You can denounce Bud Collins as a Laver and Rosewall worshipper.
Federer's 10 defeated opponents
- Thread starter krosero
- Start date
You can denounce Bud Collins as a Laver and Rosewall worshipper.
NatF
Bionic Poster
They were just retired or not in the draw.
abmk
Bionic Poster
and crushed opponents far better than grandpa Haas at Halle and Wimbledon in straights -- A.Zverev, M.Zverev, Dimitrov, Raonic, Berdych, Cilic.
Ever thought the Haas loss was due to some rust after a 2 month break ? of course not !
abmk
Bionic Poster
Are you just pretending to be dumb here or are you really ?
Gonzales wasn't even in the draw for the pro majors that Rosewall won in 60, 62,63 -- that's 8, yes, read that again, EIGHT pro slams, not 1.
Laver,Emerson, Santana etc. of course were busy playing in the amateurs (well , Laver until start of 63)
its not even a comparison. Clearly worse majors for Rosewall.
abmk
Bionic Poster
trust me, you are more than annoying enough regarding Rosewall to want to make anyone do that.
fine, will check it out.
yeah, so ? Bud still ranks Federer over Rosewall. And so does almost every one else.
As far as Rosewall's ranking is concerned, so ?
Does he keep on saying utter BS like you do regarding federer's AO 17 and wim 17 wins ? No, of course , he is gracious and doesn't make up absurd nonsense like you do.
That is the problem with you.
yeah, but not of all them and almost no one else hits these shots even with modern racquets.
yeah, so ? Point of comparison was with Laver and Rosewall there
As an insane man (not stupid, as NatF said) I have the right to be dumb!
When Gonzalez was retired you cannot blame Rosewall!
Laver, Emerson and Santana were not as good as Hoad, Gimeno, Segura etc at that time. Learn history!
You bloody idiot and Collins detractor! Listen: Bud cannot still rank Federer over Rosewall because he has died last year!!! Have you slept???
abmk
Bionic Poster
I just saw the Tennis Channel Video regarding Rosewall and this is what Collins says :
1. You could possibly make an argument for Rosewall for GOAT because he was still winning titles at 40 years old.
i.e. his main claim is based on longevity. not on peak play, not the # of years he was #1 etc.
2. He says Rosewall is just about at the top of his list. Not sure what range that is. top 5 ?
One thing is for sure, he does mention anything about comparision of Rosewall and Federer there when talking about Rosewall.
1. You could possibly make an argument for Rosewall for GOAT because he was still winning titles at 40 years old.
i.e. his main claim is based on longevity. not on peak play, not the # of years he was #1 etc.
2. He says Rosewall is just about at the top of his list. Not sure what range that is. top 5 ?
One thing is for sure, he does mention anything about comparision of Rosewall and Federer there when talking about Rosewall.
abmk
Bionic Poster
and you pathetic fella, if Murray, Djokovic, Cilic get injured, you cannot blame Federer.
Is that too tough for you to understand ?
and this was for one major, Gonzales was absent for 8 friggin pro slams. That's a lot of pro majors or is that too tough to understand ?
You are both stupid and so jealous ...that's a pretty bad combination.
Laver, Emerson, Santana etc. were not as good in the amateurs. But if it had always been open tennis, they could've improved faster than they did in amateurs and started making their mark as early as 1962 itself.
abmk
Bionic Poster
What I meant is Bud not ranking Federer as GOAT does not mean he ranked Rosewall over Federer.
So you don't have a point really.
When Rosewall won his first pro major, Wembly 57, Gonzalez was in the draw but lost to Segura in the semi's. Ken beat Pancho in the 61, French Pro final and in the semi's of the French in 63 or 64. I am not sure if there were others, but Ken did beat Hoad in 4 pro finals 60-64 and Laver in six finals 63-66. He beat Laver in 4 French finals 63-66 and US Pro, on grass 63-65. So stop with the Nonsense that Rosewall did not beat top players to win his Pro Slams. Gonzalez, Laver, Hoad, Gimeno, Segura were superior to the players Federer beat 03-07 slam finals. I will have to check out the US Pro in 63-65 to see if Gonzalez was in those draws. Ken did not play the US Pro 58-62 as he was visiting his family in Australia those years.
As it turns out Gonzalez was in the 63 and 65 US Pro draw. In 63, Pancho lost to Olmedo, in 65, Rosewall beat him easily as he did Laver in 63 and 65 finals.
abmk, Thanks for looking. I'm not sure if Collins said "possibly" though. Maybe I err but it's not deciding: Deciding yet is that Bud says Rosewall could be the GOAT. I had a long and farcical quarrel with some of your colleagues about a year who in a mean way refused to accept Bud's words and claimed my English is bad. I knew I was right but nevertheless I asked my friend krosero, whom I still regard as our best researcher and one of the most intelligent persons I have met (per posts and mails) which version was right. krosero's native language is English. And he assured me that my English was sufficient and Collins has said and meant that really what I understood. Bud's second statement is a bit "softer" and he meant that Rosewall is just a bit behind his GOAT or GOATs which means he is a GOAT candidate for him. We know that his GOAT is most probably Laver.
I don't know what your remark shall be about longevity. What's your problem? I don't have any problem with his words. It's maybe your and others' opinion that peak play is more important than longevity but it's not mine, not krosero's (as far as I know) and of many other experts.
FYI: When Bud once said (on the phone) that my rating of Rosewall as the GOAT (I think at that time I had only one GOAT in my list) seems reasonable he substatiated this with talking about Rosewall's longevity PLUS his with Ken's two wins over Laver at Dallas. By the way, it's one of the rather many shames here that some posters tried to diminish the value of the WCT Finals and to pump up Dunlop 1970 and the TCC series, of course in order to belittle my favourite player and to praise their favourite (which was then Laver,but a few months later their new hero Federer)...
If I understand rightly, you mean Collins did NOT mention anything about a comparison R. and F. Yes, I agree. The only comparison I know he did in an interview for German Tennis Magazin where he said that Federer's backhand slice reminds him to Rosewall but that Rosewall had the better volley.
I don't BLAME Federer for the many injured opponents (He of course is not guilty for that and not the reason; I'm not stupid despite my age!!) but it's a fact that it's easier to win a major (or any tournament) if your most dangerous opponents get injured than if they are healthy! If you deny this logic statement then it's senseless to communicate with you anymore. Note: We are not in a kindergarten here. I don't want to waste my time. I probably will quit posting very soon in order to not anymorebe bothered by your (about 15 posters) claims and in order to give you a break from an insane, stupid and jealous and biased Rosewall worshipper!
A last short note: Emerson was not as talented as Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall and Laver and therefore would never have reached their level of play even if he would have turned pro as a baby...
Last edited:
...but also not Federer over Rosewall. Just believe me: I was his rather close friend and collaborator for more than twenty years. I knew his opinions and he knew mine.
Good bye.
abmk
Bionic Poster
what about when Gonzales does not even play 8 of the pro majors (3 in 60, 3 in 62, 2 in 63)?
you are whining so much about one major for federer. that is 8 pro majors for Rosewall.
rosewall had it easier for 8 pro majors with gonzales gone and you are whining about 1 major for federer ?
no, he doesn't have to be. But he'd be probably a tad better than Gimeno or about even and would still cause upsets and probably win b/w 1-3 majors.
abmk
Bionic Poster
the talk was about Gonzales missing 8 missing pro majors :
Gonzales did not play in any of the pro majors in 60 (3), in 62(3) and 2 of them in 63.
making it a total of 8 pro majors in which Gonzales did not play. Rosewall played in 6 of those and won all 6.
Gonzales would've probably won 2 of them, if not more, had he played.
and no, Gimeno, Seguera were hardly superior to the players federer beat in 03-07. (Seguera atleast not in the late 50s to 60s)
Hoad after 60 was not either.
thrust, Thanks for your courage to defend Rosewall against his many, many opponents. But I'm sad that we Rosewall "defender" are only a small group here: you, krosero, treblings, perhaps Rod Laver (the poster; the true R.L. wrote that Rosewall is the most underrated player at all, and Rod did not mean Muscles is commonly regarded as No. 17 or so (as our friend Limpinhitter ranks) and should get a place about at No.12; no. I'm sure that he rate Rosewall at least as a top ten player even though he did not rank him high in his recent list where the focus might have been on playing level and might have omitted achievements), Carlo Colussi (I hope and believe he will come back to the forum soon), maybe very few other posters and me.
Please write "Wembley". Ken also won the 1958 French Pro where Gonzalez participated. He beat Pancho also in the 1964 French Pro (Gonzalez get injured during the match).Rosewall beat Hoad in 7 pro majors: French Pro 1958 and 1960, Wembley 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1966 (the latter two not in finals). In the 1966 SF Hoad lead Rosewall 3-0 in the fifth set, one of Lew's greatest achievements as an old man...
Yes, Rosewall defeated Laver in six pro major's finals; Laver beat Rosewall in four pro major's finals. Rosewall won between 1963 and 1967 seven majors, Laver won 8 or 9 majors (if we include 1967 Wimbledon).
Gonzalez played the 1963 US Pro but was out of shape and therefore lost to Olmedo. Olmedo was tough though and was Rosewall's toughest opponent in that event!
I would disagree that Gimeno and Segura were stronger than Federer's opponents generally but perhaps they were better than Roger's opponents in this Wimbledon.
Last edited:
No comment.
abmk
Bionic Poster
read it as : no answer.
Lets see if you can come up with one , the question again was :
rosewall had it easier for 8 pro majors with gonzales gone and you are whining about 1 major for federer ?
joe sch
Legend
HTH, here are some references that I found, obviously 20 is total disrespect but Bud states "about top of my list" and I also have him right with Laver who is tops for me WRT achievements, ie 2x GS !
20. Ken Rosewall: "He was called 'Muscles'," Collins said, "because he didn't have any." I was particularly taken by Collins' almost misty-eyed recollections of Rosewall, the man who seemed to play forever and owned the most beautiful one-handed backhand in the game's history. "Little Kenny Rosewall," Collins said. "He is just about at the top of my list." (For the record, Collins' top picks were Laver and Navratilova.)
https://www.si.com/tennis/2012/03/27/top-100
A quote by said by Bud Collins in a 2006 article sums up Gonzalez best, what he said was, “If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thadd...0-greatest-male-tennis-players_b_7488398.html
The late, great Bud Collins, in his Encyclopaedia of Tennis History, names Tilden as the most dominant and influential player in history.
http://www.tennis-pulse.com/chasing-greatness-goat-or-goats/
joe sch, You quoted Bud's "milder" statement but did not quote his "stronger" one (Rosewall arguable the GOAT).
Your other quotings are correct: Bud did rate Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver as the possibly best in his encyclopedia. That's why I quoted these three players as Bud's probable GOAT candidates on the phone when Bud added: "And Kenny".
abmk, As I'll get away from this forum very soon, here my last answers to you: You err that Rosewall had it easier for 8 pro majors. In fact it was 6 majors because Rosewall also did not play the 1960 and 1962 US Pro (like Gonzalez)!
At least you now concede that Federer was lucky last sunday. Thanks.
abmk
Bionic Poster
already changed in my previous post over to make it 6 pro majors.
federer was a tad lucky on Sunday to have it a tad easier on Sunday, but he'd have won anyways. Rosewall far far far luckier with Gonzales not playing in 6 pro slams that he won (also Laver not peaking earlier due to tennis not being open). He'd have definitely lost on some pro majors had Gonzales played.
You are a complete hypocrite to point out about Sunday's match (when federer was the favorite anyways and would've probably won, just not as as easily) , while ignoring the much much better luck for Rosewall just because Rosewall is your favorite.
If you reform, people might take you seriously. Right now, you are just showing yourself to be a jealous foolish hypocrite.
