Ken Rosewall vs. Rod Laver?

[BGod]

I've recently done more research on this topic and it's a tad sad most people will simply say Laver>Rosewall based on nothing except Laver's two Calendar Slams.

Upon further inspection I'm finding it harder to actually pick Laver as the better player however. Just some notes on Laver's achievements:

*Both Calendar Slams were 3/4 on Grass
*Aussie Open was not well attended until the late 80s
*Laver won "only" 8 Pro Slams in his 5 seasons away from the "official" tour

Now this is where things get interesting. It IS impressive he won 8 Slams out of the 15 he entered and indeed he made 14 Finals, but guess who he lost to?

French Pro Championships 63-67
Ken Rosewall: 6-8, 6-4, 5–7, 6–3, 6–4
Ken Rosewall: 6–3, 7–5, 3–6, 6–3
Ken Rosewall: 6–3, 6–2, 6–4
Ken Rosewall: 6–3, 6–2, 14–12
Rod Laver defeated Andrés Gimeno, 6–4, 8–6, 4–6, 6–2 (Rosewall lost to Gimeno in semifinal)

Ken Rosewall won 7 consecutive French Pros and 8 overall. In fact he was on the pro tour when Laver was still punching out the amateur competition.

At the U.S. Pro, Laver and Rosewall split their 4 Final matchups.

What becomes even more murkier is events like the 1972 WTF:

Ken Rosewall defeats Rod Laver

Laver was 34 and Rosewall was 37 (going on 38).

Now everyone here remembers how Rosewall made back to back Slam Finals at Wimbledon and U.S. Open in 1974 at the age of 39, losing both to Jimmy Connors. What people tend to forget is how after 69, Laver largely left the main tour for WCT, where he DID have success but also some notable losses including to long-time rival Rosewall nearing his 40s.

The Laver-Rosewall rivalry shows an 80-64 advantage for Laver, but in best of 5 set Major Finals the head to head is 7-6 in favor of Rosewall. Furthermore, 5 of those wins by Laver were when Rosewall was now over 30.

Basically, it would seem to me, Rosewall didn't play Laver much in his prime and his victories in his later years are overshadowed by Laver's health issues and concentrating more on the WCT.

But how do we accurately judge Laver to have been the better player over Rosewall?

 

[NatF]

Laver was the best player in the world clearly from probably 1964-1970. Rosewall was just the best clearly from 1962-1963.

Your breakdown of the h2h is a bit superficial. For starters there are plenty of other important tournaments beyond the ones that you're counting. The pro majors didn't have the same status in that era as the modern grand slams do in todays. Rosewall also played Laver 30+ times in 1963 when Laver was still adjusting to the tour (scoring 2 major wins over him) - more than any other year. That pads the h2h on his side.

Then you have to consider the opinions of the people that saw and played them both. Next to no one ranks Rosewall higher than Laver. Kramer, Vines, Sedgman all rank Laver higher. Laver himself only ranks Rosewall 6th from pre open era players.

 

[BGod]

Laver was the best player in the world clearly from probably 1964-1970. Rosewall was just the best clearly from 1962-1963.

Your breakdown of the h2h is a bit superficial. For starters there are plenty of other important tournaments beyond the ones that you're counting. The pro majors didn't have the same status in that era as the modern grand slams do in todays. Rosewall also played Laver 30+ times in 1963 when Laver was still adjusting to the tour (scoring 2 major wins over him) - more than any other year. That pads the h2h on his side.

Then you have to consider the opinions of the people that saw and played them both. Next to no one ranks Rosewall higher than Laver. Kramer, Vines, Sedgman all rank Laver higher. Laver himself only ranks Rosewall 6th from pre open era players.

But outside 63, Rosewall beat Laver in 2 of the 3 Pro Finals in 1965, both in straights. I think 5 set matches in general are a good indicator and sadly Rosewall never played Laver prior to age 28. Prime for prime is hard to judge when you simply have no data on it. Still, you'd think a 27 year old Laver wouldn't lost in straight sets at 2 Pro Finals to a 31 year old Rosewall if he was undoubtedly better.

Jack Kramer has prestige but his rankings are heavily criticized much the same. For pre-open players he ranked Budge, Vines, Tilden, Perry, Riggs and Gonzales in the top tier and judged Laver to be beneath all of them.

Furthermore guys like Kramer and Sedgman didn't really play much against Rosewall. The Gonzales-Rosewall matches are interesting:

1958 Tournament of Champions
Gonzales wins 19-17, 5-7, 6-4

Pancho was 30 at the time but still in form and Rosewall was 26. I believe they played a best of 3 set due to the length of the first but as you can see as close of a match as you can come by.

Rosewall won their only Pro Slam Final meeting 2–6, 6–4, 6–3, 8–6 three years later. Meanwhile in Gonzales lone Pro Slam Final meet with Laver, the 36 year old Pancho took Laver to 4 sets, losing 6–4, 3–6, 5–7, 4–6.

So despite what some old guys who rarely played Rosewall have to say, the records don't back this up.

 

[pc1]

But outside 63, Rosewall beat Laver in 2 of the 3 Pro Finals in 1965, both in straights. I think 5 set matches in general are a good indicator and sadly Rosewall never played Laver prior to age 28. Prime for prime is hard to judge when you simply have no data on it. Still, you'd think a 27 year old Laver wouldn't lost in straight sets at 2 Pro Finals to a 31 year old Rosewall if he was undoubtedly better.

Jack Kramer has prestige but his rankings are heavily criticized much the same. For pre-open players he ranked Budge, Vines, Tilden, Perry, Riggs and Gonzales in the top tier and judged Laver to be beneath all of them.

Furthermore guys like Kramer and Sedgman didn't really play much against Rosewall. The Gonzales-Rosewall matches are interesting:

1958 Tournament of Champions
Gonzales wins 19-17, 5-7, 6-4

Pancho was 30 at the time but still in form and Rosewall was 26. I believe they played a best of 3 set due to the length of the first but as you can see as close of a match as you can come by.

Rosewall won their only Pro Slam Final meeting 2–6, 6–4, 6–3, 8–6 three years later. Meanwhile in Gonzales lone Pro Slam Final meet with Laver, the 36 year old Pancho took Laver to 4 sets, losing 6–4, 3–6, 5–7, 4–6.

So despite what some old guys who rarely played Rosewall have to say, the records don't back this up.

Actually players like Kramer and Sedgman played Rosewall numerous times and also observed Rosewall often. Just on one tour alone I believe Kramer played Rosewall around 26 times. Kramer believes Rosewall beat him 22 to 4 which wasn't bad for Kramer considering he couldn't even bend down due to his arthritis. Sedgman played Rosewall from the 1950's to I believe the 1970's.

Including doubles Sedgman I believe played Rosewall 105 times and Kramer played Rosewall 53 times. I think that's a decent amount of times.

 

[urban]

One has to look at the Status of the French pro, played at Coubertin Arena in those years. To me it lacked a bit prestige, because it moved from RG on clay to an indoor field and was the preliminary Event for the more important Wembley Event, mostly played a week later. At Wembley, the unofficial World Championships of the pros, Laver won 4 times until 1967, and 3-0 over Rosewall. At Coubertin Arena in 1967, there was a second big event over best of five sets in spring, which Laver won in the final in 3 straight sets over Rosewall. Laver won also the French pro at RG in 1968, and two US pros at Boston in 1968 and 69, ad two Wembleys in 1969 and 1970. Rosewall aded a Wembley win in 1968 and a US pro win in 1971.
And one has to look closer to the whole year stats of the pros, te get a better impression of their actual rankings. In 1965, for instance, Laver had a great first half winning 8 importnat events, including the de facto fourth pro Major, the US indoors at New York, while Rosewall fell behind Gonzalez to Nr. 3. Rosewall recovered in the second half of the season to second place. All in all, Rosewall was 50-30 for the year, while Laver was 78-18, and the hth was 13-5 Laver.

 

[pc1]

It's pretty clear from a closer examination of Rosewall's record that he was rarely the best player in the world, even at his peak. As late as 1960 Rosewall was beaten soundly by Pancho Gonzalez on a World Championship head to head tour by a very one sided scored of 15 to 4. Rosewall was 25 at the time, a veteran of the Pro Ranks and at his absolute best. Gonzalez won the World Championship tour over Rosewall, Olmedo and Segura with a great record of 49 and 8. Rosewall was far behind at 32 and 25. Rosewall was never number one until Gonzalez retired after the 1961 season. Not surprisingly Rosewall became number one in 1962. Rosewall was clearly number one over a rookie pro Rod Laver but Laver overtook Rosewall for number one late in 1964 and never give it up until years later.

There are so many huge events that Laver won that he defeated Rosewall. Events like the Tournament of Champions in 1970 and 1971, the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, Wembley in 1968, the Pacific Southwest in 1968, the Dunlop Sydney Open (the sub for the Australian Open in 1970), the Year End Master in 1970 (which Laver lost in a tiebreak with Smith), and of course 1969 French Open final.

 

[NatF]

Rosewall's greatest strength was his consistency and longevity. Laver was considered clearly better by their peers and was much more consistently the best player in the world.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It's a legacy of BobbyOne that I'm one of the few who rank Rosewall among the very best ever.

Many people don't rank Ken as high mainly for the following reasons:

- He didn't dominate tennis as long as other goat candidate, as he was ranked n°1 only 3 years, and co-n° 2 others years.
- His domination happened in somewhat of a transitional era, after Gonzales declined and before Laver rose. He was second to both these players.
- He never won Wimbledon, which is for many a huge hole in his resume.

Wimbledon for me is a non-issue, as he never played it during his prime. He was already 35 years old in 1969, and I have yet to see a 35 years old player win Wimbledon. Borg, Sampras and Federer didn't.

The ranking is somewhat an issue, although you can give him some slack for being second to maybe the two absolute best players ever. But what is interesting for me is that when he was second, or even further down the ranking in the 70's, he was still winning majors, outlasting many younger rivals (including Laver). He wasn't dominant, but he was good enough to hoard more titles than anyone else! While I value the ranking a lot, it's not the be-all of tennis. Actually, his case share some similarities with Nadal. Nadal has been second to Federer in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, then second to Djokovic in 2011, then a bit further in 2012 and 2014. Yet during all these years he was winning a major and really had achieved enough to be ranked n°1 against many less consistent competitor than Federer and Djokovic. At the end Nadal is likely to finish his career with only 3 YE1, but he has already 14 slams and may add to this tally in the following years!

At the end Rosewall receive little credits because he was never the most marketable players and played through many change. First years in the amateur, then in the pro with the pro tour as the main event, then the pro major, the the open majors, where is still was prevented to compete in many of them, especially at RG.

Rosewall is tied n°1 with Gonzales, Laver and Federer in my opinion.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Rosewall's greatest strength was his consistency and longevity. Laver was considered clearly better by their peers and was much more consistently the best player in the world.

Rosewall was already 30 years old when Laver dominated the pro tour, while Laver was 25-26. How is it we take into account age in the rivalry of Connors vs Lendl and Federer vs Nadal, but not Rosewall vs Laver?

 

[NatF]

Rosewall was already 30 years old when Laver dominated the pro tour, while Laver was 25-26. How is it we take into account age in the rivalry of Connors vs Lendl and Federer vs Nadal, but not Rosewall vs Laver?

Because Rosewall didn't have his peak year until he was 28 and played until he was 40?

My post had little to do with the actual h2h which would always favor Laver due to age - even more so if they didn't play 30 times in 1963 when Laver was a rookie. It was to do with the guys who played both considering Laver the best and the fact Laver spent a much longer time as the best player in the world. Which is more relevant than the pro majors which were not static in prestige like todays slams.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Because Rosewall didn't have his peak year until he was 28 and played until he was 40?

My post had little to do with the actual h2h which would always favor Laver due to age - even more so if they didn't play 30 times in 1963 when Laver was a rookie. It was to do with the guys who played both considering Laver the best and the fact Laver spent a much longer time as the best player in the world. Which is more relevant than the pro majors which were not static in prestige like todays slams.

How to do you know Rosewall hit his peak at 28? And what the relevance of being able to play well late in the 30's with the peak or prime? It's not because you are still relevant when very old that you had your prime/peak later than the others no?

As for the H2H, it is connected to ranking. My view is that Rosewall wasn't able to challenge Laver top position because he was old. Just like Federer can't challenge Djokovic top position today. Also when a player is 30 years old, I bet he would rather compete against a 35 years old Rosewall and a generation of amateurs recently turned pro than against a 25 years old Laver.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

double post.

 

[NatF]

How to do you know Rosewall hit his peak at 28? And what the relevance of being able to play well late in the 30's with the peak or prime? It's not because you are still relevant when very old that you had your prime/peak later than the others no?

As for the H2H, it is connected to ranking. My view is that Rosewall wasn't able to challenge Laver top position because he was old. Just like Federer can't challenge Djokovic top position today. Also when a player is 30 years old, I bet he would rather compete against a 35 years old Rosewall and a generation of amateurs recently turned pro than against a 25 years old Laver.

I said he had his peak year. Many consider 1962 to be his best year in terms of level of play. It's either that or he was at his peak much earlier but outclassed by Gonzalez...

This conversation is irrelevant really. Either he was not good enough to supplant Gonzalez or he was not good enough to supplant Laver. He had to be at his peak at some point with the two unless it was just that short 2 year window. The fact is he spent most of his time beside those greats behind them in the rankings. My point is about the time spent at #1, not the h2h which I already said favored Laver at least due to age.

The thing is if age is the excuse with Laver what about Gonzalez? Gonzalez was older than Rosewall but had the edge in the h2h and was #1 a head of him until he retired. Rosewall was not the best player in the world for an extended period of time. Perhaps he was unlucky to be sandwiched between two GOAT's but if he was at their level he would have carved a more consistent and significant period of dominance. He didn't. No one who was ranked clearly #1 for just 2 years is greater than a player who was #1 clearly for at least 5 years IMO.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Perhaps he was unlucky to be sandwiched between two GOAT's but if he was at their level he would have carved a more consistent and significant period of dominance. He didn't. No one who was ranked clearly #1 for just 2 years is greater than a player who was #1 clearly for at least 5 years IMO.

That's were I disagree. Nadal has been ranked N°1 only 3 years (only two clear n°1 I guess) and I have him a lot greater than Lendl, and roughly on par with Sampras. The thing is Nadal is outstanding since 2005 and would have been ranked N°1 in many years if not for a peak Federer, while himself wasn't at his peak yet. So age isn't related to H2H only, it's also related to the ranking. It is hard to be N°1 when another all time great in his peak, while you aren't.

 

[NatF]

That's were I disagree. Nadal has been ranked N°1 only 3 years (only two clear n°1 I guess) and I have him a lot greater than Lendl, and roughly on par with Sampras. The thing is Nadal is outstanding since 2005 and would have been ranked N°1 in many years if not for a peak Federer, while himself wasn't at his peak yet. So age isn't related to H2H only, it's also related to the ranking. It is hard to be N°1 when another all time great in his peak, while you aren't.

It's different when it's two or three players who all played each other. We're comparing Rosewall to Gonzalez and Laver two guys who greatly outrank him in terms of years at #1. Within his era he was third best.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It's different when it's two or three players who all played each other. We're comparing Rosewall to Gonzalez and Laver two guys who greatly outrank him in terms of years at #1. Within his era he was third best.

Then what about Nadal? Is he third best within his era? He has hoarded more majors than Djokovic and bested Federer in H2H, yet he was second most of the time.

Also Rosewall was one of the 3-4 best players in the world from 1957 (probably even before while he was still an amateur) until 1974. It should count for something.

 

[NatF]

Then what about Nadal? Is he third best within his era? He has hoarded more majors than Djokovic and bested Federer in H2H, yet he was second most of the time.

Also Rosewall was one of the 3-4 best players in the world from 1957 (probably even before while he was still an amateur) until 1974. It should count for something.

Nadal has had injuries and 3 years compared to 4 is a lot closer than 2 to 5. He also leads the h2h's whereas Rosewall trails both.

It counts for something but being #1 counts for more.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Nadal has had injuries and 3 years compared to 4 is a lot closer than 2 to 5. He also leads the h2h's whereas Rosewall trails both.

It counts for something but being #1 counts for more.

I expect Rosewall had injuries too at some point in his career, but obviously his career isn't as documented as Nadal, especially the injuries. For example we know that Fed was struggling in 2013 due to a bad back, yet still played, but we don't have this kind of info for the older players.

Also, you say 3 years compared to 4 but to compare with Rosewall we need to use a systematic approach: If Rosewall wasn't clear n°1 in 60 and 70, Nadal maybe shouldn't be awarded a clear YE1 in 2013 too, when the ITF considered Djokovic the better player (due to Slam consistency). Under the ranking system of the 60's, Nadal wouldn't be clear N°1 I think. Really the case could be 2 YE1 against 5 too.

 

[NatF]

I expect Rosewall had injuries too at some point in his career, but obviously his career isn't as documented as Nadal, especially the injuries. For example we know that Fed was struggling in 2013 due to a bad back, yet still played, but we don't have this kind of info for the older players.

Also, you say 3 years compared to 4 but to compare with Rosewall we need to use a systematic approach: If Rosewall wasn't clear n°1 in 60 and 70, Nadal maybe shouldn't be awarded a clear YE1 in 2013 too, when the ITF considered Djokovic the better player (due to Slam consistency). Under the ranking system of the 60's, Nadal wouldn't be clear N°1 I think. Really the case could be 2 YE1 against 5 too.

Rosewall was remarkably fit - everyone plays hurt but it was nothing compared to Nadal who has missed multiple major tournaments.

Djokovic has 3 YE #1's and Nadal has 3 YE #1's. I don't think that is really disputed - Nadal won the biggest matches and won the most points. And as far as I'm concerned 1970 belongs to Laver and 1960 belongs to Gonzalez. The only disputed year is 1961 IMO and I think Gonzalez winning the h2h tour has a very strong case.

You're doing a fine job standing in for Bobby but it's hardly like Rosewall has nearly twice the majors of Gonzalez and Laver to balance out a lopsided tally at #1 anyway.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Rosewall was remarkably fit - everyone plays hurt but it was nothing compared to Nadal who has missed multiple major tournaments.

Djokovic has 3 YE #1's and Nadal has 3 YE #1's. I don't think that is really disputed - Nadal won the biggest matches and won the most points. And as far as I'm concerned 1970 belongs to Laver and 1960 belongs to Gonzalez. The only disputed year is 1961 IMO and I think Gonzalez winning the h2h tour has a very strong case.

You're doing a fine job standing in for Bobby but it's hardly like Rosewall has nearly twice the majors of Gonzalez and Laver to balance out a lopsided tally at #1 anyway.

It's fine that your rank Laver first for 1970 but it is not clear at all, when Rosewall was runner-up in Wimbledon, champion in USO, while Laver won M1000 equivalents but really failed in slams. By the same logic, Nadal YE1 in 2013 is clear under the current ranking system, but without such a system, their is room for discussion. I bet under a ranking system elaborated by journalists and other experts, they would have been ranked co-number 1.

As for 1961, I doubt many people will consider Gonzalez the N°1 when Rosewall didn't play the tours, but won the French pro and Wembley where all the top players where playing. 1960 is disputed, experts were divided on who was the N°1 between Pancho and Ken.

 

[NatF]

It's fine that your rank Laver first for 1970 but it is not clear at all, when Rosewall was runner-up in Wimbledon, champion in USO, while Laver won M1000 equivalents but really failed in slams. By the same logic, Nadal YE1 in 2013 is clear under the current ranking system, but without such a system, their is room for discussion. I bet under a ranking system elaborated by journalists and other experts, they would have been ranked co-number 1.

As for 1961, I doubt many people will consider Gonzalez the N°1 when Rosewall didn't play the tours, but won the French pro and Wembley where all the top players where playing. 1960 is disputed, experts were divided on who was the N°1 between Pancho and Ken.

Laver won the tennis champions classic and Dunlop both were major events. He won more tournaments and dominated everyone else h2h. I don't think they would be ranked co #1, not when Nadal won both their major meetings and won more tier 1 and tier 2 tournaments + had the higher win/loss.

Many people aren't clued up on the historical importance of the h2h tours. Gonzalez won the US Pro and the h2h tour - the tour which traditionally determined the #1 player that year. A series of dozens of matches versus Rosewall winning what? 8 or so?

There's nothing to dispute in 1960, Gonzalez dominated the h2h tour and rekt Rosewall during the course of it. He didn't even play the Pro majors because he had secured his top spot. Rosewall is only clearly #1 in 1962 and 1963. Even if you count disputed years Laver still comes up considerably on top as does Gonzalez. If he was as good he would have spent close to their time at #1.

The modern times place more emphasis on the majors - the pro era was not the same.

 

[pc1]

It's a legacy of BobbyOne that I'm one of the few who rank Rosewall among the very best ever.

Many people don't rank Ken as high mainly for the following reasons:

- He didn't dominate tennis as long as other goat candidate, as he was ranked n°1 only 3 years, and co-n° 2 others years.
- His domination happened in somewhat of a transitional era, after Gonzales declined and before Laver rose. He was second to both these players.
- He never won Wimbledon, which is for many a huge hole in his resume.

Wimbledon for me is a non-issue, as he never played it during his prime. He was already 35 years old in 1969, and I have yet to see a 35 years old player win Wimbledon. Borg, Sampras and Federer didn't.

The ranking is somewhat an issue, although you can give him some slack for being second to maybe the two absolute best players ever. But what is interesting for me is that when he was second, or even further down the ranking in the 70's, he was still winning majors, outlasting many younger rivals (including Laver). He wasn't dominant, but he was good enough to hoard more titles than anyone else! While I value the ranking a lot, it's not the be-all of tennis. Actually, his case share some similarities with Nadal. Nadal has been second to Federer in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, then second to Djokovic in 2011, then a bit further in 2012 and 2014. Yet during all these years he was winning a major and really had achieved enough to be ranked n°1 against many less consistent competitor than Federer and Djokovic. At the end Nadal is likely to finish his career with only 3 YE1, but he has already 14 slams and may add to this tally in the following years!

At the end Rosewall receive little credits because he was never the most marketable players and played through many change. First years in the amateur, then in the pro with the pro tour as the main event, then the pro major, the the open majors, where is still was prevented to compete in many of them, especially at RG.

Rosewall is tied n°1 with Gonzales, Laver and Federer in my opinion.

Flash, I'm glad you're on the side of Rosewall instead of BobbyOne because you're more inclined to listen to reason. How can Rosewall be tied at number one when at his peak he was always second and occasionally lower to Gonzalez and later to Laver? Let's look at Rosewall versus Gonzalez.

Gonzalez-17 majors, arguably more since he won a lot of tournaments considered close to majors.
Rosewall-23 majors
Gonzalez-Seven World Championship tours
Rosewall-One
The World Championship Tours were clearly far more important than Pro Majors since the winner is regarded as THE WORLD CHAMPION so in theory a player can win all three Pro Majors in one year, lose the World Championship Tour and not but World Champion.
Head to Head-Gonzalez leads 107-75.
Tournaments won-About even at around 130 but remember that Gonzalez spent a good portion of his time playing the long Tours when he could have won more tournaments.
Career percentage of Tournaments won-Gonzalez is estimated to have won about 40% of his tournaments entered. Rosewall is way behind at 25.3%. This is a huge difference.

I would say conservatively that Gonzalez's seven World Championship Tours won is the equivalent of 14 majors so you could say Gonzalez won 31 majors to Rosewall's 25. It could be valued higher.

Gonzalez was clearly number one from 1954 to 1961 and arguably the best player before that.
Rosewall was clearly number one in 1962 and 1963 and was never clearly the best player after that.

Even as late as 1960 Gonzalez crushed Rosewall 15 to 4 on a head to head World Championship tour which also had Segura and Olmedo playing.
Final standings
Gonzalez-49-8
Rosewall-32-25
Segura-22-28
Olmedo-11-44
This result is overwhelming in favor of Gonzalez. It's not even close. He had clinched the World Championship by May so there was no need for him to play the rest of the year. Rosewall went on to win the French Pro and Wembley while Olmedo, the last place finisher here won the US Pro. Gonzalez did not enter any of these tournaments because it was not necessary and he wanted to rest after years of playing constant tennis. The odds would have been very high that he would have won at least one of these tournaments if he entered.

Now bear in mind Rosewall, now a Pro veteran who would be 26 that year was at his peak when playing Gonzalez on this tour and Gonzalez, who would be 32 that year was probably slightly passed his prime. BobbyOne hilariously argued that Rosewall wasn't at his peak when he played Gonzalez in 1960 on the World Championship tour but was at his peak a few months later when he won the French Pro and Wembley. That of course was ridiculous.

I would even venture to say Gonzalez was superior to Rosewall when both were in their forties. Much is made of the fact that Rosewall was in the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open in a year he would be forty. However Gonzalez won the Howard Hughes in 1969 and 1970 which was a big tournament, essentially a major over players like Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe and Laver. Gonzalez also won the very prestigious Pacific Southwest over Cliff Richey and a promising newcomer named Jimmy Connors in 1969 and 1971 respectively. Rosewall, after age forty never won any tournament of that magnitude.

When I first discuss the issue of Rosewall being a possible GOAT with a former poster I was surprised this person would argue that. That being said I kept an open mind and thought I'd listen to his opinion. True, Rosewall had an impressive record but the more I looked at it the thing I couldn't answer was why Rosewall was never number one when Gonzalez was around before he retired. After all Rosewall was at his peak but yet Gonzalez beat him in rankings and head to head. This was even more disturbing after Gonzalez just annihilated Rosewall on the 1960 tour with Gonzalez passed his prime and Rosewall at his best. That former poster never really acknowledged importance of the World Championship head to head tours when I questioned him on it yet it was FAR more important than Pro Majors.

