Rosewall was small by the standard's then, but he is extremely small by the standards now. If fitness standards were so high, then how did the world no 1 lose to a 43 year old? Because the game was more about finesse than about power and strength then. Federer may fare well in a finesse and skill as one could argue he has plenty of both, but he (obviously) also had the power to compete in today's game. Rosewall would not.
Yes but into their 40's? Come on.
All the GOATs are, in some way, exceptional.
As an example: a tennis GOAT from Switzerland, with its lack of tennis tradition and history of great players? Come on, surely you jest.
So Gonzalez was infinitely better than say Pete Sampras? I doubt Sampras would get a set off a top 100 player. Muster (at the age of 45) attempted a comeback and won like only one match in some future or challenger event. The level of competition may not have been weaker, but physical strength and endurance mattered for little, so players could last far longer. Rosewall's height would be a major drawback. Just see David Ferrer, he has all the tools that novak djokovic or murray and incredible fitness, but because of his short stature (still 2 inches taller than laver), he will likely never win a slam.
Tommy Haas is 35, not 42. And he has relatively low mileage due to the injuries that derailed his career.
Rosewall's achievements are inflated, as are other players from that era. Therefore, they should not be compared to open era players. In the open era, Federer is the GOAT. Between the end of World War II and the start of the open era, Rosewall or Gonzales is the GOAT of that era. I am truly clueless about the pre-open era. Also, as a question, on the pro-tour, were most of the matches best of 5 sets or best of 3 sets?
Ha ha ha, good one.It's the cow milk...that's the secret ingredient behind it. That and his father's mustache.
How did Federer lose to Sampras on their exhibition series in 2010?
Laver lost at MSG to Gonzales in a round robin match in the WTT Series, at a time when Gonzales was 43 and Laver was 32 and already suffering from back arthritis.
Laver and Gonzales met again in the semi-final, and Laver won in straight sets.
It is important to put things into context.
There were many "powerful" players in the fifties and sixties.
In 1995, Gonzales rated Hoad as the most powerful hitter of all time.
Hoad rated Gonzales as the hardest hitter he ever saw.
Budge and Vines were powerful hitters.
All four of these players had great finesse as well.
Kramer picked these five names as the greatest ever in 2006.
(Kramer did not include Borg, Sampras, Becker, etc.).
1477aces, Rather strange post of your's.
I did not say that Gonzalez was infinitely better than Sampras.
Muster had been retired for ten years.
Ferrer, by far not a Rosewall, is a good example that even now a small player can succeed. He is ahead of GOAT Federer.
that's cause federer isn't trying anymore (believes he has accomplished all there is to accomplish, one day he will regret is as someone else passes him). So, Ferrer has all the weapons and fitness that novak and murray have. The only reason he hasn't won slams is because he's short. And he's still taller than rosewall. Rosewall probably had less power than Serena does. How much touch he has is really irrelevant. That's why we shouldn't compare such vastly different eras. There was the pre-open era post world war II era (till 74), and then the open era (minus 6 years). Rosewall or gonzales is the goat of that era, and federer is the goat of the open era.
1477aces, You are so inconsequent: You write we should not compare different eras but yet you say the old era was weaker. That's not a comparison???
Ferrer does not have the weapons of Djokovic and Murray and Rosewall.
Do you really believe Rosewall would lose to S. Williams? Lol.
Federer lost an exhibition. not a match that counted for anything. And if gonzales made the world tour finals, doesn't that mean he was a top 8 player? Connors wasn't close to top 10 even by the time of his 91 USO run. And when eh got to play world no 1 courier, he was streamrolled. Whereas, back then, you had world no 1's lose to 43 year olds. And 43 year olds could remain in the top 8? I'm not diminishing that era, just saying the lack of physicality enabled players to play (if they worked hard enough) long past their prime.
The Sampras/Federer matches were no more or less exhibitions than the WTT events.
And remember, when the chips were down in the 1969-72 era, Gonzales got whipped by Laver and co.
The Sampras/Federer matches were no more or less exhibitions than the WTT events.
And remember, when the chips were down in the 1969-72 era, Gonzales got whipped by Laver and co.
Yes they were exhibitions. Let's not remember who won in their only tour match. If sampras at the age of 29 couldn't beat 19 year roger federer I highly doubt he'd beat prime federer at the age of 40.
You have proven my point.
When it really counted, at Wimbledon, the younger player prevailed in 2001.
The 1970 WTT match was a preliminary affair, really no more important than the Sampras/Federer exhibition tour, one match of which Sampras won.
Didn't gonzales beat laver in a 10000 dollar match (a pretty high total at that time) at the age of 41 or 42. I'm not degrading this era, just saying it was less physical enabling players to stay on tour a lot longer.
Didn't gonzales beat laver in a 10000 dollar match (a pretty high total at that time) at the age of 41 or 42. I'm not degrading this era, just saying it was less physical enabling players to stay on tour a lot longer.
Sampras beat Federer for a lot more than $10,000 in about 2008 or 2009.
The 1970 WTT match you are referring to was just a preliminary match in a round-robin series, and in the semifinal, with big money on the line, Laver beat Gonzales in three straight sets.
You have proven my point.
When it really counted, at Wimbledon, the younger player prevailed in 2001.
The 1970 WTT match was a preliminary affair, really no more important than the Sampras/Federer exhibition tour, one match of which Sampras won.
Dan, In 1970 there was no WTT. Guess you mean WCT. It was an important match of the tennis champions classic.
It's the cow milk...that's the secret ingredient behind it. That and his father's mustache.
It's in his schnozz.
are you sure? I doubt federer would have lost if there was lots of money on the line. but don't you have to qualify out of the round-robin series? So it still matters. And also, was gonzales still in the top 8 in the world at the age of 42?
Recently, Hewitt beat some young guys at Wimbledon.
Where is the great young talent you are making noise about?
Just the same old guys hanging around the finals.
Hewitt won exactly one match. And he's 32 not 42 yet he's not even a top 100 player.