Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennissportsrog, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Golden era posters in former pro section
    Dull era posters in current pro section
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    kiki, some posters of this section would rather fit for the current section ;-)
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  3. Feather

    Feather Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,651
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I meant Nadal is excellent on clay. He has won 43% return games on clay. Due to that high percentage in clay he has an edge over Federer in career stats. I said the stats are skewed by clay.

    Again return and return games won are different. It's tough to play Nadal on clay and he breaks serves a lot, that has got more to do with his general game than return as a stroke.

    Djokovic has a losing record against Roddick. Much of these matches were when Roddick was past his prime. Peak Roddick had a poor record against Federer.

    I don't intend to say Federer is better than Djokovic in return but Federer is not bad
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    Feather, Thanks for this serious post.
     
  5. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25,266
    Location:
    U.S
    much less than me or many of the others here .... how can you judge that well when you haven't seen that much including matches where he struggled vs good serving ?

    besides it wasn't just those 2 matches ... I mentioned other things as well

    his record vs roddick, some struggles vs the tsonga serve on occasions

    etc etc.

    you didn't respond to any of that.

    yes, in 2012, well past his peak. Djokovic lost to isner in his peak year in 2012 ...
     
  6. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25,266
    Location:
    U.S
    lo and behold. This is the guy whining about people "attacking" him ....

    The irony of it all ..........:)
     
  7. Feather

    Feather Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,651
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    No need of thanks. Nothing is personal. I respect you for your tremendous knowledge about past Tennis and I have expressed my disagreement with you regarding issues that I don't agree with. Please accept my apologies if anything crossed the border while debating

    I won't be around for sometime. It was nice discussing with you all. Catch you all later after few weeks.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    abmk I'm sorry that my harmless joke insulted you.
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    Feather, Thanks for your words! I also apologize for some bad words I have written.

    By the way, You are not on my ignore list ;-)

    Have a good time!
     
  10. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25,266
    Location:
    U.S
    rest assured, the only feeling I felt on reading that post was laughter .......
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    abmk, Fine, then my joke has worked well ;-)
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    I wish I was a multislam poster as Kodes
     
  13. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,052
    That's a convincing explanation, except that Natf and Krosero have given an even more convincing explanation you did not address. They provided stats that show that the serving game hold is increasing, with a theory to explain it.

    You are right that our discussion involve subjectivity. Howeither, some position are better backed up than others. I think there is less subjectivity in ranking Nadal as an all time top 10 than Hoad, for example.
     
  14. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    If the service hold numbers have increased over time, I would submit that the advantages of serving with modern tech vs. old tech have outweighed the return advantages. The primary style of play has changed over time of course. Then, that would account for some part of the big gap between Borg's percentages for return games won versus Federer and others. Even so, you are left to make a subjective assessment as to each player. As to Nadal and Hoad, you could objectively assert that Nadal won more of certain titles for example, but you can't then avoid an subjective assessment as to peak level of play for example, with is an important criterion.
     
  15. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,052
    Thanks for your answer. Don't you think that winning titles is a good indicator of peak play, or at least a better indicator that the subjective impression from a spectator or an opponent?
     
  16. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Sure, then you also have to compare the player's opponents and surface versatility as well. You should definitely look at winning titles, absolutely, but context is a must as well. Thanks.
     
  17. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,740
    I wish I was Shevchenko
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Bayern is next euro dominator
     
  19. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Kiki, here are some Kodes pics! Go Kodes!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Great pics buddy
    Last time I watched Kodes it was about 79 or 80
     
  21. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,740
    Agree...now they bought Goetze from Borussia...these guys will have a historic great time...the events from last two days are earth shattering

    Ich mag Deutschland!
     
  22. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Cool, you obviously admired him. I've only seen a bit of Kodes on old tennis films. He strikes me as a gritty, crafty player.
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    A lion on court great all round game
     
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Like Hewitt Kodes overachieved a little bit
    He was funnier to watch
    I normally watch tennis for fun, shall I add
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    kiki, I respect Kodes as a great player. The problem with him might be that his peak or even prime was relatively short, about five years only.
     
