Nadal on your All-Time List?

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, Pancho was not a normal sized player!

Gonzalez had several assets in his serve.
Pancho would be normal today. Like I said I think he'd serve as good as any player who's not a giant e.g. like Roddick, Sampras, Ivanisevic.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
I agree with Chopin that PC1 put too much emphasis of the number of tournaments won, especially as there is so few datas (draws, scoresheets) available for most of them, to my knowledge.

It is very possible that several of these tournaments had a "weak" field, with no clay court specialist of significant talent, like it is the case for some current tournament. Houston is a good example. A clay court tournament which has mostly been won by hard courter, defeating other hard courter in the finals.

Roddick - Sampras, Hewitt - Odesnik, Sweeting- Nishikori, etc.

But still, I have a lot of trouble to find 20 players better than Gonzales on clay.
 

pmerk34

Legend
LOL you read stats of players from wikipedia that you have NEVER seen play (unless you're pushing 90 years of age) and you think you know what you're on about?

Did you watch Gonzalez and for example Cochet play to be able to make a comparison? I doubt it.

Just like a lot of the other fools on here talking about Cochet, you've never even seen him play all you're doing is grabbing a bunch of titles won vs other players that you've never seen play and then make a comparison to another guy like Gonzalez which I doubt you've even seen play either. Then you start stating it as a fact that this one is > than the other. LOL.

I've seen Kuerten play at his best on clay and I've seen Nadal play at his best on clay. Nadal is better when you consider peak level, average level, normal level, any level.
The other thing is even if you are 90, unless you traveled the world how much was Pancho Gonzales ever on television in the 50's?

You can find old tennis matches on Youtube and I'm sure you can get old tapes, DVD's etc. The matches bear little resemblance to the way pro tennis is played today
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Ladies & gentlemen,

Let's respect each other. These cross-era comparisons are very challenging, made all the more difficult by missing data and the fact that most of us never saw these past greats play live.
 
M

monfed

Guest
pc1, I have lost all respect for you after this absurd statement. Are you drinking or smoking pot? If he is one of the Top 20 clay courters of all time, why did he never win a major title (amateur or pro) on the surface?

To say he was greater than Kuerten on clay, as you do - well, that just beggars belief.



I would bet mine and my mother's life that he would not defeat Rosewall or Nadal in a 10-match series on clay. You keep going on about his big serve when you well know that isn't an advantage on a slow surface - see the results of Sampras, Becker et al from more recent years.

pc1, I used to think of you as one of the more reasonable 'senior' posters here, but now it's clear to me that you are just as much a fanboy of olden players as are the likes of BobbyOne and Dan Lobb. Gonzales as top ten for level on clay! That's as outrageous as some of Dan's statements about Hoad.

Shame on you for this post.
Not to target any one poster specifically, but yes I do believe Federer isn't given his due and he's the most hated player on this subforum for multiple reasons, some unrelated to tennis. :lol:
 

Anti-Fedal

Professional
Of course I have, the real question is have you seen Nadal play on clay?



No.

Knowledgeable posters don't post delusional crap.
pc1 said one match or a few matches. Do you know what PEAK level means?

Djokovic had a higher PEAK level than Federer on hardcourts (IMO of course), yet Federer's average level on that surface is clearly better. And yes I have seen Nadal play on clay and contend that his PEAK level was higher than Guga's, however it's a subjective claim and therefore debatable.
 
As far as forum discussions, generally speaking, all former pros tend to get overly criticized in the GPPD section. In this former pro section, I think it tends to be a more balanced view with all great players, past and present, both credited and criticized. The posters in this section though all tend to play tennis and they've all watched a ton of tennis. Big difference.
 
Last edited:

Chopin

Hall of Fame
As far as forum discussions, generally speaking, all former pros tend to get overly criticized in the GPPD section. I'm this former pro section, I think it tends to be a more balanced view with all great players, past and present, both credited and criticized. The posters in this section though all tend to play tennis and they've all watched a ton of tennis. Big difference.
Excellent point, Borg Number One. Are you playing much these days?
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Here's what I think:

Someday in the future there's going to be an advanced technology whereby we will be able to take video clips of Gonzales or Laver hitting the ball and create an actual robotic model of Gonzales and Laver. Then we'll be able to get a better sense of the efficiency of their strokes. Imagine that, robotic versions of the all time greats playing out matches against each other on some type of robotic tour...perhaps I'll bet too old to play tennis then, but I'd even fancy a doubles match between me and Spadea versus Limpin' and Laver.
 
