Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Brown was a fine player but not close to Kramer in level. I think a lot of people may be willing to bet their home on Kramer beating Brown in that final. LOL.
And isn't that what we want in a great player, at least usually. I think that's a great talent to be able to repeat your strokes so you are never off. Nowadays in baseball, one of the things a scout wants in a baseball pitcher is the ability to repeat their throw mechanics. Some tennis players don't have those consistent mechanics and some do like a Novak Djokovic for example and he's done fairly well. Kramer was one of those who could repeat his tennis strokes consistently despite the fact in tennis players have to move all over the court unlike a baseball pitcher. Kramer just not repeat his strokes but he repeated his great strokes. It's not worthwhile repeating mediocre strokes like for example a Stan Smith backhand although perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on Stan Smith.
http://www.baseballbytheyard.com/the-importance-of-repeating-yourself/
Kramer for example was so accurate with his great serve that he could hit his serve consistently through rings placed at various levels over the net. Even Gonzalez ranked Kramer's serve along with his own as the best serves he had ever seen. Gonzalez ranked Kramer as the second best player he faced next to Lew Hoad. Hoad ranked Kramer number one of all the players he had seem with Gonzalez number two.
Last edited:
In a 1956 interview, which I linked on "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports", Gonzales ranked Kramer as the greatest player ever in an extended hth series, due to his "competitive nature", although he stated that in one big match or tournament final, he would not rate Kramer as the greatest ever.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Possible although Gonzalez did have his disagreements with Kramer. I would think Kramer at his peak was a great tournament player also but my guess is that Gonzalez ranked Hoad number one for one big match or tournament final.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's always an interesting question to ask, by that I mean "Who would be the player you would pick if you had one match to win?" Ironically many would also pick Gonzalez and I'm sure many would pick Hoad. I had a thread on that a few years ago.
I think it is right to read the opinions of top players and critics but which needs to be discussed and eventually think for themselves.
Among the top players opinions and critics opinions I like better to listen to players because they have seen their opponents so many times while critics saw 4 or 5 events throughout the year ... Segura saw Pancho any times !
What I know and which I think is very interesting but very limited in the assessments and statements of champions is that there is no reference to tournament wins !!
Only lately the critics says "Federer is the greatest because he won 17 Grand Slam tournaments, not Djokovic who has won 12".
But if you listen or read the opinions of Kramer, Gonzalez etc. nobody refers to TCC, Wimbledon, Wembley or others events.
It seems incredible, or not ?
The best is the top player at the peak or the best in the shots (the serve of Vines or Kramer, Budge and Laver for fh ...) but no no no one argues that the best is the one who has won more great titles of their Era.
The parameter is the opposite now.
The opposite. It's amazing.
Last edited:
Clarification:
I am not arguing that the judgment of the old champions is wrong and that the new criteria are correct. And I'm not saying it's fair to assess the champions for their skills and not for their slam.
I realized that the evaluation criteria were radically different.
No one speaks of the majors of Rosewall !
Nobody says Pancho was stronger because he won Wembley Pro or US Pro !!!
Nobody say Kramer was bigger beacause he won a Tour or Wimbly !!
They say "Jack was the greatest because .. was the best, he has best serve, best fh, best volley... etc. but not "because he won..".
It's another history.
Indeed, the same history with other glasses.
I am not arguing that the judgment of the old champions is wrong and that the new criteria are correct. And I'm not saying it's fair to assess the champions for their skills and not for their slam.
I realized that the evaluation criteria were radically different.
No one speaks of the majors of Rosewall !
Nobody says Pancho was stronger because he won Wembley Pro or US Pro !!!
Nobody say Kramer was bigger beacause he won a Tour or Wimbly !!
They say "Jack was the greatest because .. was the best, he has best serve, best fh, best volley... etc. but not "because he won..".
It's another history.
Indeed, the same history with other glasses.
Last edited:
But the fact that the old champions do not remember the events won or lost but only the strokes,turns against the old champions, because if you do not remember the tournament wins and achivements ... the great champions are in danger of being forgotten.
With the passing years inexorably remain only achivements and in fact this is just the GS Laver (and perhaps Budge), nothing remains of the serve to Kramer, Tilden and Gonzales and other strokes.
With the passing years inexorably remain only achivements and in fact this is just the GS Laver (and perhaps Budge), nothing remains of the serve to Kramer, Tilden and Gonzales and other strokes.
Last edited:
KG, What does the best shots mean if the player who possessed them did not win the big tournaments??
Bobby, a good point for you to end your hiatus...I hope that you return in good health and rested, with a positive view of life in general.
Dan, Thanks. My health is not good but I will "fight" for truth in tennis (and elsewhere) as long as I can do it.
I'm very pessimistic about any progression in this forum or on earth. Terror and religious aggression will increase in Europe and elsewhere...
The only (good) change in my life is the fact that I got a "girlfriend" (72 years old...).
I can assure you that this forum has been progressing superbly in recent months, better than world politics.
Good to hear of positive developments in your life.
Last edited:
Dan, The last two months seemed very boring in this forum: Almost no contradiction. All posters had the same opinion...
It would seem to me that Winn
IMO, Winning is the most important thing in any sport, including tennis. I would rank Rosewall's 15 pro major titles over any other players serve, fh, bh, volley, etc.. What makes Laver Unique was his 2 CYGS and other major victories. Hoad may have been the greatest on a certain day, or for a year or two but Rosewall was a top ten player for 20 years, winning majors-amateur, pro and open era from 1953-1972. Only in 59 did he fail to win a major. I do not believe there is a single GOAT, but tiers of all time greats of different eras.
thrust, Rosewall also did not win a major in 1954, 1967, and 1969. But still a great resume for him.
Rosewall was a top 10 player for 23 years (1953 to 1975). Not too bad...
In your post you treat two arguments:
1) Rosewall
2) the "victories" as the most important parameter.
Overflight at the time point 1) because I have treated too Ken (which for me is top 10 alltime) and I got tired.
As for the "victories" parameter I am not very well because come in the field the more reflections.
Russell has won more than anyone but he is not in the top 5 alltime (and maybe in the top 10) of the basketball.
Rocky Marciano won > of Ali but is not considered The Greatest.
In some sports it is so, in others not.
Many win less but become legend (Maradona, Best, Karl & Moses Malone, Gervin, John Stockton).
The equation who wins more is the best is not always true.
thrust, in my previous post I just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that the old champions have never made reference to tournaments wins but only the skills of their opponents.
In an interview which is for example asked Newcombe who was the strongest in 1970, John probably would have answered: "Laver"
Why John?
"Because Rod was the best"
John who was the GOAT?
"Kramer (or Pancho or Laver), had the best strokes"
He WOULD NEVER ANSWERED "KRAMER WHY HAS WON THE US OPEN OR WIMBLY"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
For most consistent I would have to go with Borg, then Rosewall.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Now that the professional circuit has been much more standardized and consistent from year to year, and prize money more accurately reflects the intended prestige of the top events, great levels of play, and great records at the top events, will be more in line with each other. It is up to the players who understood what they were up against prior to that, and up to the observers who understand and appreciate what they are looking at, to preserve the memory of the great players and their shot making abilities and talent.
True, it was a bit too early in the morning when I wrote that post.
True, it was a bit too early in the morning when I wrote that post.
As I said above, things have been nice around here.
I would agree with those two, together with Kramer. Over 100 matches hth, I would stick with Kramer, who knew how to wear down his opponent.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'd go with Borg, Kramer, Rosewall, Tilden and Gonzalez of the past players
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I think you guys are slightly overrating Kramer, who was only on top in the tennis world for a few years.
How is he more consistent than the other men you've mentioned?
How is he more consistent than the other men you've mentioned?
KG, You cite ONE player and extrapolate his statement as common sense of all players (and experts). That's not serious.
Of course great players are (also) praised for their winning titles. For example Rod Laver is still often called the GOAT because he won two Grand Slams and not because he was a better player than Gonzalez or Rosewall or Federer.
Dan, I find it rather boring if a discussion forum is just "nice". I missed the "pepper" of contradiction. Of course we all should avoid to make insults though.
Dan, Budge comes also to mind.
Yes, Budge wore down Vines in that 1939 series. Budge in his prime might have outlasted Kramer. Kramer seemed to think so, judging by his remarks about Budge.
Hoad also had a great win percentage on the 1959 Ampol tour, winning 72% of his matches against the toughest field of pros ever assembled.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kramer really didn't think so but he did think Budge was the best next to himself. I would think Kramer at his peak defeats Budge at his peak.
