.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah it is. The eye test is conclusive. As are the unanimous opinions of most ex pro's etc...This takes nothing away from players of that era, but technology has moved the game on.
The difference in the quality of hitting in these two matches is clear.
Definite similarities as well BTW.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Nat, you can argue all you like. I've seen them play. Video is a poor basis to judge compared to live. You are just wrong. And, if you understand forehand technique, then you understand that Borg's forehand is more like Lendl's and Sampras' in the important aspects, not like Federer's.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Whatever you say man
I should just trust your 40 year old memories of Borg then...agree to disagree.Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Whatever you say man
Here's a video for you:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Great hitting for sure but still not as good as today. If you think 40 years of racquet evolution amounts to very little then that's fine.
The hitting in a match like this is clearly more impressive in absolute terms.
Last edited:
Rosewall beat Hoad in the Wembley finals in 61,62 and 63 and the French Pro finals in 58 and 60. Lew reached 7 pro slam finals from 58-63, winning none of those finals. He lost to Gonzalez in the US pro finals in 58 and 59.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I didn't say there was no difference. Just not as much as you seemed to suggest.
Again, you are looking into the wrong stats.
"Pro slam" is meaningless in the context you suggest.
The only championship tour that Hoad and Rosewall played against each other was in 1959, with Hoad holding a 6 to 2 edge in the tournament series.
Last edited:
