Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Limpinhitter, Aug 24, 2012.
Yes, He is in my second top tier.He would have won it at least twice and most likely 3 or 4 times.
Top amateurs like Emerson,Santana and youngs Newcombe,Roche and Ashe were paid a lot of money under the table at any event they entered, except for the majors.That is why it is calles shamateurism.Similar to Jorda,Ewing,Sampson and many other athletes when they were at College.
4 in a row, yes, but he was not allowed to play from 1963 to 1967, so he could have the all time record by now.
he is absolutley right.Santana has also affirmed it, when he was the other big name in the amateur ranks during the middle 60´s.Heard about shamateurism? money under the table?
Yes, I read what you and Dan Lobb wrote and I am grateful for your answers and patience . I didn't say it was a lie but I was just asking for sources to read more about this, especially about Emerson earn more money as an amateur.
In my speculation Rod would have won three Wimbledons in that period (Rosewall the two remaining). So we would get also 7 for him...
Bobby quotes World Tennis magazine. Perhaps I read a quote from there.
Mal Anderson was Emerson's brother-in-law, so he would coach Emmo on his decisions.
Certainly, $80,000 is substantially more than the amounts you are suggesting for amateur play, so why would Emmo turn this down?
The answer has to be that the top amateur of 1964, Emmo, who was a dominant player, could command more than that on the amateur circuit.
The Australian Tennis team began offering large sums to keep the Davis Cup team together after Laver left the team to turn pro. The "stipend" offered the Aussies was much more than American players received, and quite luxurious (and confidential).
I agree.But I´d say Rosewall one and Gonzales, the other.
I think there is a very good chance Gonzalez would have won a huge amount of Wimbledons also. I believe from the early 1950's to the mid 1960's he probably would have been one of the top seeds.
Jack Kramer gives Gonzalez six Wimbledons, among them strangly enough for 1963. I would give Pancho about 8 Wimbledons.
Kramer, even though he never was a Rosewall follower, gives Muscles 4 Wimbledons.
Kramer said a lot of things I was surprised about with Rosewall.
It's kind of hard for Pancho Gonzalez to win Wimbledon in 1963 considering that he was retired so I agree with you that it was very odd but I think he may have been a factor in later years even if he wouldn't be the favorite.
Kramer, if memory serves gave himself about 20+ majors if he was allowed to play the majors. The number 25 comes to mind.
Kramer invented the big game.Kramer invented modern tennis, modern Agency of Representatives, the Masters,the ATP ranks, the % tennis that Borg developed to unexplored limits,...is there something that Jack Kramer did not invent??? oh¡ yes, the concept of modesty...
In his famous book he gives himself 10 major titles for Wimbledon and US Open.
I doubt that he could have reached the amount of Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver for the four majors because I don't give him five French Open titles. Gonzalez and Segura would have been tough opponents at Paris as Segura showed who beat Kramer in the 1950 US Pro on clay.
I believe that Pancho would not have won the 1963 Wimbledon even if he would not have retired at the end of 1961 because Rosewall was so strong in 1963 especially on grass (see his clear win against Laver in the US Pro).
Sure, not always wins the top seed but Muscles would have been the favourite at least. On the other hand Rosewall could have surprised in years when he was second to Laver because Rosewall used to win majors when not being the favourite (US Pro 1965, French Pro 1965, French Open 1968, US Open 1970, AO 1971, AO 1972, Wembley 1957...).
You are right. Kramer thought he was the GOAT.
If he but not the other pros were allowed to play them, then yeah maybe.
Great tactician, great strategist and leader but also a big head.I have him in my top 15 ever, anyhow.
Great serve and one of the all time great forehands.
While Kramer is not a nice guy or a modest guy, I don´t think there has ever been anybody more influential on the game and he took it to unexplored levels, while playing AND MANAGING the pro tour and later on, settled the ATP and Masters...while before he hadrevolutioned the game with both S&V Big game and % tnnis, which was the same back then...Maybe Tilden and Borg have had such effect in different times, but none of them has given such a complete package of changes and influences on the overall game...He is the GOAT in almost 70%...that, we must credit him, whether we like him or not...
...In other words: No kramer, No Federer....did Jack Kramer ALOS pattented the concept of NationalFederelism?
ROME 71:Smith,Ashe and Roche
BARCELONA 72: Gimeno,Nasty at his peak and Manolo Orantes, 2 spaniards in their won field...
So much for Kodes haters¡¡¡ so much for other pro´s enhancers¡¡¡
Smith and Ashe were not great claycourters and Roche was injured at that time.
Kramer rates Perry (yes, Fred Perry) and Riggs ahead of Hoad and Rosewall and Laver and Sedgman. Weird or what?
Jack Kramer's listings should not be taken too seriously.
He rated Perry so high just to give his favourites, Budge and Vines, a boost in the standings.
I agree totally. Perry is overrated.
Great volley also. There are those who argue that Kramer at his best over a period of years was the best ever. I don't think so but a number of people do.
Now, Perry was an alltime great player, no doubt. We had a discussion here on the question, who of the giants of the 30s, Perry, Vines, Budge, was indeed the greatest. Perry was at least the best athlete, and probably the hardest to beat in the mental department. He hit his peak still an amateur, but here at Wim and DC, his record outshines the other two. Maybe Vines and Budge had better stroke production, but in a vital Davis Cup match, at 2-2, and in the fifth set i would pick Perry. To cite a line by Rex Bellamy: Vines or von Cramm for my pleasure, Perry for my life!
Perry was the fittest player of his era, and trained with soccer players, running up and down stadium steps.
This fitness accounts for his 1936 win over Budge at Forest Hills, where Budge admitted that he ran out of gas.
Perry did not measure up to Vines or Budge in hth pro play, as his backhand was not competitive.
Vines Davis Cup record was abysmal, so this is not a good comparison.
Perry was raised in a very doggy environment and his dad was a LP MOP.I remember listening to him at Wimbleodn, through the BBC World Service.He had a crush on Connors, maybe both had a similar ground...
Funny how Dennis Ralston and Manuel Santana have long been forgotten in this thread.
Perry was dominant in the amateurs from 1934-1936, in an era where the amateurs and the professionals were close in terms of standard. Perry was also the first male tennis player to win all 4 of the mainstream majors during his career. However, Perry didn't play as well in the professional ranks as many expected, as he didn't topple Vines as the world's best. Vines won their big tours by 32-29 in 1937 and by 49-35 in 1938.
Kramer must have meant 1964 Wimbledon. 1964 was the only year after 1961 and before the open era, where Gonzales played a full schedule. Gonzales only played 1 match in 1963 to my knowledge, which happened after he came out of an 18 month retirement, and that was his terrible loss to Olmedo at the 1963 US Pro at Forest Hills.
Anyway, I don't see how we possibly predict the hypothetical winners of open era majors from the old days, because there are a million variables resulting from the pro-am split. For example, Gonzales' bad loss to Kramer in their world pro tour was what hardened Gonzales and change him as a person into such a profilic winner. Had the amateur majors been open to professionals back then, Gonzales would never had that lesson in the same way. And that's just 1 particular variable out of countless amounts.
Even funnier, no one has even noticed this post.
The weaknesses in Perry's game were exposed in the head to head's against Vines and Budge, but in the amateurs he could run around his backhand with his great speed and fitness.
Of course. I think one of the many considerations when we discuss tennis from years ago with the incredible playing level of the Old Pro Tour in the 1950's and 1960's. It was an array of many all time greats and majors winners. Top amateur players like Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert and Laver were beaten badly when they were introduced to the Pro Tour. It was a huge step up in level and how to adjust to different playing conditions. Nowadays a Federer may play a Djokovic in the final one week but he also may play a bunch of players that he can beat in his sleep most of the time. In the Old Pro Tour you may play a Sedgman in the first round, Hoad in the next and Gonzalez in the final. That's a pretty scary lineup and yet they would play these guys on a regular basis.
It's like in baseball if only the Major League All Stars would play each other. They would have to play at a higher level to compete even half decently. That's how it was in the Old Pro Tour. Rosewall himself said that when Open Tennis started he felt the average level of play declined somewhat.
What would happen if Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray play each other regularly? I think all of them would improve each other.
Mustard the chapter about the hypothetical winners in Kramer's fascinating book is interesting and I do think he had valid points. If these players like Gonzalez or Kramer did play at these levels and they could go to a parallel universe in which they could play the classic majors, I believe there is a good chance what he wrote could have happened. Hard to tell with some of Kramer's opinions however. I recall another article (and my memory could be faulty) that Kramer thought he could have won over 20 majors if he was allowed to play the majors.
Now this thread is turning into as big a joke as the Margaret Court thread.
Separate names with a comma.