You are in denial, the pro Majors were very significant to the Players on the pro tour, despite what you may wish to believe.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Do you get tired of being wrong? I'm not even sure what the context surrounding that quote is. Those pro events were majors and clearly significant but they're not as significant as modern slams in the calendar year or for their legacies.
I would put more value in Laver's opinion than yours or anyone else's here. After all, it was he who competed in those tournaments. Peak Ashe, Roche, Okker, Smith, and Newcombe, were all inferior to peak Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall.
What You do not understand is that one cannot fairly compare players or tournaments from vastly different eras or venues. The pro tour was totally separate from the amateurs till 68 and vastly separate from today's game. Therefore, the pros competed in their world, the amateurs in theirs so that each had their own major tournaments.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Just want to point out that Laver never played peak Gonzalez although past peak Gonzalez was excellent.
Peak John Newcombe's best and peak Ashe's best was pretty high as well as some of the others you mentioned I might add if you're comparing Open Era and Old Pro Tour years. Laver played all the top players in the Open Era. Lall for example almost best Laver at Wimbledon in 1969 in winning the first two sets! You never know if a player can go into the zone and defeat a top player.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Laver's greatest seasons are quite simply the greatest seasons of all time.
1967 and 1969, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road.
You get my drift.
1967 and 1969, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road.
You get my drift.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't understand how your comprehension could be so bad. I'm not the one trying to draw equivalence between the pro majors and current day ones. I prefer not to compare those titles.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Agree totally! You really cannot compare the two. It's like comparing a $50 dollar bill and a $20 bill and saying it's the same because both of them are one bill.
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Laver's greatest seasons are quite simply the greatest seasons of all time.
1967 and 1969, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road.
You get my drift.
Based on this comparison Laver had better seasons in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1968.
TennisLBC
Professional
I GOT YOU!Laver's greatest seasons are quite simply the greatest seasons of all time.
1967 and 1969, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road.
You get my drift.
If you are right, there would have been some conversation by the players at the time about the importance of the so-called "pro slams"...but we do not see that.
Thrust, do you ever wonder exactly where that list of so-called "pro majors" originated? Where and when did that list first appear?
In 1968? In 1985? If it originated after open tennis came into force in 1968, it is merely an anachronistic concept, not something which the players in the old pro circuit would have been aware of.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I have a suspicion that a certain tennis "historian" originated that list.
I first saw the pro majors list in the Bud Collins Encyclopedia, then on Wikipedia. I doubt either made the list up. I know the list upsets you because your Idol, Hoad, never won a pro slam and that Ken won more Wembley's and French Pro and total pro Majors than Pancho did. Years ago the official Majors-Slams and Pro Majors were not as big a deal as they are today. Also, IMO, it is only fair that great players like: Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall get credit for their great play on the pro tour.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It never says Pro Majors in Bud's book. Let me quote the first paragraph-Prior to the start of the Open era in 1968, mainstream tournaments were limited only to amateurs, which left minimal playing opportunities for players who wanted to be paid for playing tennis. Head-to-head tours-barnstorming from city to city-started in 1926 when Suzanne Lenglen took her show on the road alongside Mary K. Browne, Vinnie Richards and Howard Kinsey, Harvey Snodgrass and Paul Feret. Bill Tilden, Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Bobby Riggs, Pancho Gonzalez and other tennis greats also later joined the "play for pay" group after conquering the amateur game. Professional tournaments, starting with the U.S. Pro Championships in 1927, also came into existence with the U.S., French Pro and the London Pro Indoor Championships being the three most prestigious events during this era.
There has been some dispute on this Pro Major term of course on this forum and I tire of the argument but I don't see mention of it in Bud's book. That to me seems to be clear. Why doesn't the greatest tennis historian call these three tournaments Pro Majors in his book?
To be honest I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez all have won a ton of prestigious tournaments over the years and they probably would be at or near the top no matter what tournaments are included. I found Rosewall using Tennis Base as my guide to be at the top or near the top in what I called Important Tournaments. Some argue Pro Majors but I am skeptical whether that was ever a term truly used in the way people seem to define it now. I know Krosero and others would disagree and they very well could be correct but it's really not a big deal to me. It's just another way of bookkeeping the tennis stats. Incidentally did you know that bookkeeping is the only word in the English Language that has three consecutive double letters?
In the meantime I'm trying to work out the schedule for my seasonals starting next week.
Last edited:
