the little dasher
New User
Moe, Yes...but BACK IN HIS DAY.
I think I could take the guy..........
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4059
Sorry; but what point are you trying to make via that footage?
Moe, Yes...but BACK IN HIS DAY.
I think I could take the guy..........
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4059
Has to be said though that Budge wrecked his shoulder while serving in the military in 1943 and wasn't the same player thereafter. So Riggs was up against a crocked player past 30 by the time he started beating him regularly from 1946.
Riggs lost 15-10 to Budge in 1942 when he was 24 and had 3 slam titles to his credit. Budge had come off a bad year with injuries an ill health. Both men would have been close to their respective peaks in that year and considering the disadvantages imposed on Budge that score probably uderscores the latter's superiority over Riggs.
I've always found Kramer's list very suspiciously subjective. It seems fascinatingly fraught with personal likes, dislikes, and biases, (and maybe a more than a little self-aggrandizing).
Sorry; but what point are you trying to make via that footage?
It had been stated that someone wouldn't win a point off of these so-called greats. I'm 3.5-4.0 and I could win a point off of these guys.
My point; Quit comparing these guys to players today. They were good for "their day" but now it's like putting a classic T-Model Ford up against a new Mustang....ridiculous.
It had been stated that someone wouldn't win a point off of these so-called greats. I'm 3.5-4.0 and I could win a point off of these guys.
My point; Quit comparing these guys to players today. They were good for "their day" but now it's like putting a classic T-Model Ford up against a new Mustang....ridiculous.
I agree. The most ridiculous choice in my mind was his choice of Ted Schoeder (perhaps his best friend) as being on the same level as Laver and Rosewall in the second tier of all time greats. He admitted Schoeder had to serve and volley because he had unreliable groundstrokes. How does a player who has unreliable groundies be equivalent to Laver, Rosewall, and some other greats?
He said Riggs was superior to Gonzalez. It's well known Kramer didn't care for Gonzalez and was a good friend of Riggs.
His book is fascinating but I found his choices to be a little unusual.
What I find most interesting about these greatest-of-all-time lists is that they talked about players' games, rather than counting up titles, the way we do.
Vines' own choice of Budge as #1 apparently goes all the way back to '39, though it's a little difficult to know what to make of the statements made by the players to the press in the midst of tours that needed to be promoted. Some comments seem designed to stir up interest: Vines and Perry both announced flat-out, before their tours with Budge, that they would beat him; when Vines lost his tour he predicted just as adamantly that Perry would beat Budge.
Yet on April 22 -- with Budge now leading Perry 19-8 in their series, on the way to a dominating 28-8 victory -- Vines said this to the press:
Budge is the power-house of modern tennis and has been compared by many experts with Big Bill Tilden. Ellsworth Vines, who was defeated by Budge for the professional championship, declares that Budge is the all-time great of tennis. The red-headed Californian blasted Vines off the courts with his straight power-hitting.
http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/23739780/
Again, even that could be taken as part of the smack-talk that you would expect in those circumstances -- except that this turned out to be Vines' real opinion, as reflected in his book.
Well both of them are straining a bit against their reputations in a way. You can see from these quotes that very early on their reputations were already basically in place: Vines was referred to as the one who could be invincible one day and a total amateur the next, while Budge was the super-consistent one who could rarely be defeated, except occasionally on Vines' best days. But the truth is probably somewhere in between. Vines was more consistent -- and Budge more often beatable -- than their reputations would suggest.Krosero, you know what I find odd, the facts point that Vines was extremely strong in winning his matches. For example he won 14 straight tournaments. He also has the second highest winning percentage in tennis history in majors if we include Pro Majors. He never lost to Cochet while I believe Budge lost at least once to him.
I can name a number of other things also but I typing from my phone while parked in my car now so it is a bit of a pain.
I can see Vines level of playing varying in a match but the bottom line is that he generally won. Budge of course generally won also but I've noticed that he lost a lot more than I expected when I first looked at some of his records.
Yes, there's no doubt Vines' list purposely starts post-Tilden, and that he holds Tilden perhaps as the greatest of all. He never faced peak Tilden, but he had so much trouble with an aging Tilden that he had to know how great Tilden in the '20s must have been.I'm not sure if Vines picks Budge or Tilden as number one. In his book he writes Budge is the best of those who played after World War II. I'll find the quotes later which put some doubt on that.
Edit-Vines writes in his book "Tennis Myth and Method"-All kinds of lists select Tilden as the greatest player who ever lived. I can't argue with them. His record is amazing. The next page Vines writes about Tilden-From personal experience I can vouch for his all-around game. I played a tour against him in 1934 abd was glad to win 47 out of our 73 matches, even though he was 41. In our Madison Square Garden debut, in which he beat me 8-6 6-3 6-2, I was not only overawed by him personally but also by his game. I was coming off a rather poor amateur season in 1933 and simply wasn't prepared for a player of his accurate strokes and experience. He had a cannonball serve, heartbreaking length and angles plus the energy of a junior. I gradually improved on the tour as I became more familiar with the indoor courts; yet I had never played anyone who could do as much off both wings. His return of service was superb; he could blow you off the court with his drives and at the same time was a master of spins. His energy was amazing for his age. I remember on grueling match in Los Angeles which lasted over three hours before I took it in the fifth after losing an earlier set 23-21.