Here's my take on some of the differences between forums here. An issue that I come across often when I talk to teaching pros or other tennis fans is that most juniors and even many adult tennis fans haven't watched tennis before 2000 or so. That really skews perspective, since it's difficult to appreciate any player pre-Sampras or pre-Agassi. That's the case for people that actually play tennis. Imagine the narrow perspective of those that (a) started watching tennis sometime after 2000 and (b) have never played much competitive tennis. That's not the case for most any poster in the Former Pro section. I bet most anyone that regularly posts in the Former Pro section has (a) watched tennis from well before 2000 and (b) has at least played tennis for years, if not a lot of competitive tennis. I have watched and played tennis for about 36 years. I still play tennis about 3 times a week and cross train a lot as well, so tennis is really a lifetime sport for me. I get the sense that for MANY posters in the GPPD section they have hardly played any actual tennis matches. I think many of the problem posters in that section are fans of certain players, but they just don't have a lot of direct experience with the sport. That tends to create a lot of misunderstanding with a sport as nuanced as tennis.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Here's my take on some of the differences between forums here. An issue that I come across often when I talk to teaching pros or other tennis fans is that most juniors and even many adult tennis fans haven't watched tennis before 2000 or so. That really skews perspective, since it's difficult to appreciate any player pre-Sampras or pre-Agassi. That's the case for people that actually play tennis. Imagine the narrow perspective of those that (a) started watching tennis sometime after 2000 and (b) have never played much competitive tennis. That's not the case for most any poster in the Former Pro section. I bet most anyone that regularly posts in the Former Pro section has (a) watched tennis from well before 2000 and (b) has at least played tennis for years, if not a lot of competitive tennis. I have watched and played tennis for about 36 years. I still play tennis about 3 times a week and cross train a lot as well, so tennis is really a lifetime sport for me. I get the sense that for MANY posters in the GPPD section they have hardly played any actual tennis matches. I think many of the problem posters in that section are fans of certain players, but they just don't have a lot of direct experience with the sport. That tends to create a lot of misunderstanding with a sport as nuanced as tennis.
I agree with this, in general, though there is a flipside worth noting:

1) Some posters in the former pro player section might be a little bit behind the times as far as the state of the game. I've seen outlandish statements here about past greats in comparison to current players.

2) Older posters are not immune to the same type of favoritism that younger ones participate in. Indeed, in many cases these people have been fans of certain players for longer periods of time. Your own username tells us who your favorite player is, for example (though I know you strive to provide a balanced perspective).

Thanks,
Chopin
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
LOL you read stats of players from wikipedia that you have NEVER seen play (unless you're pushing 90 years of age) and you think you know what you're on about?

Did you watch Gonzalez and for example Cochet play to be able to make a comparison? I doubt it.

Just like a lot of the other fools on here talking about Cochet, you've never even seen him play all you're doing is grabbing a bunch of titles won vs other players that you've never seen play and then make a comparison to another guy like Gonzalez which I doubt you've even seen play either. Then you start stating it as a fact that this one is > than the other. LOL.

I've seen Kuerten play at his best on clay and I've seen Nadal play at his best on clay. Nadal is better when you consider peak level, average level, normal level, any level.
The Order, Even a fool like me is saying the truth sometimes. I doubt that you often are right...

Why do you blame only me for not having seen Cochet and Gonzalez? abmk is even younger than me and he also has not seen them. But he even ranks many "non-seen" players ahead of Gonzalez...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ladies & gentlemen,

Let's respect each other. These cross-era comparisons are very challenging, made all the more difficult by missing data and the fact that most of us never saw these past greats play live.
Chopin, You also have not seen Frederic Chopin playing piano but you yet play his excellent works...;-)
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Not to target any one poster specifically, but yes I do believe Federer isn't given his due and he's the most hated player on this subforum for multiple reasons, some unrelated to tennis. :lol:
Subforum? My English is not really good but I guess you underrate this forum as much as you overrate the Swiss No. 2...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Here's what I think:

Someday in the future there's going to be an advanced technology whereby we will be able to take video clips of Gonzales or Laver hitting the ball and create an actual robotic model of Gonzales and Laver. Then we'll be able to get a better sense of the efficiency of their strokes. Imagine that, robotic versions of the all time greats playing out matches against each other on some type of robotic tour...perhaps I'll bet too old to play tennis then, but I'd even fancy a doubles match between me and Spadea versus Limpin' and Laver.
Chopin, Hope you will not be disqualified because of playing a doubles where Limpinhitter is envolved...;-)
 

ARFED

Professional
Here's my take on some of the differences between forums here. An issue that I come across often when I talk to teaching pros or other tennis fans is that most juniors and even many adult tennis fans haven't watched tennis before 2000 or so. That really skews perspective, since it's difficult to appreciate any player pre-Sampras or pre-Agassi. That's the case for people that actually play tennis. Imagine the narrow perspective of those that (a) started watching tennis sometime after 2000 and (b) have never played much competitive tennis. That's not the case for most any poster in the Former Pro section. I bet most anyone that regularly posts in the Former Pro section has (a) watched tennis from well before 2000 and (b) has at least played tennis for years, if not a lot of competitive tennis. I have watched and played tennis for about 36 years. I still play tennis about 3 times a week and cross train a lot as well, so tennis is really a lifetime sport for me. I get the sense that for MANY posters in the GPPD section they have hardly played any actual tennis matches. I think many of the problem posters in that section are fans of certain players, but they just don't have a lot of direct experience with the sport. That tends to create a lot of misunderstanding with a sport as nuanced as tennis.
Well this work both ways you know. I agree that a lot of posters, especially the young ones, even state that players like Sampras, Mc Enroe, Edberg, Rosewall, etc, would not have a place in the game today, which is laughable. But on the other hand, you have old timers (with respect) that claim players like Nadal, Federer, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, etc, would barely be top 20 players 30 or 40 years ago and this happen in this same former pro forum, and even worse. Claims that players like Budge, Tilden, Kramer, Segura, Hoad, etc are all better players than the current ones, when none, and i repeat none of this posters have ever seen them play bar some crappy vids here and there. How could someone make this type of conclusiones based on such little evidence. They would bring to the table the books of some journalists and historians (great works btw, i have read some), but those are far from being conclusive evidence of anything when comparing players so spread accros time. I could tell you the playing strenght on clay of Wilding and state that he would triple bagel Borg at RG?? How does that sound to you?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Here's my take on some of the differences between forums here. An issue that I come across often when I talk to teaching pros or other tennis fans is that most juniors and even many adult tennis fans haven't watched tennis before 2000 or so. That really skews perspective, since it's difficult to appreciate any player pre-Sampras or pre-Agassi. That's the case for people that actually play tennis. Imagine the narrow perspective of those that (a) started watching tennis sometime after 2000 and (b) have never played much competitive tennis. That's not the case for most any poster in the Former Pro section. I bet most anyone that regularly posts in the Former Pro section has (a) watched tennis from well before 2000 and (b) has at least played tennis for years, if not a lot of competitive tennis. I have watched and played tennis for about 36 years. I still play tennis about 3 times a week and cross train a lot as well, so tennis is really a lifetime sport for me. I get the sense that for MANY posters in the GPPD section they have hardly played any actual tennis matches. I think many of the problem posters in that section are fans of certain players, but they just don't have a lot of direct experience with the sport. That tends to create a lot of misunderstanding with a sport as nuanced as tennis.
borg number one, You easily could be right.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
The Order, Even a fool like me is saying the truth sometimes. I doubt that you often are right...

Why do you blame only me for not having seen Cochet and Gonzalez? abmk is even younger than me and he also has not seen them. But he even ranks many "non-seen" players ahead of Gonzalez...
I'm not blaming only you which is why I said fools (plural).

abmk is an arrogant and delusional person who thinks that by stating his opinion, he's stating a fact.

Take this line from him:

"I named more than 25 players ...So how is gonzalez top 20 on clay ?"

He thinks that because he "named" players that it all of a sudden becomes a fact that those "named" players are greater, completely disregarding that his list of players could be wrong.

The truth is he most likely has never even seen half the guys he named play and what sort of competition they faced. He's most likely never even seen Pancho play.

So by spending his day reading wikipedia, he has come up with a conclusion of who all the greats are.

I otoh, have seen both Kuerten and Nadal play at their highest level on clay, so I think that qualifies me to say peak Nadal > peak Gustavo on clay. There's a lot of "back in the day it was harder" mentality over here, but explain how it was harder? Guga was awesome don't get me wrong, but higher peak level than Nadal on clay? Sorry that is delusional.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I'm not blaming only you which is why I said fools (plural).

abmk is an arrogant and delusional person who thinks that by stating his opinion, he's stating a fact.

Take this line from him:

"I named more than 25 players ...So how is gonzalez top 20 on clay ?"

He thinks that because he "named" players that it all of a sudden becomes a fact that those "named" players are greater, completely disregarding that his list of players could be wrong.

The truth is he most likely has never even seen half the guys he named play and what sort of competition they faced. He's most likely never even seen Pancho play.

So by spending his day reading wikipedia, he has come up with a conclusion of who all the greats are.

I otoh, have seen both Kuerten and Nadal play at their highest level on clay, so I think that qualifies me to say peak Nadal > peak Gustavo on clay. There's a lot of "back in the day it was harder" mentality over here, but explain how it was harder? Guga was awesome don't get me wrong, but higher peak level than Nadal on clay? Sorry that is delusional.
The Order, Thanks for this clarification. Anyway, I cannot agree that I'm a fool...

But I do agree regarding abmk. I had already heavy "battles" with him because he uses to put me down.

I also see his certain arrogance, recently shown in the claim that his 25 or even more players must be better than Gonzalez only by naming them by himself, the never being wrong poster...

I also agree that Nadal is stronger than Kuerten.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'm not blaming only you which is why I said fools (plural).

abmk is an arrogant and delusional person who thinks that by stating his opinion, he's stating a fact.

Take this line from him:

"I named more than 25 players ...So how is gonzalez top 20 on clay ?"

He thinks that because he "named" players that it all of a sudden becomes a fact that those "named" players are greater, completely disregarding that his list of players could be wrong.

The truth is he most likely has never even seen half the guys he named play and what sort of competition they faced. He's most likely never even seen Pancho play.

So by spending his day reading wikipedia, he has come up with a conclusion of who all the greats are.

I otoh, have seen both Kuerten and Nadal play at their highest level on clay, so I think that qualifies me to say peak Nadal > peak Gustavo on clay. There's a lot of "back in the day it was harder" mentality over here, but explain how it was harder? Guga was awesome don't get me wrong, but higher peak level than Nadal on clay? Sorry that is delusional.
delusional fella, I was only putting forward an opinion strongly and asking on what basis gonzales could displace more than 5 players on that list and be within top 20 on clay.

The facts here are the records and the statements from the players. None of the lists are facts by any means. It is obvious, yet there are some who have to be told that.

You of course have no near zero clue about tennis prior to 2005, so you'd say what you did.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
and I wonder what the fixation with Wikipedia here. :roll:

There are a lot more sources of information about tennis that 'just' Wikipedia.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Here's my take on some of the differences between forums here. An issue that I come across often when I talk to teaching pros or other tennis fans is that most juniors and even many adult tennis fans haven't watched tennis before 2000 or so. That really skews perspective, since it's difficult to appreciate any player pre-Sampras or pre-Agassi. That's the case for people that actually play tennis. Imagine the narrow perspective of those that (a) started watching tennis sometime after 2000 and (b) have never played much competitive tennis. That's not the case for most any poster in the Former Pro section. I bet most anyone that regularly posts in the Former Pro section has (a) watched tennis from well before 2000 and (b) has at least played tennis for years, if not a lot of competitive tennis. I have watched and played tennis for about 36 years. I still play tennis about 3 times a week and cross train a lot as well, so tennis is really a lifetime sport for me. I get the sense that for MANY posters in the GPPD section they have hardly played any actual tennis matches. I think many of the problem posters in that section are fans of certain players, but they just don't have a lot of direct experience with the sport. That tends to create a lot of misunderstanding with a sport as nuanced as tennis.
Hum I think you understate the importance of humility and honesty. A lot of posters don't consider that they may be wrong and it allow them to hammer their certainty by using capitals, exclamation marks, histerical laugh and insulting words!!! Another big part of posters simply don't care with the issue of being right or wrong: they are fan of a player, they hate his rivals, they love to argue on a forum and display their excellent rethoric.

The number of such posters is awful in the current pro section to the point that half of the posts in this sections are written by people I have on my ignore list! (by the way, use this list, it's good for your sanity). But their is also a few posters like that here, unfortunately.

So as pointed by ARFED and others, having seen more tennis and being older is something which should help people to be more humble and more honest, but it doesn't work for everyone. For some posters, the last great tennismen played in the 70's. For some other, their is only Sampras. Some don't watch much current tennis too.

Finally a lot of tennis fan are now able to access a lot of information via youtube, wikipedia, the ATP site and a lot of other websites. For myself I began to watch tennis in the early 2000, but it was the WTA (Hingis). Then I followed the ATP but I hadn't access to watch a lot of tennis until the mid 2000. Nonetheless, I watched former matches on youtube. And believe it you don't watch a match in the same way when you are little emotionally involved in the outcomes. Example: The wimbledon 2008 final will probably remain the best matches I have seen, but I know that it wasn't one of the best match played. Yet I was emotionally involved in it which give a bias to my opinion on this match, and a bias against all the more recent matches people claim are the greatest in which I'm not as much involved (for the only reason that I don't accept that a greater match could exist that this one). For this reason I already now that in 30 years I will still ramble about this match, and dismiss the greats of the moment as necessarily inferior to the two titans I witnessed in my long lost youth.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
delusional fella, I was only putting forward an opinion strongly and asking on what basis gonzales could displace more than 5 players on that list and be within top 20 on clay.

The facts here are the records and the statements from the players. None of the lists are facts by any means. It is obvious, yet there are some who have to be told that.

You of course have no near zero clue about tennis prior to 2005, so you'd say what you did.
abmk, It was more than just an opinion.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Gonzales is hard to place on clay, I'm not sure there is a right answer. The structure of the tour in those days means he was unable to win a clay major. But I think there should be little doubt that he would have won some had there been a clay major at the height of his powers.

We'd have to judge him based on his level of play which is tricky without video's. He was obviously good enough to score wins over Laver and Rosewall(?) on clay. But then again Federer has beaten Nadal on clay before but never at the French. So wins in minor tournaments don't necessarily turn into majors.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
delusional fella, I was only putting forward an opinion strongly and asking on what basis gonzales could displace more than 5 players on that list and be within top 20 on clay.

The facts here are the records and the statements from the players. None of the lists are facts by any means. It is obvious, yet there are some who have to be told that.

You of course have no near zero clue about tennis prior to 2005, so you'd say what you did.
No you don't put an opinion forward by saying you named 25 players so how can Pancho be top 20? That is you outright claiming you know for a fact those guys were better.

As for my tennis knowledge, please, spare me with the childish crap. I've been watching tennis long before 2005, but I don't need to explain that to you. Believe what you want, nobody cares.

Truth is you have nfi how good Cochet was and you've nfi about Pancho Gonzalez as well. This means your 'list' is useless and based on crap you've read off websites.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
and I wonder what the fixation with Wikipedia here. :roll:

There are a lot more sources of information about tennis that 'just' Wikipedia.
Obviously there is, however wikipedia is generally considered one of the most common site people use to do their tennis research...

At the end of the day it doesn't matter where you got your info from, you have nfi about the players you listed or the type of competition they faced to make any reasonable lists.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Gonzales is hard to place on clay, I'm not sure there is a right answer. The structure of the tour in those days means he was unable to win a clay major. But I think there should be little doubt that he would have won some had there been a clay major at the height of his powers.

We'd have to judge him based on his level of play which is tricky without video's. He was obviously good enough to score wins over Laver and Rosewall(?) on clay. But then again Federer has beaten Nadal on clay before but never at the French. So wins in minor tournaments don't necessarily turn into majors.
NatF, I believe that the 1964 Geneva tournament was played on clay. There Pancho won a tough match against Muscles in the SF. But I'm sure that Gonzalez won several matches more against Rosewall on clay.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No you don't put an opinion forward by saying you named 25 players so how can Pancho be top 20? That is you outright claiming you know for a fact those guys were better.

As for my tennis knowledge, please, spare me with the childish crap. I've been watching tennis long before 2005, but I don't need to explain that to you. Believe what you want, nobody cares.

Truth is you have nfi how good Cochet was and you've nfi about Pancho Gonzalez as well. This means your 'list' is useless and based on crap you've read off websites.
The Order, It's good that you blame abmk for his statement about his 25 vs. Gonzalez.

But don't insult him as nobody should be insulted in this forum.

And while abmk's pretension of making a "fact" list is arrogant he nevertheless is entitled to make such a list without having seen all the players listed in it.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
The Order, It's good that you blame abmk for his statement about his 25 vs. Gonzalez.

But don't insult him as nobody should be insulted in this forum.

And while abmk's pretension of making a "fact" list is arrogant he nevertheless is entitled to make such a list without having seen all the players listed in it.
How the hell was that an insult?

He said I have zero clue about tennis before 2005 which is a dead set load of crap. Why not call him out instead of me?

I stated the facts, he knows nothing about Cochet's tennis ability or Pancho's vs their competition.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Here's what I think:
Someday in the future there's going to be an advanced technology whereby we will be able to take video clips of Gonzales or Laver hitting the ball and create an actual robotic model of Gonzales and Laver. Then we'll be able to get a better sense of the efficiency of their strokes. Imagine that, robotic versions of the all time greats playing out matches against each other on some type of robotic tour...perhaps I'll bet too old to play tennis then, but I'd even fancy a doubles match between me and Spadea versus Limpin' and Laver.
I look forward to watching.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No you don't put an opinion forward by saying you named 25 players so how can Pancho be top 20? That is you outright claiming you know for a fact those guys were better.

As for my tennis knowledge, please, spare me with the childish crap. I've been watching tennis long before 2005, but I don't need to explain that to you. Believe what you want, nobody cares.

Truth is you have nfi how good Cochet was and you've nfi about Pancho Gonzalez as well. This means your 'list' is useless and based on crap you've read off websites.
None of these lists are 'facts' . Putting an opinion forward strongly != stating it as a fact.

How does knowing about the records of Cochet/Pancho mean that I have no idea about how good they were ? obviously its easier and more convenient to rate players whom you've seen play, but doesn't mean one can't rate otherwise.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, I believe that the 1964 Geneva tournament was played on clay. There Pancho won a tough match against Muscles in the SF. But I'm sure that Gonzalez won several matches more against Rosewall on clay.
Thank you Bobby, how do you feel a h2h series between Kenny and Pancho on clay would go? Peak for peak?

How important was the Geneva tournament? Did the pro's save their maximum effort the biggest tournaments like Wembly etc...Similar to how players today bring their best and aim to peak at the 4 slams.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
How the hell was that an insult?

He said I have zero clue about tennis before 2005 which is a dead set load of crap. Why not call him out instead of me?

I stated the facts, he knows nothing about Cochet's tennis ability or Pancho's vs their competition.
The Order, I can understand your annoyance because abmk's arrogant statements (25 players; "clueless") but you should better disprove abmk by using good arguments instead of insults ("crap").

Since a certain time I try to avoid writing any insulting words like "crap" and "fool"...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
None of these lists are 'facts' . Putting an opinion forward strongly != stating it as a fact.

How does knowing about the records of Cochet/Pancho mean that I have no idea about how good they were ? obviously its easier and more convenient to rate players whom you've seen play, but doesn't mean one can't rate otherwise.
abmk, It's good that you now concede your list was not fact.

Reading your estimation of Gonzalez on clay (35 to 50) I wonder if you are a tennis expert...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Thank you Bobby, how do you feel a h2h series between Kenny and Pancho on clay would go? Peak for peak?

How important was the Geneva tournament? Did the pro's save their maximum effort the biggest tournaments like Wembly etc...Similar to how players today bring their best and aim to peak at the 4 slams.
NatF, I would assume a 7:3 win of Rosewall. But it also could be a 6:4 win.

A certain measure could be th 1964 Trofeo Facis series on clay where Rosewall won all his six matches against Gonzalez. Of course Pancho was already 36 then but he still dominated Laver on clay that year.

Geneva 1964 was one of the greater events (not a major of course). There was no No.1 claycourt tournament that year.

Even though the pros considered Wembley etc as their most important events they did not focus on the majors as much as the recent players did and the current do.
 

joe sch

Legend
Here's what I think:

Someday in the future there's going to be an advanced technology whereby we will be able to take video clips of Gonzales or Laver hitting the ball and create an actual robotic model of Gonzales and Laver. Then we'll be able to get a better sense of the efficiency of their strokes. Imagine that, robotic versions of the all time greats playing out matches against each other on some type of robotic tour...perhaps I'll bet too old to play tennis then, but I'd even fancy a doubles match between me and Spadea versus Limpin' and Laver.
This could have been done years ago … the top tennis gaming systems now provide very impressive simulations of all the top players and allow you to play them at various different sites/surfaces, of course including the slams.

It would be cool to us era GOAT debaters to see some of the old greats added like Mac, Connors, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Kramer, Gonzales, Tilden, Budge, Vines, …

Don't hold your breath since I do not think that many tennis historians are playing these gaming systems ;)

PS1 : These systems include Topspin4 and Virtua Tennis see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jraZurcsEAQ

PS2 : Physical robots would be cool as would holographic battles but at least the games provide awesome details and capabilities
 
Last edited:

pmerk34

Legend
None of these lists are 'facts' . Putting an opinion forward strongly != stating it as a fact.

How does knowing about the records of Cochet/Pancho mean that I have no idea about how good they were ? obviously its easier and more convenient to rate players whom you've seen play, but doesn't mean one can't rate otherwise.
It's all subjective either way. Obviously never seeing someone play makes it more subjective. There is a lot of extrapolation done i.e such as "Laver surely would have won at least one Wimbledon between 1963-1967 if he wasn't banned." People will say this based on Laver's great abilities and the fact that he won it in 1962 and then as soon as he was allowed to enter as a pro he won back to back titles. OK, fine. That certainly would lead a reasonable person to believe he would have won more had he been allowed to play those years but doesn't make it factually so. He may have been beaten all 5 years at any point in the tournament. He may not have entered it one or more years. He may have gotten injured. The point is we don't know and will never know and way too many posters Google Laver and look up some old matches and records and come to some conclusion and then get angry when people don't accept is as "fact".

Imagine if Nadal had pulled out of the 2009 FO after destroying Hewitt but before facing Soderling. 85% of this board would be "giving" Nadal the 2009 French Open title:

" If Nadal didn't pull out he would have won he was the best clay courter who could have beaten him?"

" No way Soderling would have beaten Nadal on clay. Nadal beat him 6-1, 6-0 on clay at Rome and you think we would have beaten him at the French Open? LMAO "

People would have have made it a "fact" that Nadal would have beaten Soderling and won the French Open in 2009. That's just one match and one tournament. I've seen people "give" players 6 or 7 titles they never won.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
It's all subjective either way. Obviously never seeing someone play makes it more subjective. There is a lot of extrapolation done i.e such as "Laver surely would have won at least one Wimbledon between 1963-1967 if he wasn't banned." People will say this based on Laver's great abilities and the fact that he won it in 1962 and then as soon as he was allowed to enter as a pro he won back to back titles. OK, fine. That certainly would lead a reasonable person to believe he would have won more had he been allowed to play those years but doesn't make it factually so. He may have been beaten all 5 years at any point in the tournament. He may not have entered it one or more years. He may have gotten injured. The point is we don't know and will never know and way too many posters Google Laver and look up some old matches and records and come to some conclusion and then get angry when people don't accept is as "fact".

Imagine if Nadal had pulled out of the 2009 FO after destroying Hewitt but before facing Soderling. 85% of this board would be "giving" Nadal the 2009 French Open title:

" If Nadal didn't pull out he would have won he was the best clay courter who could have beaten him?"

" No way Soderling would have beaten Nadal on clay. Nadal beat him 6-1, 6-0 on clay at Rome and you think we would have beaten him at the French Open? LMAO "

People would have have made is a "fact" that Nadal would have beaten Soderling and won the French Open in 2009. That's just one match and one tournament. I've seen people "give" players 6 or 7 titles they never won.
pmerk34, I guess you confuse "facts" with "probabilities"!

Laver won the pro equivalent to Wimbledon, Wembley, 1964 to 1967. Thus it's VERY probable that he would have won a few Wimbledons in that time.
 

pmerk34

Legend
pmerk34, I guess you confuse "facts" with "probabilities"!

Laver won the pro equivalent to Wimbledon, Wembley, 1964 to 1967. Thus it's VERY probable that he would have won a few Wimbledons in that time.
No, the people posting such things do. While it may be "very probable" it's not a fact and to "give" Laver or anyone else 3 more Wimbledons they never won and present it as a fact is the problem I have when people rate players.

It was VERY probable that Nadal would win the 2009 French Open. He didn't.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
No, the people posting such things do. While it may be "very probable" it's not a fact and to "give" Laver or anyone else 3 more Wimbledons they never won and present it as a fact is the problem I have when people rate players.

It was VERY probable that Nadal would win the 2009 French Open. He didn't.
Yeah I understand this issue which exist also for Borg, McEnroe, and Connors, who skipped so many AO. I remember that people were saying that we should "normalize" their number of slams won by adding the AO they would have won had they played. The results was that all of them won the AO several time, and in the end their was more trophy AO given than AO really played during that time!

But I don't think that you can use the same argument for Laver and Wimbledon. The difference is that Laver did play another tournament which was the most important one available to the pros, and who featured the better players of the time. And Laver did win that tournament several time.

It's very different with Borg and the AO, because he never played a replacement tournament held in the beginning in the year in Australia. Who knows what would have been is form at that period? Or Connors?
 

pmerk34

Legend
Yeah I understand this issue which exist also for Borg, McEnroe, and Connors, who skipped so many AO. I remember that people were saying that we should "normalize" their number of slams won by adding the AO they would have won had they played. The results was that all of them won the AO several time, and in the end their was more trophy AO given than AO really played during that time!

But I don't think that you can use the same argument for Laver and Wimbledon. The difference is that Laver did play another tournament which was the most important one available to the pros, and who featured the better players of the time. And Laver did win that tournament several time.

It's very different with Borg and the AO, because he never played a replacement tournament held in the beginning in the year in Australia. Who knows what would have been is form at that period? Or Connors?
Why can't some posters just accept the fact that for a period of about 10 years the Australian Open had lost prestige and the best players often weren't there? Why would anyone want to assign victories? If the Australian Open wasn't important to Borg why are people retroactively assigning importance to it? There were other more prestigious, better paying events at the time.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No, the people posting such things do. While it may be "very probable" it's not a fact and to "give" Laver or anyone else 3 more Wimbledons they never won and present it as a fact is the problem I have when people rate players.

It was VERY probable that Nadal would win the 2009 French Open. He didn't.
I never claimed that it's a FACT that Laver won any Wimbledon in that time!
 

DMP

Professional
Why can't some posters just accept the fact that for a period of about 10 years the Australian Open had lost prestige and the best players often weren't there? Why would anyone want to assign victories? If the Australian Open wasn't important to Borg why are people retroactively assigning importance to it? There were other more prestigious, better paying events at the time.
I completelyagree. I cannot understand anyone giving hypothetical victories (and defeats, that happens too). It seems to me that happens when people don't stay firm to their beliefs and give in to the 'slams are what matters' criteria postulated by those who either want to hype up modern tennis, or just don't understand tennis history.

If you know tennis history then you know that things have changed continuously with time. Players won what they won under the circumstances they played. And that is it. You can discuss the relative merits of what they actually achieved with due regard to the circumstances they achieved it, but do not ascribe victories or defeats that never occurred.

And if someone postulates an argument that 'slams are all that matters', then you can argue the point, point out where that leads to false comparisons, or ignore the argument. Because if you know tennis history you know it doesn't make sense. Just don't weaken and accept simplistic criteria by ascribing hypothetical victories or defeats.
 

pmerk34

Legend
I completelyagree. I cannot understand anyone giving hypothetical victories (and defeats, that happens too). It seems to me that happens when people don't stay firm to their beliefs and give in to the 'slams are what matters' criteria postulated by those who either want to hype up modern tennis, or just don't understand tennis history.

If you know tennis history then you know that things have changed continuously with time. Players won what they won under the circumstances they played. And that is it. You can discuss the relative merits of what they actually achieved with due regard to the circumstances they achieved it, but do not ascribe victories or defeats that never occurred.

And if someone postulates an argument that 'slams are all that matters', then you can argue the point, point out where that leads to false comparisons, or ignore the argument. Because if you know tennis history you know it doesn't make sense. Just don't weaken and accept simplistic criteria by ascribing hypothetical victories or defeats.
One of the most prestigious big money events of the 1980's was the Nabisco masters played indoors at Madison Square Garden in NYC.

a) it doesn't technically exist anymore
b) nowadays indoor tennis on carpet is dead.

If you rate players on the criteria at the time they played you would realize that winning the Masters in say 1983 was a bigger deal than the Australian Open.
 
M

monfed

Guest
Subforum? My English is not really good but I guess you underrate this forum as much as you overrate the Swiss No. 2...
Overrated = Rosewall, no Wimby title. Sad but true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top