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    yes, from 70 till 75, that makes no more than 6 years.He relied on his body and that may explain a bit.His last big result was winning Madrid on cc over the likes of Borg,Nastase,Vilas,Panatta,orantes and ramirez
     
  27. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Merkel will be still more unbearable...or as Don Silvio said, un...
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    kiki, "Don" Silvio is more unbearable than even "Angie". ;-)
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  29. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,740
    We should hit up one of his parties one of these days
     
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Bunga Bunga

    I am dazzed and confused
     
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    HAIDER at least was funny...
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    Yes, he once even played tennis with Ken Rosewall at Pörtschach, Austria...
     
  33. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Good¡¡ I didn´t know.

    I think the best ever politician tennis player was jimmy Carter or Giscard D´estaing?
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    kiki, It was of course a pro/am fun match. I don't remember their opponents.

    If you include even monarchs maybe king Gustav V of Sweden was the best politician tennis player.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    kiki, a friend told me that two sons of George Bush sen,Marvin and Jeb, beat Chris Evert and Pam Shriver in a doubles match. Shriver had a shoulder injury though.
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    Yes he even had the stockholm indoor named after him
     
  37. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,685
    At least a win for the Bushes...
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,279
    Thus they were more successful than their brother...
     
  39. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373
    Neither Nadal nor a Murrey mother agrees.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  40. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373
    Roger is classy as usual. wise and modest.
     
  41. MachiA.

    MachiA. Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    377
    Location:
    Still first world, but moving south
    Maybe Tony Godsick was holding his hand and whispered in his ear the answers?

    KR
     
  42. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373

    Oh, Sampras era was not true tennis, no? by ******.

    hilarious.
     
  43. tennissportsrog

    tennissportsrog Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    373

    [​IMG]
     
  44. godtennis

    godtennis Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2015
    Messages:
    16
    poor ******.
     
  45. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,740
    Murray aside...Fed Nadal and Djoko are a hell of a three headed monster. The way Djokovic keeps climbing the ladder, there's no stopping him
     
  46. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    567
    So Phoenix1983,

    Here I am again on this site 4 years later to answer your so many wrong posts.

    The latter could be sometimes repetitive

    and given that over time I have forgotten some of them

    I just realize that my answers can also be quite repetitive.

    It doesn’t really matter because sometimes things should be repeated to be understood and learned.


    Before detailing my numerous answers I will make a summarize (sorry it won’t be short as usual) :


    I)


    Learn about tennis history :

    The Davis Cup has been in the early XXth century the greatest tennis event by far.

    When the Dohertys’ brothers won this event in August 1903, the International Lawn Tennis Challenge
    as it was then called became the greatest tennis event for the Northern Hemisphere inhabitants

    and when Australasia in its turn won the Cup in July 1907 the whole world considered this event as the greatest far ahead anything else including the Championshipsas Wimbledon was then called.

    Often the Davis Cup, though a team event as you recall,

    not only designated the best nation in the world

    but also the best player in the world.

    though it couldn’t alone decide who was the world champion in the case where the two best players in the world were in the same DC team as Tilden and Johnston in the first part of the 1920’s

    The Davis Cup remained the undisputed #1 event until the early 1930’s.

    When Tilden turned professional (december 1930)

    and even more when the best pros (Vines, Nüsslein, Tilden, ...) began to rival the best amateurs (Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, ...) around 1934-1935,

    professional events should be considered to rate the best players.

    So from this moment the Davis Cup was possibly very slightly less important.

    Nevertheless it remained the greatest amateur event without the slightest doubt until 1959.

    Even as late as in 1959 Neale Fraser, Davis Cup winner, was considered as the best amateur ahead of Olmedo, Wimby winner

    and it was mainly due to Fraser’s defeat of Olmedo in the Davis Cup Challenge Round.

    The Davis Cup began to lose its status of premier amateur event in 1960

    when for the first time since 1907, some great amateur players (such as Laver or Newcombe) considered Wimbledon as slighthly greatest than the Davis Cup.

    However others (Emerson, Santana, ...) still considered the Cup as the amateur Graal.

    Therefore between 1960 and 1967 the Davis Cup and Wimbledon were more or less tied at the 1st place in the amateur tennis world.

    The Davis Cup really lost its prestige with the advent of Open tennis.

    The fact that a) professionalism invaded the tennis world and b) that the ILTF prevented the professionals from playing the Cup sign the death warrant of the Davis Cup event.

    You don’t have to forget that in those times

    the notion of nation was pretty much important than today

    and that nation events were important events to rate players.


    See all details in future posts



    Ib)


    TO RATE PLAYERS YOU HAVE TO USE CRITERIA OF THEIR OWN TIME

    AND NOT CRITERIA OF THE MODERN TIMES.

    For instance in the early 20th century the Slam events weren’t the greatest events given that they didn’t even exist.

    Besides their ancestors (as Wimby or Newport or Forest Hills) were less important than the Davis Cup

    which is nowadays not the case anymore.

    The Davis Cup was not only the world nation championship

    it was also the world individual championship


    See all details in future posts



    II)


    Rosewall’s chances to win Open Wimbledons in the early and mid-1960’s would have been greatest than any other player

    In 1962 and 1963 no player could rival Kenneth Robert Rosewall on a tennis court on every surface imaginable including grass.

    Phoenix1983, you cannot pick a single name other than

    Rosewall as the pretty huge favourite of an Open Wimbledon in 1962-1963 if this tourney had existed.


    Besides in 1961 and 1965 he would have also been the favourite though by a very slight margin.



    Therefore there is a great probability that Rosewall would have won between 2 to 4 Wimbledon if tennis had been open during Rosewall’s peak years.

    See all details in future posts



    IIIa)


    Gonzales has been in the World Top2 on clay for many years and probably the best claycourter in 1952 and 1955

    whereas Sampras has never been in the Top2 and even in the Top3 on clay for a whole calendar year. Sampras’s very best moment on clay was between December 1995 (when he beat Kafelnikov and Chesnokov in Davis Cup) and June 1996 (when he reached the semis at Roland defeating Bruguera and Courier).

    Once Gonzales turned pro he beat every top claycourter

    while Sampras couldn’t rival the very best claycourters on their favourite surface.

    You can’t compare Sampras’s win at Rome in 1994 with Gonzales’s victory at Berlin in 1952.

    In 1994 Rome was a sort of “Masters 1000” among others and besides without the best claycourter (Bruguera) in the draw.

    Berlin in 1952, though it had a small draw and wasn’t a major, was simply the strongest event on clay that year.


    See all details in future posts




    IIIb)


    Federer is not at all a class above Gonzales on clay. Yes Federer had to face Nadal but the Swiss didn’t win Roland in 2003 and 2004 when Nadal was not at his peak (and besides absent from the French).

    Besides, except Nadal, Federer had no true great rivals on clay during most of his career

    while Gonzales had to face Rosewall, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Gimeno, Laver & al who were better than Federer’s other than Nadal rivalsthat isGaudio, Coria, Nalbandian, Davydenko & al.


    See all details in future posts



    IIIc)


    Tilden

    a) has been the best player in the world on clay perhaps six years in a row (1920-1925),

    and b) had a stronger opposition than you claim though competition was very much less intense than today. You will see in one of my following posts that there were so good players during Tilden’s era.


    See all details in future posts



    II and IIIa and IIIb and IIIc)



    In conclusion about these last three points :

    you simultaneously clearly underrate Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden

    and pretty overrate Federer and Sampras.

    Besides I have never claimed that Rosewall was greater than Sampras (but neither the reverse too).

    You put Rosewall at the 6th place in an all time ranking. Perhaps or Perhaps not ? That is not the problem. The problem is how you argue to choose that place.

    You say you can present a good case for each of your Top5 as being greater than Rosewall but when I see at your different arguments I am sure you have no solid ones.

    I have also never claimed that Rosewall was the GOAT

    but I state that he can be included in any GOAT list.


    See all details in future posts




    IVa)



    H.L. Doherty was the very best of his time so nothing proves that had he been of another era he wouldn’t have been also a very great player. The fact that the competition was pretty less tough than today doesn’t prove that Doherty couldn’t have adapted to the modern tougher conditions. So Doherty cannot be dismissed with certainty of any GOAT discussion.

    See all details in future posts




    IVb)



    Sampras is one of the all-time very greats. He is perhaps (or perhaps not) better than Doherty. Sampras is perhaps (or perhaps not) the second best player ever

    But contrary to Doherty whose claim to be the GOAT is not completely nil

    Sampras’s probability to be the GOAT is almost surely null

    given that at least one player, Federer, is almost surely better than the US player.


    See all details in future posts




    V)



    The amateur circuit was stronger in the early 1950’s (Rosewall amateur era) than in the early 1960’s (Laver amateur era) : in other words Laver couldn’t have won the amateur Slam if he had been born earlier and so had to face Hoad, Trabert, Drobny, Patty, Savitt & al instead of Emerson, McKinley & al,

    because the latter, Laver’s amateur colleagues, were less strong than Rosewall’s.


    See all details in future posts



    VI)



    Riggs is one of the greatest claycourters ever. You think he wasn’t great on clay because he didn’t won any so-called majors on that surface but the reason is very simple. He had almost no opportunities to play any of these clay majors during his career. The only one he could play was the 1939 French amateur (where he reached the final). However he won many clay tournaments in the US showing his great ability on that surface.

    See all details in future posts



    VII)


    You also think that Kramer may not have won a French Open. Once again you base your reasoning on the fact that Kramer didn’t win any so-called clay major but in 1948 and above all in 1949, the year when he could have won the Grand Slam, he showed that he was clearly above everyone else and that, even on clay, he was slightly better than Riggs and Segura.

    See all details in future posts
     
    krosero, treblings and BobbyOne like this.
  47. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    567
    VIII)


    About comparisons between different generations

    what is important is the fact you have been ahead of your generation, that your ideas, your inventions have enabled many progresses during your era.

    The fact that the knowledges have improved through times don’t make modern champions greater that ancien champions.

    I don't think that dedication and quest of perfection has so much changed through ages.

    “Tools” have changed, no doubt about it. They are much improved. It does make the champions stronger but not greater. H.L. Doherty or Tilden were ahead of their own generation and nothing proves that they wouldn’t have been ahead of a next generation had they been born later.

    The fact that the Tiden of the 1920’s wouldn’t win a game from the Djokovic of 2016 is almost absolutely sure

    but who can claim that Tilden wouldn’t be today as perfectionist as Djokovic ? No one.

    Comparisons in absolute terms are a non-sense.

    The only accurate comparisons between generations have to be made in relative terms

    but I admit that these ones are pretty hard to make not to say impossible.


    See all details in future posts



    IX)


    Though physical competition was much less intense in the 1950’s-1960’s-1970’s than today

    physical (and mental) decline also hit players of these “old” areas.

    Even in those times the players were less good in their mid-30’s than in their late 20’s.

    Of course their decline was much less huge than that of a modern player when the latter is often unable to competitively play at 35 years old because he is so physically damaged (especially the generation of Kuerten, Norman, Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, etc ... who couldn’t rely on a medicine as efficient as today) because the physical side of tennis is so (too) much important nowadays.

    However Rosewall and Gonzales (the players we are mainly talking about here) were less good in the open era than in the pre-open era

    (in Gonzales’s case, decline has begun as soon as late 1961).

    And ask every witness of the time. Laver, for instance in his autobiography, clearly claimed that Rosewall wasn’t as good in the open era than earlier.

    So when you state that Rosewall was as good in the open era that in the early 1960’s you are making a great error, Phoenix1983.


    See all details in future posts



    X)


    Federer has never beaten Agassi at his peak

    Federer has defeated Agassi when the latter was between the 4th and the 7th at the ATP rankings

    but the Swiss never conquered Agassi when the US citizen was among the world Top3 players.

    That last statement doesn’t contradict the fact that Federer is a much greater player than Agassi.[/B]

    See all details in future posts



    XI)


    You underrate all the pre-open era players because

    a) you don’t consider the true greatest events but take into account 3rd rate events such as the amateur Slams of the late 1950’s when most of the best players couldn’t enter in them because they were professionals; besides you mix amateur Slams with pro Slams which is a nonsense

    and b) you seem to consider that modern physical investment is the most important criterion to rate players of different eras whereas once again it is a wrong reasoning. The only base to rate players is the originality, the dedication, the creation, the urge and the domination that make them ahead of their own era other colleagues.


    See all details in future posts



    XII)


    You think that Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver couldn’t have won about 20 true majors.

    You will be able to see later that I give an estimation of their own overall records if tennis had been open as it should have been.

    It is possible that Gonzales would have had under his belt 22+ or 23+ See later the explanation for the + in 22+ or 23+)true majors, Rosewall 21 or 22 majors and Laver 19 or 18 majors


    See all details in future posts and in particular




    XIII)


    You said that you couldn’t take my numbers of majors won by players (from my own selection of the greatest events) entirely seriously. You are just right about “entirely” because sometimes choices of the four greatest competitions in any given year before the late 1980’s - early 1990’s are very tough. However my numbers are very much closer to the truth than any official numbers mixing supposed majors as diverse as the amateur Slams, the pro Slams and the open Slams.

    Except SgtJohn’s numbers (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3098710#post3098710) there are very few attempts trying to approach the truth but SgtJohn’s or mine give a very better perspective than the mere very wrong so-called “official” numbers


    See all details in future posts



    XIV)


    I don’t know if your Rosewall’s and Gonzales’s places in your all time rankings are wrong or right

    but I am adamant that your reasonings leading to your conclusions are wrong

    because in particular you don’t consider the right tennis events to rate players.

    For instance you state that Rosewall won 23 and Laver won 19 : though mathematically these numbers aren’t so bad, their calculations are pure nonsense. You also state that Laver won 3 Grand Slams according to the official numbers but how good was his amateur Slam given that a few months later he was crushed in his first professional matches by Hoad and Rosewall ?

    Official figures in tennis before the late 1980’s-early 1990’s and especially before the open era have ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING.


    See all details in future posts



    XV)


    You claim that Laver would have caught up with Rosewall, Gonzales & al earlier had tennis been open. This is possibly right

    but you can tell exactly the same thing about any amateur player then prevented from facing the very top pros.

    Had tennis been open Gonzales would also have reached the top earlier and rivalled such players as Riggs, Kramer, Segura

    and Rosewall would also have been more competitive earlier against Sedgman, Segura, Gonzales, etc ...


    See all details in future posts



    XVI)


    Several points that you raised in a single post.

    Firstly I didn’t claim that “close to the top” means “No. 1”. In my mind it means “close to win a major or effectively winner of a (several) major(s). In the case of Rosewall it meant the years 1957-1972 and of Laver, 1963-1972 in those years either they won majors or in some years failed but were close to succeed. For instance Rosewall in 1967 when he almost won Wembley or Laver in 1972 when he almost won Dallas.

    Secondly I didn’t tell that Rosewall was No. 1 as long as Gonzales, Laver, Sampras or Federer. At best Kenny was No.1 for three years (1961 to 1963).

    Thirdly you are clearly wrong when you state that Borg wasn’t a No. 1 year-in year-out. It is clear that you haven’t watched live Borg during his peak years. I can guarantee you that I have never witnessed since such a domination. When Borg was at his extreme top
    (that he reached on several occasions between 1977 and 1982, yes even in 1982 at the Akai Gold Challenge Tennis tournament in Sydney in early November), he couldn’t be defeated by anyone, including McEnroe (during Borg’s peak years)[/B](Mac reached an upper level on fast surfaces in 1983-1984 at a time when Borg was virtually retired), on any surface.

    In “recent years”, Federer at his best was dominated by Nadal on slow surfaces; Nadal at his best was less good than Federer on fast indoor courts and even Djokovic who dominated outrageously the circuit in 2015 and early 2016, at his very best can be outpowered on clay by Wawrinka vintage “2015 Roland Garros final”.

    In 1978, 1979 and 1980 Borg at his very best, played better than anyone, be it on clay, cement, grass, fast indoor synthetic courts.

    You could say that Mac beat the Swede in the 1980 USO final but McEnroe didn’t beat the very best Borg then. Besides Borg was robbed of a very important point in that match.

    You could say that Borg has never won the AO and USO but the conditions then were very different from today. The Swede could have made the Grand Slam each year between 1978 and 1980 but he has been a little unlucky.

    You could say it is part of a career and I don’t deny it. It just shows how dominant Borg was these three years. And he was also very probably the best in 1977.

    So Borg has possibly been the world#1 for 4 years in a row from 1977 to 1980.


    See all details in future posts
     
    krosero likes this.
  48. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    567
    XVII)

    “Federer > Nadal” is very debatable : Federer has won 4 more Slam tourneys than Nadal. Federer is also superior to Nadal on true fast indoor courts which is “more or less proved” by the fact that the Swiss has won 6 “Masters Cup - ATP World Tour Finals” whereas the Spaniard has won none. “More or less proved” because that event is not played anymore on a fast surface.

    But on all other points than these aforementioned, Nadal is superior to the Swiss :

    Nadal has a better Davis Cup record, a better Masters 1000 record, a better Olympics record, a better head-to-head statistics than Federer against the other players (On August 19, 2013, Nadal had a positive head-to-head record against every other Top30 player in the world; in 2016 it is not true anymore given that at least Djokovic (and perhaps some new rising player) now leads the Spaniard in H2H).

    And in the end Nadal at his best is also better than Federer at his best on any surface except fast indoor courts.


    Even Federer’s recent successes over Nadal in 2017 at the Australian, BNP Paribas and Miami Opens are not enough to claim that Federer is undoubtedly superior to Nadal.


    “Laver > Rosewall” is also very debatable.

    After his apogee (1961 to 1963) Rosewall was already in slight decline and though Laver became the world #1 from 1964, Rosewall was still a very great contender to Laver and even led Laver in head-to-head matches in very great occasions (majors finals) and not only that but in these great finals Rosewall even led Rocket on fast surfaces though more suited to Laver’s game.


    (I do not contradict the fact that Laver led Rosewall in head-to-head stats’ in their whole careers).



    See all details in future posts





    XVIII)


    So-called traditional amateur events didn’t deserve their label of major events : the draws of the Australian amateur champs, the French amateur champs and even the US and British amateur champs could be sometimes so weak especially the first two cited events. Their so-called prestige was a fallacy especially compared to the modern Slams. At the time as a player you couldn’t choose most of the time the tournament you wish to enter in : the officials, money and time decided for them. In other words the best players didn’t automatically played in the supposed greatest events, far from that.

    Many events of the ancient times which are nowadays considered as majors, were pure third rate events.

    RATE PLAYERS FROM THE RESULTS OF THE SLAM AMATEUR EVENTS, SO-CALLED MAJORS, IS A ENORMOUS ERROR.


    END OF MY “SHORT” SUMMARIZE.


    From now on I will answer in detail to your numerous wrong posts :



    Phoenix1983,

    after my 7 posts (from http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339342&postcount=1087 to http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339342&postcount=1093),

    you had this wonderful and so smart reply : http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339398&postcount=1095 which reads as follows :

    “^ do you think I have enough free time to read all that?

    It looks like it's a very long way of saying the same old argument about there being a fair few players who could be GOAT.

    When all is said and done though, Rosewall's obituary writers will not state that he is the greatest tennis player of all time - and they will be right.”


    In other words you told me that whatever I could write, you won’t have a look at it and that anyway I am deadly wrong.

    I don’t have to guess if you have or not enough free time : if you can’t read what I am writing don’t read it. Have I forced you to read any of my posts ? Have I told you to write on your working day as you complain in one of your posts ? Did I tell you anywhere that you have to read and answer my posts at such or such date and hour ?

    But if you can’t read them for any reason

    do not dismiss them as simple garbage with this condescending tone assuming that I am completely wrong and that your “Majesty” has no time for a mere plebeian.

    If you have no time you have no time but don’t make me your nervous ****.

    Did I tell you that I have no time and that you are dead wrong after you had written your http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7290245&postcount=1001 post on March 20th ?

    I told you nothing and I read your post in order to make the more precise answers in my 7 posts published on April 12th, 2013 : I therefore took 23 days to write them during evenings and days off and not at the office during work.

    You could have either not answered

    or answered once you had found time


    as you did since your post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7345418&postcount=1162 dated as 04-15-2013, 02:12 PM

    but this post, http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339398&postcount=1095, dated 04-12-2013, 05:24 AM, was absolutely unnecessary, stupid, disrespectful and shameful. This post of yours is the beginning of our quarrel.

    I perhaps write WAR AND PEACE POSTS

    but you just write WAR POSTS.


    And besides what a stupid excuse not having time on your working day : you are supposed to work and not watching private forums during your working hours. To post on this forum I do it on leisure hours but not on working hours. As simple as that.

    And given that there are other things to arguing on website forums in life you have my answer ... four years after your posts.


    I recall the “This” : “Once again you don't give any valuable argument so you are wrong” which was my answer to your original post stating : “When all is said and done though, Rosewall's obituary writers will not state that he is the greatest tennis player of all time - and they will be right.”

    So once again my reply was right. The fact that “knowledgable sports and obituary writers” have an opinion doesn’t mean that you have to stick to it at all costs.

    Citing other opinions is just a help to argue but certainly not an argument in itself.

    I would be very amazed if you cite me knowledgeable sports writers who

    a) really know Rosewall’s career (these are really really few), and b) if a) is really the case who do not place him among the greatests of all time.

    I don’t think you will find many of these knowledgable writers nowadays.

    Among the dead ones there were especially two who knew a little about Rosewall’s pro career but however didn’t rate Rosewall very high : Vines and Kramer. They never used the argument of Rosewall’s failure at Wimby to rate the Aussie below other players. They only used arguments about Rosewall’s technique : I do not entirely subscribe to their analyses but on the other hand I don’t completely refute them. Nevertheless if I find flaws in their argumentation I don’t prevent me from pointing them. For instance Kramer claimed that in 1963 Gonzales and Laver were the dominant forces with Rosewall very close to the Top2 : it was clearly an error of his. In 1963, Rosewall was head and shoulders above Laver and even more Gonzales.

    So should one accept every statement claimed by “knowledgable sports and obituary writers”?

    Of course not.


    And the fact that I don’t fully accept other’s opinions is not a proof of immodesty and it doesn’t mean that I think that I am smarter.

    Citing “knowledgable sports and obituary writers” is of course a help to build an argument but not the basis of an argument.

    You can find many of my posts which refer to others’ opinions but I don’t appeal to authority to build my arguments.

    Apparently you do in that case and I confirm that this was a non-argument of yours on that particular point and therefore that you were wrong on that precise point.

    Others’ opinions can be a great help and learning but certainly not the backbone of a reasoning.




    In that particular case (that silly useless http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339398&postcount=1095 post) you simply brushed my “7-post” arguments aside. I wouldn’t have criticized you at all if you haven’t read my posts but in this stupid post you simply told me that I was wrong without having read these posts : this is the reason why I blamed you and rightly stated that it wasn’t a good reply of yours and so a not good way of arguing.



    as your answer to Hoodjem’s post :

    I didn’t mean that I have won the argument. I just said that your non-answer was stupid and hoodjem perfectly translated my opinion in his post : you stated that I was wrong simply by dismissing and ignoring my arguments.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  49. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    567
    I don’t force you to spend hours each day on this forum. Myself I don’t write in this forum when I can’t as you can note with my absence of this forum for years.

    If you don’t have time then do not answer but avoid such silly short remarks which are completely unnecessary.

    But I repeat, on a working day, do work but do not spend time on web forums.



    as a reply to :

    “Originally Posted by Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    If you don't have time then stop denying my arguments just because you don't have accurate ones.”

    I told this about this same http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339398&postcount=1095 post where you denied my arguments without explanations and what I qualified as not accurate.



    I also think Rosewall is underrated by some single poster here because you have only very fragile arguments.



    A single younger poster does too. I don’t preach you in order to convince you that Ken is the GOAT. I just prove that your arguments are wrong. It is possible that Rosewall is not the GOAT but if it is the case you don’t prove it by your bad arguments.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hoodjem

    My debating opponent's argument is too long, too deep, and too complicated for me to read--much less understand well enough to rebut.
    I will, therefore, simply dismiss and ignore it.

    Once again a stupid reply.

    a) Among other things I tried to demonstrate that Rosewall has perhaps won more something like 20 or more competitions equivalent to the modern Slam tournaments than Laver ? Do you think that my argument would have had any strong basis if I hadn’t listed these majors ? Do you think that many could have thought of the 1966 MSG event as a major ? So I had to explain why I chose that event and of course the others as well : it is an impossible task to explain it with just a few words.

    I also stated that against each other, Rosewall had a better record than Laver in major finals, and that even a declining Rosewall dominated a peak Laver in these very important matches : if you think that I could have done it in a simple phrase you are wrong.

    b) Did I tell anyone that I had a great tennis knowledge? Nevertheless I can claim that you have a high opinion of yourself because you have pretty rigid certitudes (at least when you reply to me) about your own GOAT list and your so-called “arguments”.

    c) I never considered that writing 10,000 words meant that I have won the argument and besides I didn’t force you to answer my statements. If you thought that it was a too huge effort to answer me you had the evident choice of not answering me. You could have done it and our relation would have been hugely better.

    And sorry for not being able to be concise about tennis topics.

    Other thing : I am pretty aware of the environmental problems we already face and will face in the future. Therefore I try to minimize the waste. So I prefer to write 1 ten thousand words post in a day rather than 100 hundred words post for days and each day because the first option is much less harmful to the environment (for instance it saves computer space, energy especially electricity, …). I won’t tell you all what I am doing in my daily life to save energy and matter but mainly I never put the heating at home but one day a year to remove moisture and I wash myself strictly in cold water, I also never take the elevator (unless I have to carry heavy loads so about once a year) though my professional office is on the 19th floor, I unplug the TV and the professional computer whenever I do not need them, I hardly ever print documents or files, and whenever possible I do not take the car to make shopping : I know it is almost useless to act like this because very few people do that but I am convinced that we (the whole humanity) go straight into the wall, and so as not to lose my illusions I have to do so.





    See my environmental argument earlier explaining the reason why I sometimes wrote “near-10,000 word” posts.

    Perhaps my huge posts are excessive but often it is needed because many stats have to be explained (see also arguments in my earlier posts). And in the next post I will demonstrate you that the Davis Cup event was more important than Wimby and I can’t see how I can explain it to you without making many references so the Davis Cup post will be long, sorry !!!
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  50. Carlo Giovanni Colussi

    Carlo Giovanni Colussi Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    567
    and

    I have never said that an Australian Davis Cup win was a 'Rosewall major' because you have to read again what I stated in my posts : I have never considered any Rosewall amateur victory as a major one, I just said that the Davis Cup was the more important amateur competition in those years.

    About your wrong team event argument,

    krosero perfectly contradicted you in his post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7333674&postcount=1053

    (“This is a modern way of evaluating things that you are retrojecting into the past. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the literature from past decades, particularly newspaper reports of the events in questions AND the year-end rankings of experts. Davis Cup was the paramount event followed by millions and many individuals made the Davis Cup ties, and the training required for them, a priority over their own personal goals for the years.

    Trying to cut Davis Cup out of the picture back then is like removing one or more Grand Slam events today and just going with the remainder of the tour events.”)


    and also in another post of his :

    .

    By the way, thank you krosero, perfect reply.

    I would also add that at the time beating the USA for any other nation was the greatest goal especially for a small nation as Australia was at the time with less than 15 million people then whereas the USA population was 10 to 15 times greater.

    At the time defeating the USA was the holy graal.
     

Share This Page