Is it truly surprising that Rosewall was number one in 1962 and 1963 after the great Gonzalez retired? Of course not.

My thought was how can Rosewall be the GOAT if he was never number one at his peak when Gonzalez was around? Clearly the answer was very simple...Pancho Gonzalez was the much superior player.

Rosewall is no doubt a great player with a great career but he was never a truly dominant player like Laver, Gonzalez, Borg, Kramer, Tilden and others were. Just on a subjective basis he just didn't have any major power weapons. Even his vaunted backhand wasn't a major power weapon. It was great and arguably the best backhand ever but it wasn't a power shot. He could hit it hard but not as hard consistently as a Connors, Budge, Laver or Borg. He had at best an average serve and as we all know the serve is the most important shot in tennis.

Rosewall's style, like Federer's is a style that takes very little out of you and like Federer, Rosewall had very few injuries over his career. Rosewall was able to win titles a bit passed his best because of his easy style. It was the same with Gonzalez and I'd venture to say that if Gonzalez was born in 1934 like Rosewall he would have done very well in the majors in the Open Era.

I'll compare Rosewall with Laver perhaps later.

 

[NatF]

^ Good poast.
I can't imagine Laver or Gonzalez born when Rosewall was only ranking #1 for the year a couple of times. They were simply more dominant players and better at their best.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Flash, I'm glad you're on the side of Rosewall instead of BobbyOne because you're more inclined to listen to reason. How can Rosewall be tied at number one when at his peak he was always second and occasionally lower to Gonzalez and later to Laver? Let's look at Rosewall versus Gonzalez.

PC1, how can you be so disrespectfull to the great Rosewall! I Will ignore you af...No seriously, I'm glad that I'm more inclined to reason than BobbyOne, although I'm not sure it's an achievement!

Gonzalez-17 majors, arguably more since he won a lot of tournaments considered close to majors.
Rosewall-23 majors
Gonzalez-Seven World Championship tours
Rosewall-One
The World Championship Tours were clearly far more important than Pro Majors since the winner is regarded as THE WORLD CHAMPION so in theory a player can win all three Pro Majors in one year, lose the World Championship Tour and not but World Champion.

Don't worry I have the utmost respect for Gonzales (it's written with an S, not A Z, that would be Fernando) but I do have an issue with Tours, which is that they are very dependant on match-up, and probably surfaces. To exlain as my point I will use the example of Federer and Nadal who everybody know by heart: we know that Federer was vulnerable to fewer players than Rafa, usually more consistent, and probably overall the better player all around peak for peak. Yet the match-up is terrible for him, and allowed Nadal to beat him so many times. Now the match-up is even more dramatic on clay, the surface which is the most skewed in favor of Nadal. Now on low bouncing indoors, it's not the same story. No wind to make the ball move so the attacking tennis of Fed is more efficient. More importantly in this match-up, the ball doesn't bounce as high and Fed's backhand isn't a liability against the huge top spin forehand. So now if you make these two play a tours at their peaks, I expect that it would be one-sided on clay and indoors, probably in Nadal favor on outdoor hard, and probably in Fed's favor, albeit slightly, on grass. Most likely a Tour would tell us that Nadal is by far the superior player than Federer, but that isn't what the slams told us. So Tours can favor a player against other and make him look far better, when the same players could look weaker against another players, who himself would be soundly beaten by another! Imagine if Davydenko enter a HC tour against Nadal? He is obviously inferior by far, but on HC his game was very well suited to deal with Nadal's (but not with Fed's). Now if you disgagree with this demonstration please don't deviate on the subject of Nadal and Federer, they are here only as an example of my way of thinking.

To be back at Gonzales and his tours, I must admit I never looked these closely but if I'm not mistaken they were mostly played indoors no? Maybe the results wouldn't have been so lopsided had they played on a variety of surfaces, or on clay? I let you be judge about that, I don't know enough.

I would say conservatively that Gonzalez's seven World Championship Tours won is the equivalent of 14 majors so you could say Gonzalez won 31 majors to Rosewall's 25. It could be valued higher.

I don't think it is possible to "translate" tours into majors. If you lose your first matches in a tour, you can still win it. That's not the case with majors. Anyway, it's clear that because of his success in Tours, Gonzales was seen as the best player by far at the time and it's enough for me to consider that he would have met with success in more classic (by today standards) tournaments.

Gonzalez was clearly number one from 1954 to 1961 and arguably the best player before that.
Rosewall was clearly number one in 1962 and 1963 and was never clearly the best player after that.

According to wikipedia experts had Rosewall as the best player in 1961, and tied with Gonzales in 1960. There is room for discussion but it shows at least that Gonzales was not an outstanding N°1 in these two years.

Even as late as 1960 Gonzalez crushed Rosewall 15 to 4 on a head to head World Championship tour which also had Segura and Olmedo playing.
Final standings
Gonzalez-49-8
Rosewall-32-25
Segura-22-28
Olmedo-11-44
This result is overwhelming in favor of Gonzalez. It's not even close. He had clinched the World Championship by May so there was no need for him to play the rest of the year. Rosewall went on to win the French Pro and Wembley while Olmedo, the last place finisher here won the US Pro. Gonzalez did not enter any of these tournaments because it was not necessary and he wanted to rest after years of playing constant tennis. The odds would have been very high that he would have won at least one of these tournaments if he entered.

See my questions regarding tours and their effects on measuring abilities. What were the surfaces, specific match-up, and so-on? Another example would be with Sampras, Courier, Becker and Agassi at their peak. I expect that if a tour with these 4 players was played on only one surface, the final result wouln't be balanced at all. However, the results could change a lot depending on the surface!

Now bear in mind Rosewall, now a Pro veteran who would be 26 that year was at his peak when playing Gonzalez on this tour and Gonzalez, who would be 32 that year was probably slightly passed his prime. BobbyOne hilariously argued that Rosewall wasn't at his peak when he played Gonzalez in 1960 on the World Championship tour but was at his peak a few months later when he won the French Pro and Wembley. That of course was ridiculous.

I would even venture to say Gonzalez was superior to Rosewall when both were in their forties. Much is made of the fact that Rosewall was in the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open in a year he would be forty. However Gonzalez won the Howard Hughes in 1969 and 1970 which was a big tournament, essentially a major over players like Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe and Laver. Gonzalez also won the very prestigious Pacific Southwest over Cliff Richey and a promising newcomer named Jimmy Connors in 1969 and 1971 respectively. Rosewall, after age forty never won any tournament of that magnitude.

All compelling points to have Gonzales have the outright best ever.

Rosewall is no doubt a great player with a great career but he was never a truly dominant player like Laver, Gonzalez, Borg, Kramer, Tilden and others were. Just on a subjective basis he just didn't have any major power weapons. Even his vaunted backhand wasn't a major power weapon. It was great and arguably the best backhand ever but it wasn't a power shot. He could hit it hard but not as hard consistently as a Connors, Budge, Laver or Borg. He had at best an average serve and as we all know the serve is the most important shot in tennis.

I agree he was never the most dominant, however he is the best at competing at the highest level for the longest. In my opinion (obviously very alone in this case) you can be the best if you were always second, as long as the guys who are first have bad results, or can't stay at the top as long. I think his case is quiet similar to Connors or Nadal who were so often second or third, but for so long!

 

[pc1]

Flash,

Very nice and well thought out post. I'm so happy you didn't put me on your ignore list for actually discussing some possibly negative points on Rosewall.

Seriously I wasn't attempting a backhanded compliment when I wrote you were more incline to being reasonable with than someone else. I meant well and as you know I don't mind people disagreeing with me as long as it's civil and reasonable.

A couple of things here. Most likely the majority of the tour was indoors but that was the nature of the Pro Tour in those days and Rosewall wasn't exactly bad at playing indoors. As a Pro he should have adjusted to the indoor conditions which he did wonderfully in his Old Pro Tour career. It's just that he couldn't do it against the great game of Gonzalez. No one except possibly Jack Kramer could during Gonzalez's time. I don't count Laver since he only played Gonzalez when Gonzalez was pass his prime. Second is that Gonzalez wasn't exactly bad on clay. He was a superb clay court player and defeated Rosewall in a number of top clay tournaments like the huge Geneva Gold Trophy (which had Trabert, Segura, Gimeno, Hoad, Buchholz, Rosewall and MacKay in that field) in 1961 8-6 6-0.

Third thing is that wikipedia in stating in 1960 and 1961 that Gonzalez was co-number one is incorrect. Gonzalez was imo definitely clear number one. You have to go by the parameters of the time. Gonzalez was clearly World Champion in winning the World Championship tours in 1960 and 1961. I believe and I could be incorrect here that Rosewall was invited to play the World Championship Tour in 1961 but declined for various reasons. Most likely Rosewall would have been defeated on a potential 1961 World Championship Tour imo although it may have been closer considering Gonzalez would have more decline and Rosewall would still be at his peak. Anyway my point is that if the parameters were that Gonzalez had to win more majors and tournaments I think he would have worked harder to get in shape to do well in majors.

Let's look at 1961 for both Gonzalez and Rosewall. Gonzalez won as we know the World Championship Tour and he won the US Pro over Frank Sedgman. He won the Geneva Gold Trophy over Rosewall and won five tournaments in total that year. Rosewall in 1961 won three tournaments in total including the French Pro and Wembley. He also won the NSW Pro Championships in Sydney. So Gonzalez won the World Championship Tour which imo and Pancho's by the way was bigger than a major. Gonzalez also won the US Pro which is a major. He won the Geneva Gold which was a big tournament and was in the finals of the French Pro. There is no LOGICAL way Rosewall by record can be called superior to Gonzalez in 1961.

If we look at 1960 you could argue a bit for Rosewall since he won six tournaments including Wembley and the French Pro. Both tournaments didn't have Gonzalez as one of the players. Gonzalez won the World Championship Tour over Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo and didn't play for the rest of the year. So you could argue, wrongfully so imo that Rosewall had a better year than Gonzalez in 1960. The thing is that Gonzalez would not have played only until May if he didn't know he clinched the World Championship already. You cannot blame Gonzalez for not playing. I will use the example of baseball and use the 1969 baseball season as an analogy. In that year the Baltimore Orioles were the class of baseball, crushing teams and being called one of the greatest teams ever, which they were in retrospect. They won 109 games and also defeated the Minnesota Twins three out of three games in the American League Championship Series to reach the World Series to decide the World Champion in 1969 against the New York Mets. The Mets were considered a vastly inferior team. They won 100 games during the regular season and were huge underdogs to the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. The New York Mets however defeated the Baltimore Orioles four games to one in one of the great upsets of all time. The Mets were the World Champions! Nothing could take that away from them. However if we go by tennis standards of that time, some would judge the Baltimore Orioles as the best team and World Champions after the fact which is silly. The 1969 NY Mets were the World Champions and had the best year by any logical standard except for tennis standards in the past. My best guess would be that if Gonzalez played a full schedule in 1960 he would probably would have had a clearly superior record to Rosewall in tournament play. Rosewall record for the year by the way was a very poor 62-30 while Gonzalez I believe was 52-8. Funny fact--Rosewall lost 30 matches in 1960 in total, half of them were to Gonzalez.

Now Gonzalez isn't exactly the 1969 New York Mets and by that I mean a fluke. He was a juggernaut of a tennis player with incredible talent and gifts. He was smooth, great touch and could play well at the baseline plus he had possibly the greatest serve of all time. His forehand I believe was measured at 112.88 mph by the primitive speed measurement devices of the time. The speed measurement may not be accurate but it's clear that he could really belt that forehand. It was a huge weapon. Gonzalez was 6'3 and 1/2 inches tall with great mobility. Rosewall never had any shot that he could hit that hard except perhaps serve and I doubt Rosewall hit it that hard with a wood racquet.

Flash, your argument about a guy being perennially second and accumulating a great record has logic to it and it does pertain to Rosewall. However what about Gonzalez in this case? He had it all. He was dominant, seemingly perennially number one. Gonzalez was number one for years and arguably the best player for a decade and his record is imo far superior to that of Rosewall's in most every way. He was even in the French Open semis in 1968 in a year he would be forty. He won top tournaments, arguably majors in his forties. He won on all surfaces. So many call Gonzalez the greatest and virtually no one calls Rosewall the GOAT. To my mind he's better than Rosewall in virtually every category. Gonzalez to my mind is a possible GOAT. Rosewall to my mind is not. And trust me I liked Bobby so I wanted Bobby to be right about Rosewall being a potential GOAT but I value truth more so I couldn't say Rosewall is even a GOAT candidate. I must admit because of BobbyOne I tried to find ways to possibly see Rosewall as number one but I couldn't do it and be honest about it. I have to admit I didn't tell Bobby about this conclusion and praised Rosewall to him which Rosewall deserved.

A GOAT candidate is a player by my definition who arguably is the Greatest Ever. How can I write Rosewall is the greatest ever when Gonzalez was around and beats Rosewall in every important category? Both played forever but Gonzalez was dominant and a danger to win big tournaments into his forties. Rosewall couldn't compare to Gonzalez in that way. Rosewall cannot be the GOAT because Gonzalez played at about the same time yet compiled a superior record. It's hard to be the GOAT when you're clearly inferior to a player who played during your time. I really don't see any rational way to justify Rosewall being co-number one with Gonzalez as a potential GOAT.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Thanks for your great post PC1. Don't worry I was joking, I know you are very respectful, as shown in the efforts you put in your argumentation.

Considering the ranking in 1960 and 1961, I guess you may be right. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World...he_major_professional_tournaments_before_1968) ranked Rosewall co-n°1 with Gonzalez in 1960 and n°1 alone in 1961 on criterion from the past as they sources ranking from various experts, like McCauley, L'Equipe and Geist. In both these years, L'Equipe and Geist ranked Rosewall n°1. Apparently, L'Equipe gave a lot of weight to the european results, maybe skewing their rankings. Geist, I have suddenly a doubt about his identity...

I understand your difficulties to consider Rosewall as a goat, given the many strong arguments in favor of Gonzalez, Laver and others. My position is one of doubt about the many parameters which may influence success at that time (and any other eras too). For this reason I prefer to rank players in tiers than to give them a personnal ranking. With that being said, I feel (with doubts) that Rosewall belong to the same tier of players that the other very best.

This comes from my belief that there is a lot of luck involved in tennis and that it can strongly shape the final results, which include H2H, tournaments victories and ranking. Let me explain. Match-up are very important, we can see how important they are by looking how they interact the surface or general playing conditions. I already gave the example of Federer vs Nadal and how the match-up shift from clay to low boucing indoor. When two players are nearly at the same level of excellence, one may strongly dominate the other because it happen by luck that the game he has developped work very well against the strength and weakness of his opponent. Now if there is a third player at the same level of excellence, it might very well be the case that the game of the first one doesn't work well against the third one, while the second one enjoy a good match-up with the third one. Really, what I mean it that it is possible that A win (not "is better than") against B, B win against C, and C win against A. Who is the best player? We will say that the best player is the one who win the most tournaments, that's the only option we have.

However, maybe the player who win the most tournaments, partly because he match-up well with his main opponent is weak against another player. But luckily for him (A), this third player (C), while his game is hell for A, isn't good enough to often reach him in tournaments. What I mean is you have to be lucky that your main opponent, the one who can beat everyone else and meet you in most final, is the guy who has developped a game which suit you well, and not the guy whose game is very hard to beat.

It's kind of hard to explain and full of holes, but I think there is something right in this reasonning.

 

[NatF]

Geist has never seemed objective to me. A sample of 3 historians - one being a European newspaper is hardly enough to claim anyone was the consensus #1. It's not the same as in the Open Era when you could look at who the ATP named player of the year often times disregarding their own computer ranking.

The text is telling, the h2h tour was for the world championship - Gonzalez won the tour thus was the world champion. Is being world champion not synonymous with being #1?

 

[pc1]

Thanks for your great post PC1. Don't worry I was joking, I know you are very respectful, as shown in the efforts you put in your argumentation.

Considering the ranking in 1960 and 1961, I guess you may be right. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World...he_major_professional_tournaments_before_1968) ranked Rosewall co-n°1 with Gonzalez in 1960 and n°1 alone in 1961 on criterion from the past as they sources ranking from various experts, like McCauley, L'Equipe and Geist. In both these years, L'Equipe and Geist ranked Rosewall n°1. Apparently, L'Equipe gave a lot of weight to the european results, maybe skewing their rankings. Geist, I have suddenly a doubt about his identity...

I understand your difficulties to consider Rosewall as a goat, given the many strong arguments in favor of Gonzalez, Laver and others. My position is one of doubt about the many parameters which may influence success at that time (and any other eras too). For this reason I prefer to rank players in tiers than to give them a personnal ranking. With that being said, I feel (with doubts) that Rosewall belong to the same tier of players that the other very best.

This comes from my belief that there is a lot of luck involved in tennis and that it can strongly shape the final results, which include H2H, tournaments victories and ranking. Let me explain. Match-up are very important, we can see how important they are by looking how they interact the surface or general playing conditions. I already gave the example of Federer vs Nadal and how the match-up shift from clay to low boucing indoor. When two players are nearly at the same level of excellence, one may strongly dominate the other because it happen by luck that the game he has developped work very well against the strength and weakness of his opponent. Now if there is a third player at the same level of excellence, it might very well be the case that the game of the first one doesn't work well against the third one, while the second one enjoy a good match-up with the third one. Really, what I mean it that it is possible that A win (not "is better than") against B, B win against C, and C win against A. Who is the best player? We will say that the best player is the one who win the most tournaments, that's the only option we have.

However, maybe the player who win the most tournaments, partly because he match-up well with his main opponent is weak against another player. But luckily for him (A), this third player (C), while his game is hell for A, isn't good enough to often reach him in tournaments. What I mean is you have to be lucky that your main opponent, the one who can beat everyone else and meet you in most final, is the guy who has developped a game which suit you well, and not the guy whose game is very hard to beat.

It's kind of hard to explain and full of holes, but I think there is something right in this reasonning.

Geist has never seemed objective to me. A sample of 3 historians - one being a European newspaper is hardly enough to claim anyone was the consensus #1. It's not the same as in the Open Era when you could look at who the ATP named player of the year often times disregarding their own computer ranking.

The text is telling, the h2h tour was for the world championship - Gonzalez won the tour thus was the world champion. Is being world champion not synonymous with being #1?

Flash, Geist is really not objective. A very knowledgeable person on tennis but not even close to infallible. Anyway Geist did these rankings after the fact. He didn't do it at the time.

The Players A, B and C examples are excellent but imo I don't feel the Gonzalez versus Rosewall matchup is one of these type of examples. Gonzalez never had any match-up problems with any player that I know of in his career unless you include Kramer early in Gonzalez's career. However I don't think that was a match-up problem but simply because Kramer was the superior player.

I respect your position of doubt and I believe it's reasonable to put Rosewall in tier one but in the lower part of tier one.

 

[NatF]

Yes that is an important point. Geist concluded in a book (which had a rather low circulation) that Rosewall was #1 in a couple more years - many years after and while writing a biography of Rosewall. Someone putting his opinion on Wikipedia does not make him a top authority IMO.

 

[urban]

To be fair. Robert Geist didn't put himself on the wiki page. I myself worked a bit together with, among others, Carlo Colussi, who did the main work on this wiki page and tried to give a consensus ranking (which is difficult enough), often tying people at the top. 1961 is close, Rosewall did win RG and Wembley over best of five, while Gonzalez was beaten by Rosewall at RG and Hoad (at Wembley). It was close however, because Gonzalez won important tournaments at Geneva (over Rosewall), Copenhagen, Milan and Vienna. The Cleveland indoor event (labelled US pro) hadn't the best of fields, only Gonzalez, Gimeno and Sedgman.

 

[pc1]

To be fair. Robert Geist didn't put himself on the wiki page. I myself worked a bit together with, among others, Carlo Colussi, who did the main work on this wiki page and tried to give a consensus ranking (which is difficult enough), often tying people at the top. 1961 is close, Rosewall did win RG and Wembley over best of five, while Gonzalez was beaten by Rosewall at RG and Hoad (at Wembley). It was close however, because Gonzalez won important tournaments at Geneva (over Rosewall), Copenhagen, Milan and Vienna. The Cleveland indoor event (labelled US pro) hadn't the best of fields, only Gonzalez, Gimeno and Sedgman.

I understand, however Robert Geist did write that Rosewall was number one and was a great influence to Carlo. I think we realize now the problems of having Geist pick the top player when Rosewall was around.

 

[NatF]

To be fair. Robert Geist didn't put himself on the wiki page. I myself worked a bit together with, among others, Carlo Colussi, who did the main work on this wiki page and tried to give a consensus ranking (which is difficult enough), often tying people at the top. 1961 is close, Rosewall did win RG and Wembley over best of five, while Gonzalez was beaten by Rosewall at RG and Hoad (at Wembley). It was close however, because Gonzalez won important tournaments at Geneva (over Rosewall), Copenhagen, Milan and Vienna. The Cleveland indoor event (labelled US pro) hadn't the best of fields, only Gonzalez, Gimeno and Sedgman.

Yes I don't consider the US Pro on the level of Wembley or the French in many years - perhaps ever. The 1961 edition was not a major IMO. It was still a big tournament though and added to the rest of the title haul plus the h2h tour I think Gonzalez had the superior year.

What was the win/loss for both that year? I know Gonzalez and Rosewall were tied in the h2h.

Edit:

1961: Gonzalez 55-18 (22-4 excluding 4 men WS with 33-14)
1961: Rosewall 29-7

Gonzalez playing so much more throughout the year supports him being the world champion IMO. He won the h2h tour and was a significant presence on the rest of the tour winning a few large tournaments - compared to Rosewall who was great in the majors but achieved litle else.

 

[hoodjem]

PC1, how can you be so disrespectfull to the great Rosewall! I Will ignore you af...No seriously, I'm glad that I'm more inclined to reason than BobbyOne, although I'm not sure it's an achievement!

Ha ha! Very good.

Well done.



(Whereas I do think, ultimately, that Laver or Gonzales or Tilden were greater, Rosewall is certainly the Longevity GOAT.)

 

[urban]

On the other hand, Gonzalez didn't play the second half of 1960 at all. Those years 1960-1962 on the pro tour were a bit odd, with a quite low activity of top players, compared to more stellar years like 1956-1959. The pros had problems to organize a proper circuit. Kramer withdrew himself more and more from the promoting, Gonzalez played less and retired at the end of 1961, Hoad had injury and motivation Problems, Rosewall wasn't the biggest drawing card.
When i worked with Carlo and Jeffrey Neave around 2004 or so, we hadn't the informations, we have today 10 years later. We had the McCauley book and nothing else and dug out a lot ourselves, and people like Andrew Tas with his fine stats on the Aussies, PC 1 or Krosero contributed a lot the our knowledge. Especially the Andrew Tas stats about Laver and Rosewall were a relevation to me, because now we had solid stats, that show clearly over the years, that there is indeed a difference and margin in the records, in absolute numbers and percentage wise.

 

[NatF]

On the other hand, Gonzalez didn't play the second half of 1960 at all. Those years 1960-1962 on the pro tour were a bit odd, with a quite low activity of top players, compared to more stellar years like 1956-1959. The pros had problems to organize a proper circuit. Kramer withdrew himself more and more from the promoting, Gonzalez played less and retired at the end of 1961, Hoad had injury and motivation Problems, Rosewall wasn't the biggest drawing card.
When i worked with Carlo and Jeffrey Neave around 2004 or so, we hadn't the informations, we have today 10 years later. We had the McCauley book and nothing else and dug out a lot ourselves, and people like Andrew Tas with his fine stats on the Aussies, PC 1 or Krosero contributed a lot the our knowledge. Especially the Andrew Tas stats about Laver and Rosewall were a relevation to me, because now we had solid stats, that show clearly over the years, that there is indeed a difference and margin in the records, in absolute numbers and percentage wise.

Indeed, the fine work of yourself and others has contributed greatly to what we know of the tour back then.

Considering Gonzalez rekt Rosewall so thoroughly in the h2h tour I think Gonzalez should be #1 in that year. I almost feel the case for Rosewall as #1 is strong in 1960 than 1961 simply because Gonzalez was less active then.

 

[krosero]

Been enjoying this debate, good arguments on both sides. I've always had Rosewall in the first tier and still do. His longevity is of course a big reason but I also think his peak level is underrated -- and his game easy to underestimate. His 1960 performance against Gonzalez is a big negative in his record without a doubt, but on some level it is also just puzzling. He did better against Pancho in the '57 championship tour when Gonzalez was younger (and presumably better), and when Ken himself was still a rookie (in fact it was Rosewall's first pro tour).

I've never studied the '60 tour in depth but I wonder if there is some other factor there to consider -- not to excuse the poor performance but to help explain why '60 was poorer than '57, when by all rights it should have been the other way around.

Some of you may not know that BobbyOne still reads this board regularly, with appreciation for many arguments/knowledge/posters on this board. He is thankful for positive comments as anyone would be, but please bear in mind that he cannot defend himself from negative comments.

 

[pc1]

Been enjoying this debate, good arguments on both sides. I've always had Rosewall in the first tier and still do. His longevity is of course a big reason but I also think his peak level is underrated -- and his game easy to underestimate. His 1960 performance against Gonzalez is a big negative in his record without a doubt, but on some level it is also just puzzling. He did better against Pancho in the '57 championship tour when Gonzalez was younger (and presumably better), and when Ken himself was still a rookie (in fact it was Rosewall's first pro tour).

I've never studied the '60 tour in depth but I wonder if there is some other factor there to consider -- not to excuse the poor performance but to help explain why '60 was poorer than '57, when by all rights it should have been the other way around.

Some of you may not know that BobbyOne still reads this board regularly, with appreciation for many arguments/knowledge/posters on this board. He is thankful for positive comments as anyone would be, but please bear in mind that he cannot defend himself from negative comments.

I've looked into it but couldn't find any evidence of injury. Rosewall was a very good 28-10 against Segura and Olmedo on that tour and you would expect him to beat them around that percentage at that time. Gonzalez was 34-4 against the same two. It seems that it was just that Gonzalez played at a super level.

 

[Vensai]

Been enjoying this debate, good arguments on both sides. I've always had Rosewall in the first tier and still do. His longevity is of course a big reason but I also think his peak level is underrated -- and his game easy to underestimate. His 1960 performance against Gonzalez is a big negative in his record without a doubt, but on some level it is also just puzzling. He did better against Pancho in the '57 championship tour when Gonzalez was younger (and presumably better), and when Ken himself was still a rookie (in fact it was Rosewall's first pro tour).

I've never studied the '60 tour in depth but I wonder if there is some other factor there to consider -- not to excuse the poor performance but to help explain why '60 was poorer than '57, when by all rights it should have been the other way around.

Some of you may not know that BobbyOne still reads this board regularly, with appreciation for many arguments/knowledge/posters on this board. He is thankful for positive comments as anyone would be, but please bear in mind that he cannot defend himself from negative comments.

I recall hearing something about Kramer asking Gonzales to take it easy on Rosewall since it was his first tour but I'm not sure.

 

[urban]

I once read (maybe from Bobby), that this tour 1960 tinkered a bit with rules, for instance with a two times bounce. I am anything but sure about this. Obviously, it didn't depend on surfaces, because Gonzalez was 5-0 over Rosewall at Australian and NZ venues at the start of 1960, although some of the single matches were close affairs. Normally, Gonzalez wasn't dominant in Australia. Even very late in 1959, he lost several matches to Hoad and Rosewall on an Australian tour at Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane, winning only one event at Sydney. In the early 1959 tour in Australia he was - following the results of McCauley - overall a mere fourth behind Sedgman, Hoad and Rosewall.

 

[DMP]

All the above comments may be true.

But....

Rosewall.

Won.

More.

 

[-NN-]

All the above comments may be true.

But....

Rosewall.

Won.

More.

Strongest = Greatest = Bestest?

Flash,

Very nice and well thought out post. I'm so happy you didn't put me on your ignore list for actually discussing some possibly negative points on Rosewall.

Seriously I wasn't attempting a backhanded compliment when I wrote you were more incline to being reasonable with than someone else. I meant well and as you know I don't mind people disagreeing with me as long as it's civil and reasonable.

A couple of things here. Most likely the majority of the tour was indoors but that was the nature of the Pro Tour in those days and Rosewall wasn't exactly bad at playing indoors. As a Pro he should have adjusted to the indoor conditions which he did wonderfully in his Old Pro Tour career. It's just that he couldn't do it against the great game of Gonzalez. No one except possibly Jack Kramer could during Gonzalez's time. I don't count Laver since he only played Gonzalez when Gonzalez was pass his prime. Second is that Gonzalez wasn't exactly bad on clay. He was a superb clay court player and defeated Rosewall in a number of top clay tournaments like the huge Geneva Gold Trophy (which had Trabert, Segura, Gimeno, Hoad, Buchholz, Rosewall and MacKay in that field) in 1961 8-6 6-0.

Third thing is that wikipedia in stating in 1960 and 1961 that Gonzalez was co-number one is incorrect. Gonzalez was imo definitely clear number one. You have to go by the parameters of the time. Gonzalez was clearly World Champion in winning the World Championship tours in 1960 and 1961. I believe and I could be incorrect here that Rosewall was invited to play the World Championship Tour in 1961 but declined for various reasons. Most likely Rosewall would have been defeated on a potential 1961 World Championship Tour imo although it may have been closer considering Gonzalez would have more decline and Rosewall would still be at his peak. Anyway my point is that if the parameters were that Gonzalez had to win more majors and tournaments I think he would have worked harder to get in shape to do well in majors.

Let's look at 1961 for both Gonzalez and Rosewall. Gonzalez won as we know the World Championship Tour and he won the US Pro over Frank Sedgman. He won the Geneva Gold Trophy over Rosewall and won five tournaments in total that year. Rosewall in 1961 won three tournaments in total including the French Pro and Wembley. He also won the NSW Pro Championships in Sydney. So Gonzalez won the World Championship Tour which imo and Pancho's by the way was bigger than a major. Gonzalez also won the US Pro which is a major. He won the Geneva Gold which was a big tournament and was in the finals of the French Pro. There is no LOGICAL way Rosewall by record can be called superior to Gonzalez in 1961.

If we look at 1960 you could argue a bit for Rosewall since he won six tournaments including Wembley and the French Pro. Both tournaments didn't have Gonzalez as one of the players. Gonzalez won the World Championship Tour over Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo and didn't play for the rest of the year. So you could argue, wrongfully so imo that Rosewall had a better year than Gonzalez in 1960. The thing is that Gonzalez would not have played only until May if he didn't know he clinched the World Championship already. You cannot blame Gonzalez for not playing. I will use the example of baseball and use the 1969 baseball season as an analogy. In that year the Baltimore Orioles were the class of baseball, crushing teams and being called one of the greatest teams ever, which they were in retrospect. They won 109 games and also defeated the Minnesota Twins three out of three games in the American League Championship Series to reach the World Series to decide the World Champion in 1969 against the New York Mets. The Mets were considered a vastly inferior team. They won 100 games during the regular season and were huge underdogs to the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. The New York Mets however defeated the Baltimore Orioles four games to one in one of the great upsets of all time. The Mets were the World Champions! Nothing could take that away from them. However if we go by tennis standards of that time, some would judge the Baltimore Orioles as the best team and World Champions after the fact which is silly. The 1969 NY Mets were the World Champions and had the best year by any logical standard except for tennis standards in the past. My best guess would be that if Gonzalez played a full schedule in 1960 he would probably would have had a clearly superior record to Rosewall in tournament play. Rosewall record for the year by the way was a very poor 62-30 while Gonzalez I believe was 52-8. Funny fact--Rosewall lost 30 matches in 1960 in total, half of them were to Gonzalez.

Now Gonzalez isn't exactly the 1969 New York Mets and by that I mean a fluke. He was a juggernaut of a tennis player with incredible talent and gifts. He was smooth, great touch and could play well at the baseline plus he had possibly the greatest serve of all time. His forehand I believe was measured at 112.88 mph by the primitive speed measurement devices of the time. The speed measurement may not be accurate but it's clear that he could really belt that forehand. It was a huge weapon. Gonzalez was 6'3 and 1/2 inches tall with great mobility. Rosewall never had any shot that he could hit that hard except perhaps serve and I doubt Rosewall hit it that hard with a wood racquet.

Flash, your argument about a guy being perennially second and accumulating a great record has logic to it and it does pertain to Rosewall. However what about Gonzalez in this case? He had it all. He was dominant, seemingly perennially number one. Gonzalez was number one for years and arguably the best player for a decade and his record is imo far superior to that of Rosewall's in most every way. He was even in the French Open semis in 1968 in a year he would be forty. He won top tournaments, arguably majors in his forties. He won on all surfaces. So many call Gonzalez the greatest and virtually no one calls Rosewall the GOAT. To my mind he's better than Rosewall in virtually every category. Gonzalez to my mind is a possible GOAT. Rosewall to my mind is not. And trust me I liked Bobby so I wanted Bobby to be right about Rosewall being a potential GOAT but I value truth more so I couldn't say Rosewall is even a GOAT candidate. I must admit because of BobbyOne I tried to find ways to possibly see Rosewall as number one but I couldn't do it and be honest about it. I have to admit I didn't tell Bobby about this conclusion and praised Rosewall to him which Rosewall deserved.

A GOAT candidate is a player by my definition who arguably is the Greatest Ever. How can I write Rosewall is the greatest ever when Gonzalez was around and beats Rosewall in every important category? Both played forever but Gonzalez was dominant and a danger to win big tournaments into his forties. Rosewall couldn't compare to Gonzalez in that way. Rosewall cannot be the GOAT because Gonzalez played at about the same time yet compiled a superior record. It's hard to be the GOAT when you're clearly inferior to a player who played during your time. I really don't see any rational way to justify Rosewall being co-number one with Gonzalez as a potential GOAT.

Thorough and very well put together. Your last general sentiment is, of course, a subjective one. Rosewall can be the GOAT but not according to the hierarchy of metrics that most (including yourself) use. I do think there are other players with a stronger argument, but I don't think Rosewall's argument is any weaker than Borg's. In fact, given the different way in which we approach the conundrum, whilst Rosewall might be disqualified on your list, Borg might be on mine. In reality, though, I include both as deserving in my personal list. Borg impresses me more due to achieving dominance against more or less the fullest possible field and Rosewall for his ability to show small pockets of dominance (meaning championship winning form over a couple of weeks) over a very long period of time. To me, everything counts. Like I said the other day, if Borg had carried on in less dominant fashion in trying to solve McEnroe and the following generation but still took his scalps, won more Slams and retired with worse career winning percentages and whatnot, I'd consider him to be substantially greater than I currently see him even though he would not likely have demonstrated play superior to that of his pomp. Lack of evidence hurts Borg by my judgment and continued and prolonged further evidence helps Rosewall. Obviously, both players did show good dominance and longevity, just that they have different trump cards. Borg is helped by garnering his achievements against full fields in the Open Era. He can actually be called a Wimbledon champion. Rosewall cannot. If we go by the eye test and the extent of the talent in their games, I might give Borg the edge but I don't really know and can't really say until I see a lot more of Rosewall.

 

[-NN-]

(10000 char limit due to large quotation.. continuing...)

I think many will think that best = greatest but winning titles is one of the main things the players are in it for and if you're not in it you can't win it. A chap like Borg took himself out of the equation early for winning titles, while Rosewall kept on and on. Each added title adds a little bit to one's legacy, one's greatness. It doesn't even have to be about winning titles. A story like Connor's late run at the US Open adds to his legend and greatness, I believe. Even if we take out such sentimentality, his act of being active on the tour and reaching the SF of the event does a little something for his legacy. It's not all 100% about the wins. This is where Rosewall is hurt the most. His timing was terrible for the sake of notoriety. Meanwhile, Borg was a global star and icon, achieving his greatness in the Open Era. If we take out such considerations and try to be as objective as we can with the numbers in tandem with prestige of events, then we get a much fairer comparison. Yet, we cannot invent imaginary prestige for the comparatively underground pro tour, no matter how much of it the powers that be tried to ascribe to the tour themselves, so it still hurts Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, Sedgman, etc. The events of the pro tour can only be relatively prestigious, but perhaps that's made up for by the amount of titles the players would typically win during those years. That isn't to say they wouldn't have been similarly prolific against the full field.

I believe that X can be greater than B even if X has a lesser peak than B. B would be the stronger player, however.

 

[KG1965]

(10000 char limit due to large quotation.. continuing...)

I think many will think that best = greatest but winning titles is one of the main things the players are in it for and if you're not in it you can't win it. A chap like Borg took himself out of the equation early for winning titles, while Rosewall kept on and on. Each added title adds a little bit to one's legacy, one's greatness. It doesn't even have to be about winning titles. A story like Connor's late run at the US Open adds to his legend and greatness, I believe. Even if we take out such sentimentality, his act of being active on the tour and reaching the SF of the event does a little something for his legacy. It's not all 100% about the wins. This is where Rosewall is hurt the most. His timing was terrible for the sake of notoriety. Meanwhile, Borg was a global star and icon, achieving his greatness in the Open Era. If we take out such considerations and try to be as objective as we can with the numbers in tandem with prestige of events, then we get a much fairer comparison. Yet, we cannot invent imaginary prestige for the comparatively underground pro tour, no matter how much of it the powers that be tried to ascribe to the tour themselves, so it still hurts Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, Sedgman, etc. The events of the pro tour can only be relatively prestigious, but perhaps that's made up for by the amount of titles the players would typically win during those years. That isn't to say they wouldn't have been similarly prolific against the full field.

I believe that X can be greater than B even if X has a lesser peak than B. B would be the stronger player, however.

The comparison Rosewall vs Borg is interesting but easy.

They were opposed.

A great and long careerwith a few limited peaks vs a career and epic but very short.

Borg >> Rosewall but Rosewall won >>> Borg.

With Borg there is obviously a paradox.

When we do the Borg-Connors comparison we think that Borg > Connors and then Borg won > Connors.

But it is not so, ...... may not be so:
Borg > Connors (1973-1981), although the early Jimbo killed the Swede because young. It's true.

But Connors won >> Borg.

In fact in any ranking of only results Connors surpasses the Swede.

Same with Rosewall, which won more than Jimbo.

 

[KG1965]

Strongest ? Borg
Greatest ? Borg
Bestest ? Borg

But.... Rosewall won more.

 

[KG1965]

We make a hypothesis (unlikely):
Federer retires with 18 slam.
Djokovic took advantage and will win 19.
Strongest Open Era ? Federer
Greatest Open Era? Federer
Bestest Open ? Federer

But.... Nole won more.

 

[BobbyOne]

Strongest = Greatest = Bestest?


Thorough and very well put together. Your last general sentiment is, of course, a subjective one. Rosewall can be the GOAT but not according to the hierarchy of metrics that most (including yourself) use. I do think there are other players with a stronger argument, but I don't think Rosewall's argument is any weaker than Borg's. In fact, given the different way in which we approach the conundrum, whilst Rosewall might be disqualified on your list, Borg might be on mine. In reality, though, I include both as deserving in my personal list. Borg impresses me more due to achieving dominance against more or less the fullest possible field and Rosewall for his ability to show small pockets of dominance (meaning championship winning form over a couple of weeks) over a very long period of time. To me, everything counts. Like I said the other day, if Borg had carried on in less dominant fashion in trying to solve McEnroe and the following generation but still took his scalps, won more Slams and retired with worse career winning percentages and whatnot, I'd consider him to be substantially greater than I currently see him even though he would not likely have demonstrated play superior to that of his pomp. Lack of evidence hurts Borg by my judgment and continued and prolonged further evidence helps Rosewall. Obviously, both players did show good dominance and longevity, just that they have different trump cards. Borg is helped by garnering his achievements against full fields in the Open Era. He can actually be called a Wimbledon champion. Rosewall cannot. If we go by the eye test and the extent of the talent in their games, I might give Borg the edge but I don't really know and can't really say until I see a lot more of Rosewall.

Nathaniel, Good post. But "Borg won more slams" is a very strange argument because Rosewall won 8 GS tournaments even though he missed 45 GS tournaments in his peak/prime.

 

[-NN-]

Nathaniel, Good post. But "Borg won more slams" is a very strange argument because Rosewall won 8 GS tournaments even though he missed 45 GS tournaments in his peak/prime.

Bobby, Borg did win more Slams but I don't see where I stated this in my post. What I stated is the following: ... if Borg had carried on in less dominant fashion in trying to solve McEnroe and the following generation but still took his scalps, won more Slams and retired with worse career winning percentages and whatnot, I'd consider him to be substantially greater than I currently see him even though he would not likely have demonstrated play superior to that of his pomp.

This means that if Borg didn't retire with 11 Slams, but went on to play a bit worse, losing more often to the next generation as Federer has done but winning a few more Slams, I'd consider him greater than I currently do. I mean that a Borg who didn't retire and won more would be greater than the Borg we currently know.

 

[-NN-]

We make a hypothesis (unlikely):
Federer retires with 18 slam.
Djokovic took advantage and will win 19.
Strongest Open Era ? Federer
Greatest Open Era? Federer
Bestest Open ? Federer

But.... Nole won more.

For most, probably, but rightfully not for others. It's very interesting to think about. Greatest for you also entails historical significance and style (which is perfectly fine, your take is very interesting!). In that sense, it's hard to see Djokovic ever being considered greater than Federer. By numbers and achievements though, it may yet still be possible. He's got the dominant seasons to match up with Federer, too.

 

[KG1965]

Bobby, Borg did win more Slams but I don't see where I stated this in my post. What I stated is the following: ... if Borg had carried on in less dominant fashion in trying to solve McEnroe and the following generation but still took his scalps, won more Slams and retired with worse career winning percentages and whatnot, I'd consider him to be substantially greater than I currently see him even though he would not likely have demonstrated play superior to that of his pomp.

This means that if Borg didn't retire with 11 Slams, but went on to play a bit worse, losing more often to the next generation as Federer has done but winning a few more Slams, I'd consider him greater than I currently do. I mean that a Borg who didn't retire and won more would be greater than the Borg we currently know.

Less mythical, more human ... but more scalps.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, Borg did win more Slams but I don't see where I stated this in my post. What I stated is the following: ... if Borg had carried on in less dominant fashion in trying to solve McEnroe and the following generation but still took his scalps, won more Slams and retired with worse career winning percentages and whatnot, I'd consider him to be substantially greater than I currently see him even though he would not likely have demonstrated play superior to that of his pomp.

This means that if Borg didn't retire with 11 Slams, but went on to play a bit worse, losing more often to the next generation as Federer has done but winning a few more Slams, I'd consider him greater than I currently do. I mean that a Borg who didn't retire and won more would be greater than the Borg we currently know.

Nathaniel, I'm sorry for misreading. (I'm very tired). Yes, Borg probably would have won some more majors but I think not too many. He would maybe end with 14 GS tournaments.