RECORDS after Madrid's final

[Blinkism]

Mustard probably edited Wikipedia to support his claim, it lists Queensland Hard Court Championships as a clay event twice.

Before the Open Era, Hard Court was a term referring to what we call clay courts now. There's at least 6 tournaments on that list with the name Hard Court championships that are on clay on the list. Just look at other pre-Open Era players and their records and you'll see that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hard_Court_Championships

Laver won on Indoor Wood courts, as well.

 

[Rabbit]

Before the Open Era, Hard Court was a term referring to what we call clay courts now. There's at least 6 tournaments on that list with the name Hard Court championships that are on clay on the list. Just look at other pre-Open Era players and their records and you'll see that.

Laver won on Indoor Wood courts and on something called Uni-Turf, as well.

Can you provide examples? Are you sure that they didn't change their surface? To my knowledge, clay courts have never, ever been referred to as hard courts and I've been watching tennis since the early 70s.

 

[Blinkism]

Can you provide examples? Are you sure that they didn't change their surface? To my knowledge, clay courts have never, ever been referred to as hard courts and I've been watching tennis since the early 70s.

World Hard Court Championships, frequently considered as the precursor to the French Open was held from 1912 till 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris, France. The venue, was the clay courts of the Stade Français in Saint-Cloud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hard_Court_Championships

And on the page for Anthony Wilding, in the footnotes it mentions that "Hard Court" was another term for clay in commonwealth countries.

 

[Lapdog]

I laughed at the inclusion of records involving blue clay.

How insecure are you about Federer's legacy that you actually need include those non-records. You're talking about the bona fide best modern tennis player, here.

100% winning record on blue clay. Really? Fedfanatics are just as sad as *******s, maybe even more given how great of a player they support.

I laughed at your lack of recognition of the facetiousness of those posts.

 

[Lsmkenpo]

Before the Open Era, Hard Court was a term referring to what we call clay courts now. There's at least 6 tournaments on that list with the name Hard Court championships that are on clay on the list. Just look at other pre-Open Era players and their records and you'll see that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hard_Court_Championships

Laver won on Indoor Wood courts, as well.

I think I looked at the wrong section anyways, this was in the Pre-Open era
column.

 

[Rabbit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hard_Court_Championships

And on the page for Anthony Wilding, in the footnotes it mentions that "Hard Court" was another term for clay in commonwealth countries.

In the 20s in the Commonwealth....lol

 

[Lapdog]

These Fed haters are really digging.

 

[Mustard]

These Fed haters are really digging.

The people who seem desperate to paint Federer as the GOAT are digging, even to saying "in history" about winning 10 titles on each surface. It's a massive insecurity complex, if you ask me. Laver isn't the only other one to have done so, either.

 

[SLD76]

Umm...nobody was claiming Fed as the GOAT..

wasnt the original post just pointing out Fed's various records as a result of his Madrid win?

Somebody sounds butthurt over nadal..

 

[Lsmkenpo]

The people who seem desperate to paint Federer as the GOAT are digging, even to saying "in history" about winning 10 titles on each surface. It's a massive insecurity complex, if you ask me. Laver isn't the only other one to have done so, either.

In your mind how many more Majors would Federer have to win to pass Laver ?

I know if I only won 16 Majors I would feel pretty insecure about it.

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

In your mind how many more Majors would Federer have to win to pass Laver ?

I know if I only won 16 Majors I would feel pretty insecure about it.

MAN,you gotta start putting some humour in your posts.They have become drab and monotonous.

 

[monfed]

Umm...nobody was claiming Fed as the GOAT..

wasnt the original post just pointing out Fed's various records as a result of his Madrid win?

Somebody sounds butthurt over nadal..

Samprastards were calling Sampras the GOAT before Fed broke his slam record. Once Fed broke his records, they latched on to Laver. :lol:
Ditto for *******s.

With Federer, it's always been about moving the goal post around.

 

[Mustard]

In your mind how many more Majors would Federer have to win to pass Laver ?

I know if I only won 16 Majors I would feel pretty insecure about it.

When exactly did I say that Laver was greater than Federer? I've tried to argue Laver's case because there's a lot of people on here arguing Federer's.

 

[merlinpinpin]

But are they equivalent? Were the Championship Series events mandatory like the Masters 1000? What kind of draws did they have etc?

Ahem. You know of course that if we only count the *mandatory* tournaments, then Nadal is tied with Agassi at 16, right?

 

[merlinpinpin]

In your mind how many more Majors would Federer have to win to pass Laver ?

I know if I only won 16 Majors I would feel pretty insecure about it.

Ah, but then, I guess you would feel much more secure had you won 16 major *and* 100% of blue clay tournaments in history.

 

[Lsmkenpo]

When exactly did I say that Laver was greater than Federer? I've tried to argue Laver's case because there's a lot of people on here arguing Federer's.

So you don't believe Laver is greater, but you will spend time arguing in his favor, seems you must have an ulterior motive. No?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

So you don't believe Laver is greater, but you will spend time arguing in his favor, seems you must have an ulterior motive. No?

he's just on a mission to make the world more fair (like the rusty peak injured golden bull).

 

[Russeljones]

You cannot [successfully] argue that this statement:

Federer becomes the only player in tennis history to win at least 10 titles on hard court, grass and clay courts.

implies 'In the Open era'. Tennis history did not start with the Open era. I don't know why people think this is about Federer vs Laver. It's about being true to the facts and respecting history, the present would be nothing without it.

 

[merlinpinpin]

You cannot [successfully] argue that this statement:

implies 'In the Open era'. Tennis history did not start with the Open era. I don't know why people think this is about Federer vs Laver. It's about being true to the facts and respecting history, the present would be nothing without it.

Agreed. But you weren't taking this thread seriously, were you? Cause some people here seem to be...

 

[Russeljones]

Agreed. But you weren't taking this thread seriously, were you? Cause some people here seem to be...

I didn't take the lists seriously but I don't like people being berated for being punctual.

 

[Hood_Man]

I laughed at the inclusion of records involving blue clay.

How insecure are you about Federer's legacy that you actually need include those non-records. You're talking about the bona fide best modern tennis player, here.

100% winning record on blue clay. Really? Fedfanatics are just as sad as *******s, maybe even more given how great of a player they support.

It was clearly tongue in cheek.

 

[TMF]

When exactly did I say that Laver was greater than Federer? I've tried to argue Laver's case because there's a lot of people on here arguing Federer's.

Yeah, but your arguments leak with biased and I don't hestitate to point them out.

Roger won 16 grand slam titles, but you like to call it 16 majors. Why? Because you listed his number of majors side by side with Rosewall's 23 majors to sell all the readers that Rosewall is 7 titles(slams) ahead of Roger. Anyone in their right mind don't take all of Rosewall majors are even close to Roger's 16 slams. If 23 majors were equal to 23 modern slams(according to you), then Rosewall should be the greatest of all time, hands down. Borg, Nadal, Sampras numbers are puny ! Experts/historians know better...they don't take those majors serious when compare to the slams in the open era. And even the Tennis Channel had Rosewall at #20.

Capiche ?

 

[Mustard]

Yeah, but your arguments leak with biased and I don't hestitate to point them out.

Roger won 16 grand slam titles, but you like to call it 16 majors. Why? Because you listed his number of majors side by side with Rosewall's 23 majors to sell all the readers that Rosewall is 7 titles(slams) ahead of Roger. Anyone in their right mind don't take all of Rosewall majors are even close to Roger's 16 slams. If 23 majors were equal to 23 modern slams(according to you), then Rosewall should be the greatest of all time, hands down. Borg, Nadal, Sampras numbers are puny ! Experts/historians know better...they don't take those majors serious when compare to the slams in the open era. And even the Tennis Channel had Rosewall at #20.

Capiche ?

The Tennis Channel had Roy Emerson well above Pancho Gonzales. When that happens, I wonder how anyone can take the list seriously.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Can you provide examples? Are you sure that they didn't change their surface? To my knowledge, clay courts have never, ever been referred to as hard courts and I've been watching tennis since the early 70s.

Dan Maskell referred to Goolagong recently winning on the 'hardcourts of Paris' during the '71 Wimbledon final. He was talking about the French Open.

In the 20s in the Commonwealth....lol

there are threads in Former Pro Player tracking a lot of pre open era titles, more than a few older clay tournaments had hardcourt in the title. terminology has changed over the years.

 

[TMF]

The Tennis Channel had Roy Emerson well above Pancho Gonzales. When that happens, I wonder how anyone can take the list seriously.

Just because you disagree with one player doesn't mean the list is flaw. While it's true that the amateur field was WEAK in compare to today's standard, but Pancho was competing even before Emerson, which you use weak competition excuse for Emerson. His 12 slams is still huge back in those days.

Everyone has their own opinion and if you ask 100 members to come up with their own top 100 list, none of them is going to be EXACTLY the same.

You are in no position to call to judge Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson, etc.

 

[Moose Malloy]

You are in no position to call to judge Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson, etc.

I doubt any of those guys ranked Emerson above Gonzales. Some of them did reveal their lists & expressed their shock at Gonzales' ranking.

Would love to know the full list of voters, have a feeling the votes by players are most responsible for the strange rankings(guys like Sampras or Courier or Federer or Borg or Mac aren't really historians of the game, they don't really know much about anyone pre Laver)

 

[TMF]

I doubt any of those guys ranked Emerson above Gonzales. Some of those names did reveal their lists & expressed their shock at Gonzales' ranking.

IIRC, one of them said Pancho won too few prestige titles(3?) which was hard to rank him higher.

 

[NadalAgassi]

You are in no position to call to judge Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson, etc.

Jon Werthless, that is rich. He is almost as big an idiot as you are, so not surprising you are one of the only people who would rate him as a tennis expert. Bill Macatee and Ted Robinson are play by play specialists who do about 15 different sports, their expertise is in broadcasting in general, not in tennis. Your posts are so funny to read.

However it is good to know you consider the list the holy gospel of truth, in that case you are now admitting what you frequently deny but deep down know, Venus > Henin.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The Tennis Channel had Roy Emerson well above Pancho Gonzales. When that happens, I wonder how anyone can take the list seriously.

They also rated Jennifer Capriati well above Maria Sharapova, Virginia Wade, Ann Jones, Amelie Mauresmo, Mary Pierce, Gabriela Sabatini. They barely ranked Ann Jones in the top 100, and I think had her below Andy Roddick and Michael Chang. Some major joke rankings.

 

[TMF]

Jon Werthless, that is rich. He is almost as big an idiot as you are, so not surprising you are one of the only people who would rate him as a tennis expert. Bill Macatee and Ted Robinson are play by play specialists who do about 15 different sports, their expertise is in broadcasting in general, not in tennis. Your posts are so funny to read.

However it is good to know you consider the list the holy gospel of truth, in that case you are now admitting what you frequently deny but deep down know, Venus > Henin.

And this is coming from the same poster who said Nadal would have won the 2006 AO had not for the injury; Serena will win 27 slams when she's done; Nole will never win wimbledon, etc...

 

[TMF]

They also rated Jennifer Capriati well above Maria Sharapova, Virginia Wade, Ann Jones, Amelie Mauresmo, Mary Pierce, Gabriela Sabatini. They barely ranked Ann Jones in the top 100, and I think had her below Andy Roddick and Michael Chang. Some major joke rankings.

And you have no credibility to rank these players except for making an a** out of yourself on this forum. They know more tennis than you can ever dream of !

 

[Mustard]

IIRC, one of them said Pancho won too few prestige titles(3?) which was hard to rank him higher.

Gonzales won 2 US Championships as an amateur in 1948 and 1949. He turned professional in late 1949, at the age of 21, and was ineligible to compete in what we now know as the 4 majors, until the start of the open era in April 1968, by which time, Gonzales was about to turn 40.

In the professionals, Gonzales won 8 US Pro titles (1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1961), 4 Wembley Pro titles (1950, 1951, 1952 and 1956) and 3 Tournament of Champions titles (1956, 1957 and 1958 ). He was twice runner-up of the French Pro in 1956 and 1961, with Trabert's 5-set win over Gonzales in the 1956 French Pro final denying Gonzales a professional CYGS.

On the 1954 pro tours, Gonzales beat Segura, Sedgman and Budge on the different tours. On the 1956 pro tour, Gonzales beat Trabert by 74-27. On the 1957 pro tour, Gonzales beat Rosewall by 50-26. On the 1958 pro tour, Gonzales beat Hoad by 51-36. On the 1959 pro tour, Gonzales finished top (47-15) over second placed Hoad (42-20), third placed Cooper (21-40), and fourth placed Anderson (13-48 ), and all of Gonzales' losses on that tour were to Hoad.

On the 1960 pro tour, Gonzales finished top (49-8 ), over second placed Rosewall (32-25), third placed Segura (22-28 ) and fourth placed Olmedo (11-44). And finally, on the 1961 pro tour, Gonzales finished above all his rivals in both the round robin format and the finals format, with his opponents being Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Buchholz and Sedgman.

Now, regarding Emerson, as good as he was, and he was by far the best amateur player in the 1960s, primarily because he stayed amateur for so long after winning the big titles, he was nowhere near Gonzales. The funny thing is, despite all Gonzales' achieved, he's probably best remembered for his 1969 Wimbledon win over Pasarell by 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9.

 

[sonicare]

Just realised. Fed has also won the wtf/yec across three continents. America, Europe and Asia. Amazing.

 

[DeShaun]

He's also catching up to Rafa in masters shields to make sure the record gets set straight, before retiring. Rafa spent so much of his efforts early in his career winning masters events and holding down rolland garros each year in clinging onto his number two ranking, now roger is playing the game for a while after rankings points; everybody's gotta try it eventually and besides, if he has any questions he can always consult his buddy rafa who's been there-done that.
masters shields, phhh. a good way to gather points.

 

[Rhino]

I laughed at the inclusion of records involving blue clay.

How insecure are you about Federer's legacy that you actually need include those non-records. You're talking about the bona fide best modern tennis player, here.

100% winning record on blue clay. Really? Fedfanatics are just as sad as *******s, maybe even more given how great of a player they support.

Dude lighten up, I'm just having a bit of fun.