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

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Phoenix1983, you haven’t seen evidence that the Davis Cup topped Wimbledon before 1960 so I will give you some references, and sorry for not summarize but I have to give you numerous examples in order to clearly prove that you are deadly wrong on that point :

- Most of the years the world #1 amateur won the Davis Cup competition before 1960 (and even until 1967);

- in 1905, the US team decided to play the British tourneys including Wimby in order to train for the Davis Cup series : Beals Coleman Wright, from the USA, was rated higher than Brookes in world rankings, though the latter did pretty much well at Wimby but Wright later beat Brookes in Davis Cup.

- In 1907 this same Wright was ranked ahead of Wilding though the latter had beaten Wright in a straight-setter at Wimby whereas Wright needed four sets to overcome Wilding in the DC.

- In 1912 Gore beat twice Gobert including at Wimby but Gobert took his revenge in DC and was better ranked than Gore.

- In 1914 McLoughlin won no individual major but his two defeats of Brookes and Wilding in the Davis Cup Challenge Round put him at the top of the world ahead of his victims.

- From 1920 to 1925 Tilden and Johnston trusted the first two places though they didn’t play Wimby respectively in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 (and 1926) and in 1921, 1922, 1924, 1925 (and in later years) but both were undefeated in Davis Cup.

In 1925 though he won both the French amateur International and Wimby, Lacoste was only ranked #4 in the amateur ranking after Tilden, Johnston and Richards. Tilden and Johnston had beaten Lacoste in Davis Cup while Richards had defeated Lacoste in the US amateur and none of the 3 Americans had crossed the Atlantic to play the French and the British (Wimby) events.

Read Tilden’s autobiography “My Story” and you will note that his greatest disillusionment in 1927 was not his failures at Saint-Cloud or Wimby or Forest Hills but at Philadelphia when his team lost the DC

(about his Saint-Cloud setback I will use later an argument contradicting one of yours about Tilden).

- Lacoste claimed that his greatest triumph ever was the 1927 Davis Cup.

- Cochet had written in his book ‘Tennis’ (co-written with Jacques Feuillet) : “La Coupe Davis est la plus prestigieuse des épreuves tennistiques. / Elle est la moderne Toison d’or dont ils (les joueurs) rêvent d’être les nouveaux Argonautes" (« The Davis Cup is the most prestigious tennis event. / It is the modern Golden Fleece they (the players) dream of being the new Argonauts”.

- When Cochet lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon in 1931 the French nation was disappointed but it was nothing compared to the fear of losing the DC. That year Cochet’s health had been bad : he was ill since the Italian Champs which he lost in the final then he skipped the French, unable to play, and when he entered Wimby he hadn’t recovered and even at the end of July for the DC Challenge Round it was hoped he wouldn’t play any 5-setter. Happily for him and France he won both his singles in 4 sets : the main goal was to win the team event and not Wimby. And Myers ranked Cochet world #1 amateur (though I contradict his ranking).

- Vines’s defeats in Davis Cup are always considered as great failures in his career and Borotra considered that his defeat of Vines in the 1932 edition was his greatest feat ever, greater than winning Wimby or Roland, both tourneys won by the Basque

(incidentally Vines and above all Allison were robbed in this DC tie and I mean it given that I am French but that’s another subject).

- Henri Christian Hopman wrote in “Aces and Places” p. 141 : “… the world’s most universally sought sporting trophy - the Davis Cup.”. In this book, published early in 1957, he devoted a chapter for each great player of the time and each annual Davis Cup but no chapter were devoted to Wimby.

- Had von Cramm beaten Budge in the 1937 Davis Cup USA-Germany tie, his fate would have been quite different : their match in this event was the match of the year in everyone’s eyes.

When Brookes invited in September 1937, Budge (and Mako) to play in Australia during the following austral summer, Budge began to think about his 1938 season. In the previous years the USA had not won the DC (their last success being in 1926) so they had to play each year several ties in order to win the event : therefore they planned their season based on the DC ties. But at the end of 1937 this process has changed because the USA had just won the DC at last. So instead of playing 12 matches (4 ties) spread over several months as in 1937, Budge had to play only 3 matches (1 tie) over a week-end. It suddenly created a gap in his schedule. So he decided to set goals before the Davis Cup climax. Brookes’s invitation fired Budge’s imagination who then thought of playing the amateur championships of the great nations who had won the Davis Cup that is the USA, the British Isles, Austral(as)ia and France and so he definitely sort of created the Grand Slam (which had been used earlier as, for instance, Alan Gould, did (before Kieran and Danzig) in The Reading Eagle (Pennsylvania), Tuesday, July 18, 1933, http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...3gzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DeIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2327,2495314).

So the Davis Cup is the Grand Slam events’ MOTHER and not the reverse though two of them (the British and US events) were born before (the Davis Cup) but were not then Slam events. This is the Davis Cup which has given these 4 tourneys their future legitimity. Wimby was already a great event but it really became the greatest with the advent of the open era. In the meantime the Slam events have killed their mother by becoming much more important than the modern Davis Cup which now has even less prestige than the ATP World Tour Finals and even any Masters 1000 Series tournaments.

- “…the greatest honor in the lawn tennis world, the win of the Davis Cup.” Stephen Wallis Merrihew (“American Lawn Tennis” editor) in “American Lawn Tennis” April 20, 1938 p. 40.

- In 1939 Bromwich was ranked as high as world amateur #2 by Francis Gordon Lowe, Pierre Gillou and Edward Clarkson Potter though he didn’t play Wimby and only reached the semis at Forest Hills but his team won the Davis Cup (and he won 8 singles out of 10).

Norman Brookes, as President of the Australian Lawn Tennis Association, wanted his country win the Davis Cup and not Wimbledon. Especially in 1939 the Australian team was not allowed to travel to Europe but to go directly to the US in order to recapture the Cup. And for instance a player such as Bromwich had not the opportunity to play Wimbledon at his apogee three editions in a row (1938, 1939, and 1946).

- Mervyn Weston in ‘American Lawn Tennis’, April 20, 1939 p. 34 wrote “… The Davis Cup is regarded far more highly as a prize than individual championship honors (including Wimbledon) …”

In his book “Playing for life” page 95, William Talbert wrote “the climactic event of the tennis year : the challenge for possession of the Davis Cup”

- In 1946 Pétra’s failure in the decisive match of the Yugoslavia-France tie (against Puncec) was more lamented in France than his success at Wimby was celebrated.

John Sheldon Olliff ranked Frederick Frederick Rudolph Schroeder as high as #2 amateur in the world from 1946 to 1948 though the American never played Wimby in those years but he won all his DC singles during that period.

- In American Lawn Tennis, February 1947, page 36 Harley Malcolm wrote “the premier event in the lawn tennis world, the Davis Cup challenge round.”

- In 1953 Rosewall won 2 Slam events while Trabert only won one and didn’t won a single match in the 3 other Slam tourneys (in fact he didn’t enter neither the Australian nor the French nor Wimby). Nevertheless Trabert was considered by the great majority as the #1 amateur in the world because he had beaten Rosewall in the DC Challenge Round (in head-to-head meetings Rosewall trailed Trabert only 2-3 in 1953). Some even considered Hoad as the #1 amateur in 1953 because he had beaten Trabert and Seixas in that DC tie even though he had lost to Seixas something like 6 times previously this year and especially at the French and Wimby. And Seixas, though Wimby winner was never rated as the #1 in any world amateur ranking.

- About the 1955 Davis Cup Henry Christian Hopman wrote in his book ‘Aces and Places’ p. 184 :

“It was decided that the (Australian) team might become over-tennised if it played in the Italian and French championships and that it would be hardly fair to ask our players to try to be at their top for these championships and Wimbledon and also the Davis Cup engagement. It must be remembered that our main objective was to bring back the Davis Cup.”

So you could note that the Italian (and at the time it was much more important than nowadays) and French amateur champs were merely sacrificed (Rosewall, Hoad and Hartwig didn’t enter these events) and though the Aussies were allowed to play Wimby, the greatest individual amateur event, this tourney was nevertheless that year a sort of “warm-up” to the true climax of the amateur season, the Davis Cup ties played in July and August (the challenge round being held the last week of that month).

- Hoad’s wife, Jennifer Staley, claimed that her husband when reading newspapers, in the tennis section, was only interested, until his death, in Davis Cup results and not Slam results.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

- Neale Fraser and Olmedo in 1959 were in the same situation as Trabert and Rosewall in 1953. Though Olmedo has won 1 more Slam than Fraser and besides Olmedo has won your cherished Wimby, Fraser was considered as the world #1 amateur because he has defeated Olmedo in the DC challenge round. And Fraser himself considers that his greatest triumph is having won the 1959 DC and not Wimby or Forest.

- In his book ‘Cannonball tennis’ p.14, Sangster wrote about his defeat of Ulf Schmidt in the final and decisive match of the 1963 European Zone Davis Cup final : “It was the climax to ten years of hard work in tennis; the most rewarding moment of my life. Greater than winning Wimbledon. I’d triumphed, not for myself, but for my team and my country.” This was only an European Zone final. To win the Cup, Great Britain should have defeated the USA in the inter-zone semi-final, then India in the inter-zone final, and at last Australia in the Challenge Round. However this European tie was already bigger than Wimby in Sangster’s mind whereas he was a UK citizen to which Wimby is sacred,

So imagine what would have been if Great Britain had won the Cup

(a few weeks later, Great Britain was beaten on his soil by the USA 5-0, and in particular Sangster had lost both singles to McKinley and Froehling) : the Everest.

- After decades of Davis Cup as the undoubtedly and far away 1st amateur tennis event,

the first great players who possibly considered Wimbledon ahead of the Davis Cup

were perhaps Laver and surely Newcombe (in his autobiography “Newk” clearly put Wimby 1st, and the DC just behind at the 2nd place).

- Now read every old tennis annuals of those years and you will see that the Davis Cup chapter is nearly always the first chapter, among the chapters dedicated to competitions, before the one about the Wimbledon Championships.

- In 1967 Tiriac, at the end of the third set of his semifinal of the Italian amateur Championships

(at the time this tourney was the 2nd clay court amateur event in the world)

retired because he had to play the next day a mere Davis Cup quarterfinal of the European Zone A against Spain

(there were 5 other ties to win the DC that year so this Spain-Romania tie was a very early round)

and Santana who was playing against Emerson in the Berlin finals, had also to retire for the same reason (facing Tiriac’s team).

Do you imagine nowadays for instance Djokovic or Federer facing each other in the last rounds of an important championship with one of them retiring in the course of their match in order to play an early DC round ?

Impossible nowadays but in those times the Davis Cup was more important than any other great amateur event.

That same year the players of the Spain - Great Britain tie (Santana, Arilla, Taylor, Sangster, Wilson), held from 08 to 10 June 1967 on grass, hadn’t previously entered in the French amateur champs on clay ended on June 4. Santana was amongst the best 3 amateur clay-courters (with Emerson and Roche) and Taylor has always been comfortable on clay. However both skipped the French in order to play, not the DC challenge round, but a mere European Zone B semifinal (after GB, Spain faced, in order, USSR, Ecuador, South Africa and finally Australia in the challenge round). Santana had sacrificed his chances in the French for such an earlier round in DC and besides two weeks later he lost as soon as the first round at Wimby.

- In a Tennis de France interview in 1968 Emerson, at a time when he was on decline, was asked what was his greatest victory and the Aussie answered “Cleveland”, where Australia had recaptured the 1964 DC in the challenge round.

- Stolle said that his greatest goal was not to win the Davis Cup but to be selected as a member of the Australian Davis Cup team.

Be conscious that until 1980 (before the modern structure of the world group created in 1981)

there were always Davis Cup ties the week-end after Roland Garros and before Wimbledon and that players such as Nastase, Kodes, Borg played these ties held 8 days before Wimby : for instance Borg still played DC on clay on June 18, 1978 (Wimby on grass began on June 26) and on June 13, 1980, again on clay, before Wimby which started on June 23. It didn’t prevent Borg from winning Roland Garros, these DC matches and Wimbledon in succession.

Do you imagine now Nadal and Federer playing a DC tie on clay just a week before Wimby (and a week after Roland) ? Impossible. But in “ancient” times the Davis Cup was much more important than today.


FROM ABOUT 1908 TO 1959 THE DAVIS CUP WAS THE FIRST GOAL AMONG THE AMATEUR TENNIS PLAYERS.

See my many previous arguments about other greats having won when not at peak.

Hey make an effort and make more precise references. In our exchanges I have never seen you arguing about this. So at least give the links where you talked about this. Whenever I am talking about something I make precise references (quotes, links, …).

I still think Drobny was past peak; this was the last major title he won and he had been much more consistent in 1948-1952 (reaching at least one major final all those years, winning two French). This W stands out more as a last gasp, almost fluke success, similar to say Sampras at USO 2002..

You can’t compare Drobny 1954 with Sampras 2002.

Drobny’s success at Wimby ’54 wasn’t a fluke. In 1953 and 1954 he only played 2 “Slams” per year (he didn’t have enough money to travel to Australia and USA) and besides was ineligible to play the DC due to his escape from Czechoslovakia. In 1953 he reached the semis in Garros and at Wimby the draw was very bad because Patty was not seeded and met Drobny in the 3rd round : it was until the Gonzalez-Pasarell match, the longest ever at Wimby and in this so gruelling match Drobny had his leg injured. In the next matches he played on “one leg” and however succeeded in reaching the semis. In those times the seedings could be very unfair with no computerized rankings as nowadays. Next year at Garros he lost in the round of 16 to Larsen but check all the records of 1954 and you will see that Larsen was possibly the 2nd or 3rd amateur claycourter on earth then. In 1953 Drobny won the Italian amateur Champs, defeating Rosewall and Hoad (as in Wimby the following year), and this tourney had much more prestige then than nowadays. Besides his Rome victory he won 11 other tourneys and was ranked #4 or 5 amateur in 1953. In 1954 Drobny won 14 tourneys including Wimbledon and was ranked between the #1 and #3 amateur places (I didn’t study that year in detail so I have not yet a firm opinion). So Drobny’s case is not comparable at all with Sampras’s, the latter was really declining : he was only #10 in 2001 and #13 in 2002. That Wimby 1954 was possibly Drobny’s last gasp I agree but before he hadn’t really declined and it doesn’t change the fact that Wimby 1954 was with the 1953 Italian his best performance ever : take a look at his autobiography “Champion in Exile”. So Rosewall didn’t face a declining Drobny but a peak Drobny in this final.

Hoad, as you state, only failed to win the USC because of the wind - so are you now saying that Rosewall's 1956 USC win was undeserved? If so, that would be one fewer major title for Muscles.

..

No I didn’t state that Hoad failed only because of the wind. I also stated that Hoad’s preparation was short. Read again my post. And no it wouldn’t be one fewer major title for Muscles as your stupid sarcasm claims because in my list of Rosewall’s majors, Forest Hills 1956 is absent, my dear.

Yes of course, which is why we consider the pro tournaments of the likes of Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Hoad et al as part of their record. But we also have to consider amateur players' records in the top tournaments available to them - and Rosewall did not succeed at amateur W.

No this is one of your huge error. One doesn’t have to consider the very depleted amateur majors because they have weak fields with the very top players missing. Even ATP World Tour 500 tourneys of nowadays have sometimes stronger fields than amateur Davis Cup or Slam tournaments had in the 1950’s. Wimbledon 1958 had not Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura and Trabert in its draw whereas a third class tournament (ATP World Tour 500 tournaments are third level events) have often much stronger field than Wimby 1958 : for instance Dubai has about 6 Top10 each year and in particular in 2015 the whole Top3 (Djokovic, Federer, Murray) while Wimby 1958 had no Top6 at all.

How anyone can still consider amateur majors of the 1950’s as true majors whereas the fields were so weak ? Unbelievable !!! Cooper’s win was clearly less impressive than Djokovic’s victory at Dubai and the latter has no comparison with Djoko success at the 2013 Australian Open.

How can you take into account results of tourneys that weren’t even to 3rd rate events as the ATP500 tourneys are and as many amateur Slam tourneys or DC events were ? Pure nonsense.

So stop making this huge error of considering amateur majors of the 1950’s in any rating of great players. These tourneys were not even 3rd class events

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

we also have to consider amateur players' records in the top tournaments available to them - and Rosewall did not succeed at amateur W.

Look at my previous argument : the amateur events in the 1950’s and 1960’s weren’t true majors but only 3rd rank events. Laver’s 1962 whole Grand Slam isn’t even worth his own success at the 1966 US Pro for instance or any Slam tourney that a modern player has won. In 1962 Laver was at best the #4 in the world behind Rosewall, Hoad and Segura so his 1962 Grand Slam is not great while his professional victories in 1967 are among the greatest ever.

Furthermore you have to rate a player (not entirely but) mainly at his peak. Rosewall’s peak years were in the first half of the 1960’s and then he won all the greatest events which were the top professional competitions and besides the true top tennis competitions (amateur and pro events combined).

There was absolutely no comparison

between Rosewall’s wins at Wembley, Roland Garros, US Pros, and most of his other successes in pro events on every surface available from grass to clay and indoor wood to outdoor cement and indoor carpet, etc...

and Fraser’s, Laver’s, Emerson’s, McKinley’s, Osuna’s victories in the amateur events of the first half of the 1960’s.

Rosewall then was well well above these amateur players on any surface without any doubt.

Irrelevant, guys from that long ago cannot enter into the GOAT equation as the sport had very few participants and was still developing.

Your answer to :

“Originally Posted by Carlo

Why Pim was the best player in the mid-1890’s because he won the Irish Champs, Wimby, the Northern Champs, the Hoboken tournaments or the international Ireland-England team events. Among these 5 competitions only one is a major today.”

is completely inaccurate.

I just illustrated the fact that the majors in those times were different from our modern times because it’s simply evolution and that things change through the course of history. The fact that competition was less severe has no incidence on the argument which is not irrelevant as you so often wrongly claim.

I probably disagree with this statement more than anything else. Wimbledon is in fact becoming ever more unique over the years (the only major tournament now to be played on grass), its status as the cathedral of tennis is assured.

This reply to my other quote

”Originally Posted by Carlo

You absolutely don’t know how Wimby will be in a few years : perhaps there will be absolutely no sponsors for one reason or another and maybe any other city will take Wimbledon’s place, be it Rio or Beijing or any other. Perhaps Wimby will disappear and it’s not impossible at all.”

is as inaccurate as the previous one.

The fact that Wimby is stronger than ever is not a guarantee that it wouldn’t sink one day or another. There is no empire or civilization on earth who hasn’t disappeared and so you can’t predict the future fate of Wimby. So its status is not fixed or engraved in stone. Anyway the original argument was to claim that majors changed through history and will change in the future because it’s simply evolution.

Here's the thing: a lot of the older posters here, including here, go on (rightly) about Rosewall's incredible longevity, how at age X he was winning big tournaments A/B/C, then 20 years later, at age Y, he was still winning tournaments D/E/F. Yet, at all stages in his career (amateur/pro/Open), he was in W finals, and could not win a single one.
You can't have it both ways: if you state that Rosewall was a guy who was 'on top' and winning big events for so many years, you also have to accept that he was capable of winning W in those years, no matter what his age. After all, age was rarely a barrier to Rosewall doing anything, right?

This answer to my quote :

Originally Posted by Carlo'

So you condemn a player because he didn’t win Wimby when he was less than 21 years 8 months (until July 1956) old and more than 32 years 9 months old (since August 1967).

doesn’t prove anything.

It is clear that that the Wimby surface was Rosewall’s worst surface. There is absolutely no doubt about this.

Nevertheless in 1961-1962-1963 and perhaps in 1965

his chances to win Wimby, though lower than in any other major,

would have been clearly higher than those of any other player on earth.

Especially in 1962 and 1963, Rosewall was so much better than any of his colleagues on any surface including grass.

He could have even very likely made the Grand Slam one of these years had tennis been open.

That he would have won less Wimbledon Open titles than US Open or French or Australian Open titles is very very likely.


The same can be said for all the other players.

Among modern players,

Nadal is less good at the Australian than in other majors and Federer is less good at Garros :

the former won the Australian only once in January 2009 when he was at the very peak of his career, aged 22 years 7 months and the latter won Roland in June 2009, aged 27 years 10 months.


Had both players put in the same conditions as Rosewall, that is

for the Spaniard forbidden to enter the Australian

and for the Swiss the French

between 21 years 8 months and 32 years 9 months (when Kenny couldn’t play Wimby)

neither of both modern players would have won their least “comfortable” Slam event

(and besides neither would have won a single Wimby tourney).


Now look at krosero’s post when he, as I, stated that Rosewall’s great losses happened in his amateur or open days when he was either young or old

but that these losses didn’t happen during Rosewall’s prime that is during his pro years before the open era :

...

Strange that you assume I think Rosewall has a flawless career. I don't know if you remember but early in this debate, months ago, I argued that Rosewall's Wimbledon losses are a negative in his resume because they occurred during years in which he won the other majors (and that was an argument I made before you came into the debate).


BUT I added that those losses did not occur during the bulk of Rosewall's career, or the prime of his career. I consider the entire career of a player but his prime years are the most important. There were NO Wimbledon losses in those years for Rosewall, nor were there any Wimbledon victories; Wimbledon simply wasn't there for him; the bulk of his career, or if you prefer, the bulk of his prime, has to be evaluated on the basis of other events (on the pro tour).


And in judging his amateur career, Davis Cup is a greater consideration than Wimbledon.

About Rosewall’s losses at Wimby occurring when he was nevertheless able to win other majors

one can undoubtedly conclude

that Rosewall was less good at Wimby than at Forest Hills or Roland Garros or White City.

You can say exactly the same thing about all the other players at other sites on other surfaces.

Laver and Federer were less good at Roland on clay,

Nadal on fast surfaces at Wimby or Flushing or 2017 fast Australian, etc …

The fact that Rosewall didn’t win Wimby between 1952 and 1956 then between 1967 and 1975 doesn’t prove at all that he wouldn’t have won it between 1957 and 1966 especially as he was better in the latter period.


So I am adamant that you are very wrong when you condemn a player because he didn’t win Wimby when he was less than 21 years 8 months (until July 1956) old and more than 32 years 9 months old (since August 1967).

Yes Rosewall, on any given year of his true peak (mid-1960 to mid-1964) would have had less chances to win Wimby than Roland or Forest but however he would have had more chances to win Wimby than any other player in the world including Gonzales, Hoad, Segura then Laver

and the probability that Rosewall would have won about 3 or 4 Wimby titles is very high contrary to what you are stating, especially in a further post.

It was still the pinnacle, or cathedral, of amateur tennis (if you insist, as I know you will, non-team amateur tennis). Rosewall could never win it despite winning all other major amateur events.

Answer to my quote

Originally Posted by Carlo

And I repeat Wimby in the 50’s was a third-class event : imagine that Cooper, who won it (and even made a little Slam that year), never was better than #7 in the pro ranks though, according to himself, he improved in the pro circuit. So you can understand how his little Slam (and his Wimby victory) was a NON-feat given that he was at best #8 in the world in 1958. Winning Wimby without Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura and Trabert is not at all the pinnacle or cathedral of tennis feats. It is just an ordinary victory in an ordinary third class tournament.

Once again you consider Wimby amateur as a cathedral : you are wrong because for instance in 1958 Wimbledon was a third class competition with no Top7 world player and besides, once again, the Davis Cup was the first event in any rating and ranking of amateur players, before Wimby or Forest Hills.

So considering Wimby amateur in these years in any rating of GOAT contenders is a pure non-sense and a great error.

In 1958 the greatest events were the Tournament of Champions pro tournament at Forest Hills, the Masters Round Robin Pro in LA, the French Pro at Roland, the Wembley Pro event or the Australian Pro in Sydney but certainly not Wimby or the Davis Cup or any other amateur event. Wimby is those years was not a cathedral but a bluff, a major with no very top player, in other words a ruined chapel.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Some of your choices are bizarre. Doherty, a guy who played pre-WWI. Do you know the level of competition and number of players competing, compared to the modern game? For a guy playing in that era to have a shout at GOAT, he would literally have had to win everything for about 15 years straight. Tilden is questionable on the same grounds, albeit a bit more acceptable as the game was at least becoming global in his era. And no Sampras, even as a contender? Bizarre list in some ways... .

You are confusing a “GOAT contender list” with a “GOAT list”.

Sampras can’t be anymore in a “GOAT contender list” because it is sure now that he is not the GOAT : it is clear that at least Federer is better than Sampras. Federer’s records are better in almost every department. In each major (AO, FO, BO, USO) Federer has a superior record, even in the British Open where Federer has 7 wins, 3 finals, 1 semifinal and 3 quarterfinals, whereas Sampras has “only” 7 wins, 1 semi and 1 quarterfinal.

And the great difference between Federer and Sampras is their record in the FO : 1 win, 4 finals, 2 semis and 4 quarters for the Swiss against only 1 semi and 3 quarters for the American. In the ATP world tour finals, Federer’s record is also better and in “Super 9 - Masters 9 - Masters 1000” as well. Among great events, perhaps only in the Davis Cup, Sampras had a possibly better record but he was helped by his teammates.

There are 3 points, in my mind, where Sampras was better than Federer :

a) I think that peak Sampras had a better clutch-ability in a decisive fifth set of an important match than peak Federer

(in their single official encounter neither was at his ownpeak, Pete was declining and Roger was on the rise)

and in a great major final on a fast court at 5-all in the fifth I would bet on Pete :

for instance Federer’s loss in the 2009 AO final where he was mentally tired and more or less gave up in the fifth and decisive set. The 2009 USO final is also suspect though less because it seems that Federer’s spinal disc herniation revealed in this match. However I am not sure that this physical drawback was the only reason of his letdown in the fifth set.

b) is a little a consequence of a) :

I think that Sampras had possibly better weapons than Federer on fast surfaces : a greater serve and possibly a better volley though Pete’s (and Roger’s) isn’t as good as McEnroe’s or Edberg’s.

c) Sampras was the world number one for very probably six years (1993 to 1998) while Federer was #1 for “only” 5 years (2004 to 2007 and 2009).

I am talking here about the only rankings which really count, those of a whole calendar year and not the so-called rankings list published each week by the ATP. When I use “probably” for Sampras it concerns the year 1998 when Tennis magazine (U.S.) ranked Rafter first. I haven’t precisely studied this year so I can’t be adamant that Pete deserved the 1st place without any doubt but it is very likely that I agree the ATP computer of that year.

However except these 3 points where Pete has a very slightly edge over Roger, the Swiss is superior to the American in every other department and so

Federer is surely a greater player than Sampras.

That Sampras is one of the greatest ever is undeniable and so he is surely very well placed in any GOAT list

but it is also certain that Pete is not the very greatest one so I repeat he can’t be a GOAT contender given that at least one player (Federer) is surely ahead of him.

Sampras is perhaps better than most of the other players of my GOAT contenders list (H. L. Doherty, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg) but there is one sure thing : Pete is not the GOAT. I think that either H. L. Doherty or Tilden or Gonzales or Rosewall or Laver or even Borg isn’t yet definitely out of the race for first place though most of them are possibly less good than Sampras : there isn’t any contradiction in that claim.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…Please stop mentioning Doherty in the GOAT debate, and not mentioning Sampras. It's very poor analysis. Even if Doherty had won 20+ majors, he did so in an era when competition was so low, and the number of countries producing top-class tennis players so few, that the mark would be meaningless. Tilden, despite his so-called GOAT status, could not win the FO when facing the Musketeers (I am aware he won the World Hard Court championship) - I don't think he would have got to 20 majors. Rosewall/Laver/Gonzales were all broadly in the same era, as were Hoad and other greats. These guys would have all taken slams off each other, so there's no guarantee that anyone would have reached 20 slams. Again, I still think even this era cannot be compared to today's in terms of competition - maybe the standard at the very top (Rosewall/Gonzales/Laver/Hoad type level) was equivalent to Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djoker. But the number of other guys who could potentially cause upsets was much lower, simply due to the lack of participants for many nations. I'd like to know the percentage of all tennis participants in those days who were American or Australian - I bet it's very high. Today's globalised game offers much greater chances of a Rosol-type shock than would have been the case in those days. Therefore, even if one of them had topped Federer's mark, I'm not convinced it would make them greater than Fed (although they would have a shout)…

.

and

…Please replace Doherty with Sampras, you're just embarrassing yourself as an analyst with these kind of comments…

Here are I think very poor analysis of yours.


First the Doherty’s case[/I]


You wrongly consider that number of work hours and physical prowess are the main determinants of a player’s greatness.

This is you and not I who make a very poor analysis.


I repeat once again.


What makes a human being’s greatness in terms of work achievements

(I don’t talk of course of “humanity” here

though in reality the only true greatness is about kindness, humanity

but I am talking about work achievements which is our subject of discussion)

is the result of a relative (and not an absolute) comparison with his contemporaries.


You seem to think that the number of hours dedicated to work and the physical prowess and strength

are the main parameters to rate sport’s greatness

but this is a pure nonsense.


The Dohertys were largely ahead of their contemporaries and this is what really matters.

The most famous photography of Reginald Frank Doherty is one where he prepared a backhand with a swing so modern and so in advance compared to his own era players’ backhands.

He had perhaps the best backhand of his time just because he discovered the right motion before everybody or almost everybody else :

this is greatness.

The Dohertys trained in order to be as effective in the forecourt than in the backcourt because they wanted to own the most complete all-round game of their time : this is what really counts.

So Hugh Lawrence Doherty was the best of his time

(thanks, in part, to Reginald Frank Doherty’s even more bad health than his younger brother,

because Reggie had a more powerful, precise and efficient game than Laurie’s)

and so he can’t be dismissed of anySERIOUS[/U] GOAT discussion.

I don’t say that he was the greatest, I just say :

let’s be cautious and don’t eliminate him without thinking a little.

I won’t tell again the same thing about Sampras

(I detailed much about the comparison between Federer and Sampras)

but it is almost sure that Sampras was slightly less good than Federer is

and therefore it is almost sure that Sampras can’t be the GOAT given that at least one player in history is better than him

whereas it is very difficult (not to say impossible) to compare H.L. Doherty with modern players.


Once again how are you sure that H. L. Doherty wouldn’t have been able to cope with Sampras if H. L. Doherty had been born 96 years later or vice versa if Sampras had been born 96 years earlier.

There is absolutely no certainty that a Sampras born 96 years earlier would have won more majors than H. L. Doherty, would have won as many tournaments and would have had such a winning streak.

H. L. Doherty wasn’t a powerful player however he was very steady and accurate and as efficient in the backcourt game as in the net game.

Sampras was powerful but wasn’t as good at the backcourt as at the net as his numerous failures on clay proved it.

Who could say what H. L. Doherty would have done in modern times ?

Do you think he wouldn’t have trained as hard as the modern players ?

It is also very likely that he wouldn’t have suffered from his numerous physical downs

had he been born in the late XXth century

and he probably have trained very hard.

And it is not impossible that he would have had a very impressive technical array.

However as I said in an earlier post I don’t claim that H. L. Doherty was “relatively”

(as any comparison should be made in relative and not absolute terms)

better than Sampras.

I just state that Sampras isn’t the GOAT given that at least one player in tennis history is very likely superior to Sampras namely Federer.

Both modern players’ careers are “relatively” easy to compare

whereas Doherty’s record is very tough to compare to modern players (given the huge difference of era)

so H. L. Doherty’s greatness is very difficult to rate.

If Sampras had been of the same generation as H. L. Doherty it is very likely that the U.S. citizen wouldn’t have trained harder than the British.

It is also possible that Sampras would have suffered from diseases, illnesses not cured in those times as H. L. Doherty (but easily treated nowadays) which would have thwarted his progress, his training, etc…whereas in the late XXth century the US player had all the facilities to let him improve his tennis.

But just stating that Sampras is greater than H. L. Doherty just because Sampras benefitted from modern conditions which helped him to be physically, technically, etc … very much stronger than H. L.

is a very poor analysis and conclusion,

as if you would say that Edward Witten, the great theoretical physicist of the string theory, was a greater scientist than Euclid because Witten knows many more things than Euclid.


Please stop denigrating Doherty in the GOAT debate

and please stop considering Sampras as a likely GOAT.

Sampras is one of the GOAT but not the GOAT with almost pure certainty, once again at least Federer is above him.

My concern is not to give for the moment any Top “number” list, “number” being equal to what you like, 5, 10, 20 or other. My concern is to select players who can be considered as the single GOAT and Sampras is almost definitely out.

As said before this is you, and not me, who make a very poor analysis.

The fact that Doherty won majors in an era much less competitive than nowadays (there is no doubt) doesn’t mean he has to be dismissed

because, I repeat once again

The true question, as I have said now so many times,

is not to compare players of different eras in absolute terms but in relative terms:


This is the point you completely miss and which proves that your analysis is completely wrong.


So please stop dismissing Doherty

just because you think that modern professionalism is what determines greatness

and also probably because you don’t know much about tennis history before open era.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Now let’s talk about Tilden.[/I]


You said he couldn’t win the FO when facing the Muskeeters.

Yes but he had very few occasions to do it.

Besides the first time he could played them was in 1927 :

in the French final Tilden had title point against Lacoste

but his perhaps ace service was probably misjudged by Cochet who acted as linesman.

It is possible that in 1927 Tilden deserved the title

(Big Bill however never questioned Cochet’s judgment and Lacoste’s title).

I am not adamant that Cochet made an error

but the doubt is there because witnesses saw Tilden’s service as an ace giving him the title.


I also recall you that Tilden didn’t come in 1928,

one of the reasons is that the French though supposedly an official tournament recognized as such by the ILTF

was not a true major.


In 1929 Tilden lost to Lacoste again


and in 1930 to Cochet.


So Tilden had only 3 opportunities to play the French amateur

and lost to Cochet and Lacoste, the latter being a sort of Nadal of its time.

How many times Federer, that you rate as the GOAT, did win the French when facing Nadal ?

Absolutely 0 :

4 finals and 1 semifinal lost.

The Swiss only won Roland Garros when Nadal was clearly injured

(besides Federer against Haas in their round of 16 match was led 2 sets to love 4 games to 3 and break point in favour of the German player).


So in fact Federer’s record at the French Open

is not really better than Tilden’s record at the World Hard Court/French tourney :

Tilden won in 1921 the World hard court (on clay) Championships.


Now let’s have a look at Tilden’s record on clay.


Tilden was possibly the best claycourter in the world from 1920 to 1925 :


- in 1920 the winners on clay court events

were Francis Gordon Lowe, Misu, Sumarokov-Elston, Josiah Richey, Lewis Barclay, Oscar Kreuzer, Laurentz (who defeated Alonso and Gobert at the World Hard Courts), Gobert, Roland Roberts, Raymond (who won the Olympics over F.G. Lowe and Kumagae), Kehrling, Acquarone and … Tilden.

I recognize that that year it is very difficult to rate players on that surface given there was no great clay event with several of the very best claycourters (for instance apparently William Johnston didn’t play any clay court tourney in 1920).


- in 1921 Francis Gordon Lowe won several clay tourneys, other winners were Sumarokov-Elston, Balbi, Kumagae, Jean Samazeuilh, Froitzheim, Robert Kleinschroth, Walter Hayes, Richards, Kehrling and Rendall.

Lycett crushed Alonso in Davis Cup, and Tilden won the World Hard courts over Misu and Jean Washer.

Once again there was no truly great event on clay and once again Johnston didn’t play on that surface

however Tilden was again the most impressive claycourter in the the world.


- in 1922, Balbi, Wertheim, Sumarokov-Elston, Borotra, Norton, Kehrling, Richards, Rendall all won a clay event

and among those who won several tourneys on clay that year were Cochet, Froitzheim, and Tilden who won the US amateur Clay Court Champs and the Illinois State as well. Another year without clay tournaments for Johnston.


- in 1923 among the clay tourneys winners were Francis Gordon Lowe, Henry Mayes, Richards, Norton, Kreuzer, Kehrling, Johnston, who hadn’t played a clay tournament since apparently 1919, won the World amateur Hard Courts, François Blanchy, Alonso (over Tilden in the Illinois State), Landmann, Rendall, and Tilden who won the US amateur Clay Courts and the Eastern Pennsylvania both times over Manuel Alonso.


- in 1924 the following players won clay tournaments : Francis Riou Leighton Crawford, Francis Gordon Lowe, Lacoste, Aeschliman, Cochet, Lycett, Kehrling, de Morpurgo, Borotra, Richards (Olympic Games + Mexican amateur Champs), Albert Burke, and Tilden who won the Middle States amateur Clay, the Western amateur Championships, and the Illinois State amateur.


- in 1925 the list of clay event winners is as follows : Francis Gordon Lowe, Lacoste, Spence, Jan Kozeluh, Karel Kozeluh (Jan’s elder brother) de Morpurgo, Rahe, Froitzheim, Kehrling, Johnston, Albert Burke, Najuch and Tilden who won the Florida amateur Champs over Alonso, the Southeastern amateur champs in Jacksonville, the New York Metropolitan clay court, the Eastern New York Clay court all over Richards, White Sulphur Springs over Hunter, the US amateur Clay Courts over Lott, the Illinois State over Johnston 64 63 97.

So the best American on clay in 1925 was clearly Tilden ahead of Johnston and Richards (in no order). The best Europeans on clay were Lacoste and pro Karel Kozeluh (in no order). Given the gap between the best Americans and Lacoste in 1925 it is not inconceivable to rate Tilden as the best claycourter that year.


- in 1926 clay court tourney winners were in particular de Morpurgo, Kehrling, Cochet, Moldenhauer, Karel Kozeluh and Richards. Pro Najuch, besides the French Pro (where he lost to Karel Kozeluh), only played test matches on clay beating Richards and Howard Kinsey. On dirt Lacoste only played the French amateur and reached the final where he lost to Cochet. Tilden won the South Atlantic and the South Atlantic both over Chapin, the Tri-State, and the US amateur Clay Courts but was twice defeated by Richards on clay while the latter was easily defeated by Cochet in the French amateur.

So that year marked a decline in Tilden’s career.


In conclusion,


between 1920 and 1924 Tilden was probably the best claycourter in the world

though he didn’t meet many greats on that surface

(especially Johnston who played very few clay tourneys at the time).

In 1925 Tilden had a decisive win over Johnston (64 63 97) so was even more than before likely the best on clay that year.

(perhaps Lacoste and pro Karel Kozeluh could contradict this assertion but with very small probability).

In other words Tilden has been very probably the best claycourter in the early 1920’s, possibly 6 years in a row from 1920 to 1925.


So do not denigrate Tilden. He had better results on clay than Federer.

The difference is that majors on clay didn’t exist in the first half of the 1920’s when Tilden was at his peak.


Last word about Tilden on clay :

in 1931, Tilden led Karel Kozeluh 19-11 on clay in their North American tour (Feb 18 - Aug 16).

That year pros Tilden and Kozeluh could have rivalled Borotra, Cochet or Vines, the best amateurs on clay.


Once again your claim is completely wrong when you state that Tilden is not in Federer’s league on clay.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Rosewall: couldn't win Wimbledon, due to psychological issues.

krosero has perfectly contradicted your assertion in his post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7357148&postcount=1407 and besides he also perfectly contradicted your assertion about the Davis Cup and about Tilden’s clay record. I will also add later some arguments about Tilden and krosero is right when he states that Federer has never been able to win the French when facing Nadal.

But good point for you, you were convinced by krosero’s post as you recognized in your own post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7358754&postcount=1433.

… Hoad: couldn't win USC, windy conditions acted against him there
Trabert: couldn't win AC, not as great as his 1955 makes out
Sedgman: couldn't win clay major (amateur or pro)
Gonzales: couldn't win clay major (amateur or pro)
Riggs: couldn't win clay major
Vines: may have had the best shot of any of them, actually... .

a) First windy conditions aren’t the main reason why Hoad didn’t win the USC but his short preparation was the main one, the windy conditions worsened his chances.

b) Once again you underrate Gonzales’s record on clay because there were many years when no clay major had been held and it thus prevented Gorgo to win such events. And in my http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339351&postcount=1093 post I clearly showed that Gonzales could have won 1, 2 or even 3 clay majors. In particular in 1952 and 1955 he was perhaps the best clay-courter in the world

so you are of bad faith on this point.

c) Yes Trabert didn’t win the Australian in January 1955 but once again in those days the main goal was the Davis Cup and Trabert and his team had to cross the ocean in order to win the Davis Cup from the strong Australian team (Rosewall, Hoad and Hartwig) a month before (December 1954). In those days to remove the Cup from the Aussies on their home ground was a great feat in the amateur world. So it is not surprising that Trabert suffered a letdown after this feat and lost in the Aussie tournament three weeks later. In December 1961-January 1962 Laver’s task was easier : in the DC challenge round the Italians came as resigned victims after their defeat of the USA : Pietrangeli lost in the first match without almost fighting 86 64 60

(in many sources the score is 86 64 63 but the World Tennis report of the time clearly indicated that Emmo beat Nicola 60 and not 63 in the 3rd, since the Davis Cup Website has changed the score)

showing the great difference of level between both teams then Australia won the tie without losing a single set before the last two dead rubbers. Then in January 1962 the only good players who entered the Australian amateur Championships were Laver, Emerson and Fraser. Hewitt who has almost done nothing in his career in singles to date was the #4 seed which clearly indicates the weakness of the field, another proof : the #5 was Stolle who then had never got beyond the 2nd round of an amateur Slam tourney (except in the 1961 Australian when once again almost no one came).

So in Davis Cup Trabert had to face Rosewall, Hoad, Hartwig on their home ground in 1954 while Laver was at home on grass and had to face almost strictly claycourters (Pietrangeli and Sirola) who were no threat at all in 1961;

in the January 1955 Australian draw besides Trabert, there were Rosewall, Hoad, Seixas, Hartwing, Davidson and Rose

while in January 1962 except Laver the only good players were Fraser and Emerson (Rod had to face only the latter).

There was absolutely no comparison between the 1955 and 1962 draws : Trabert had clearly a tougher opposition than Laver had.

Once again I prove that the amateur competititon in the early-mid 1950’s (Patty, Drobny, Larsen, Sedgman, Savitt, Trabert, Rosewall, Seixas, Hoad, ...) was tougher than in the late 1950’s-early 1960’s (Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Fraser, Pietrangeli, Laver, Emerson) : for instance Fraser and Emerson who had played in the two consecutive eras only “blossomed” in the second one when the old great trees had died (had declined or had turned professionals).

In conclusion it was clearly easier for Laver to win the Australian amateur and thus the amateur Slam in 1962 than for Trabert to do the same in 1955.



The late 1950’s-early 1960’s was one of the poorest years ever in amateur tennis with the least competition :

in those days the Big Six (Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert) were all playing in the pro circuit so their absence in the amateur circuit deeply weakened it.


d) About Riggs you are completely dead wrong. How many supposed clay majors could he play ?

Only one in his whole career, the amateur French in 1939.

He was never able or allowed to go to any foreign country, except perhaps in Canada or Bahamas or Bermuda, before 1939.

Even in 1936, 1937, 1938 when he was respectively ranked US amateur #4, #2, and #2 by the USLTA he was not invited to go overseas. Only in 1939 could he go to Europe where he reached the French amateur final.

Then WWII broke and he couldn’t once again quit the USA and the neighbour countries before 1946.

Then for his first trip abroad he went to South Africa and Europe but there was no French Pro Champs on clay before … 1956 when Riggs was then over the hill for years.

So in his whole career Riggs could only play one official clay major

How could you claim that he wasn’t able to win a clay major ? Pure non-sense !!! Pure ignorance of tennis history


Clay was Riggs’s best surface though he wrote in his autobiography that grass was his best. He won the US amateur clay court 3 times and the US Pro clay court once. And he won a multitude of other clay events in his career, especially in Florida where he used to go every year. He was mainly a retriever and able to return almost every shot even the most powerful.


Though Riggs was able to win on every surface, clay was the surface were he was the most efficient.

In fact Riggs was the best clay-courter on earth from 1945 to 1948 without any doubt and could have won 4 French Open in a row these years. He would have been the clear favourite each of these years.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

… You go on to talk about the difficulty of Rosewall's W opponents (Drobny/Hoad) vs. Laver's (McKinley/Mulligan). Hoad being better than Mulligan is a no-brainer. But Drobny > McKinley on Wimbledon grass? That's a bit insulting to a guy who was W champion in 1963, and Drobny was a serial choker/runner-up in W finals before defeating Rosewall in 1954.

I'd say both Rosewall in 1954 and Laver in 1961 faced comparable opponents, OK maybe Rosewall's opponent a little stronger but some huge gap like you imply. Also, quoting about two different experts' "world rankings" does you no favours - it just shows that nobody could rank players accurately and consistently in those days. For all we know, McKinley could have been one of the top players in the pro game....

Yes Drobny was clearly superior to McKinley on every surface including Wimby grass. You don’t stop claiming that Drobny was a choker but he won many more amateur majors than McKinley. Ask every player of the late 1940’s- early 1950’s and all would say that the player their fear the much was Drobny who, on a good day, could beat every top amateur player

while McKinley wasn’t feared as much, far from that and was even unable to beat several top amateurs of his era.

Drobny won 140 tournaments including 3 amateur Slam that is Wimby 1954, Roland 1951, 1952, and other great events such as the Italian in 1950, 1951, and above all 1953

(when he successively crushed Rosewall and Hoad, what Drob’ considered as his finest performance with Wimby ’54),

see his whole record at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Drobný and precisely http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarosl...ple_.28exclusivement_des_tournois_amateurs.29. He also reached 3 Slam finals (RG 46, W 49, W52). In Davis Cup he had a win-loss record of 24-4 which is not bad knowing that he was prevented from playing this event during his peak years

(he quit Czechoslovakia in 1949 and became stateless and thus ineligible to any Davis Cup selection).

What did McKinley in comparison ? Certainly not as well as Drobny, far from that. He won about 27 tournaments (less than 20% of Drobny’s successes). He won only 1 Slam tourney and reached only 1 Slam event final that is 3 times less than Drobny and his Davis Cup record (29 wins for 9 losses) is not so-impressive : he always lost to Emerson, and in 3 meetings he lost twice to Osuna who wasn’t a terror.

In his whole career I don’t think McKinley ever defeated Emerson and Santana. Laver, Stolle, Osuna had the edge over him.

So come on, there is no comparison between Drobny and McKinley.

Drobny was clearly better than McKinley. And even on Wimby grass which is confirmed by Drobny’s clearly better record there than McKinley. Yes McKinley didn’t choke in 1961, he was simply blown out while Drobny was never crushed by anyone at Wimby whereas McKinley was.

So yes Rosewall had to face clearly strong opposition than Laver when both were in the amateur circuit.


Why did I quote different 1954 amateur rankings ? Because I had not yet made a complete study of the year 1954 (for the moment I have collected all the results I could find from January 1 to October 15). When I will have collected all the results of the year I will make my own ranking and I am sure that Drobny will be in my amateur Top3. For the moment I can’t surely give the order between Trabert, Seixas and Drobny but these 3 players were clearly the best amateurs by far this year. So the fact that I quote Potter or Tingay is not bad given that I agree more or less with their statement. Future will say if I am closer to one or the other.


And about your statement of McKinley doing well in the pro ranks what can I say ?

McKinley, in his peak years (1961 to 1964) was already below Emerson, Santana, and Stolle (since 1964) in the amateur circuit

so how McKinley could have handled players such as Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales or Gimeno between 1961-64 ?

Besides McKinley was mainly a fast court player and never made any feat on clay. He would have suffered innumerable defeats from these guys ?

Finally McKinley chose to never turn pro because he thought (rightly) that the pro tennis circuit wasn’t well organized in the 1960’s and even as late as 1977 in his opinion.

McKinley would have clearly had a mean pro career had he turned pro in the mid-1960’s.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

That's an interesting point, I wasn't aware of this. This will probably lead to me weighting the pro tours a bit higher than I have previously (rather than the actual big pro tournaments). I have to say though, if this favours anyone in my GOAT rankings, it will be Pancho Gonzales, not Ken Rosewall. …

as a reply to my quote

b) In the pro ranks Laver was also much more lucky than his predecessors (from Rosewall to Tilden)
because Laver is the only great pro who had the chance to win a Pro Grand Slam each year.

What are you talking about ? Your conclusion is completely wrong. You have completely misunderstood what I tried to explain.

When pro players were invited in World Tours (usually North America tours) not only they had the opportunity to win a head-to-head series but had also the opportunity to enter in the US Pro Champs (given that most of the World tours were in fact North America tours) so these players had a double advantage while the others who weren’t invited evidently couldn’t both play (and eventually win) a World Pro tour and a US Pro tourney.

In the case of Rosewall he couldn’t play both a World Pro tour and a US Pro Championship in 1958, 1959, and 1962 (in 1961 he took some very long holidays with his family, his wife being pregnant).

And why Hoad was chosen to play these tours instead of Kenny in 1958 and 1959 ? Because Hoady was much more popular than Kenny, a much greater attraction because he was handsome and his game was attractive. But players such as Rosewall or Sedgman should have deserved to play these tours.

In conclusion many great players couldn’t play World tours and US Pro Champs

simply because there weren’t a guarantee of commercial success : that was the only reason.

So World pro tours mustn’t be rated higher as you wrongly claim.

In 1958 Sedgman and Rosewall were better than Hoad as the results when all three entered the same competitions, show.

The only conclusion that can be done from the 1958 Gonzales-Hoad tour is that Gonzales was superior to Hoad in head-to-head matches that year. That’s all ! Gonzales certainly did not deserve any bonus for that. And this 1958 tour though gruelling apparently didn’t affect his performances in pro tournaments later in the year because he had some rest in the meantime.

However there is perhaps a slight doubt about the mental and physical weariness these sort of tours could generate year-in year-out. This is perhaps the only slight bonus I could grant to these sort of tours.

In the other way the players who didn’t play world or US tours seem to be rusty when they resumed competition :

for instance Sedgman hadn’t play at all between February and July 1957 given that he wasn’t invited to play both the World Pro tour and the US Pro and when he returned to the courts in July at the Tournament of Champions he had bad results especially against Segura whereas the latter had been pretty busy earlier and so competitive.

So most of the time I would not give bonus to the World (US) tours.

One of the very few years when I think that the US (World) Pro tour was the prominent event of the tennis year is 1960

(a very special year I have described elsewhere but I won’t do it here once again).

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…Er....yes, but you assume that all those previous greats could have completed the Open Era Grand Slam. Rosewall would not have won Wimbledon, Gonzales may well not have won the FO, Kramer similarly no FO. Tilden is an interesting case - he may have won the Grand Slam had the game been Open in the 1920s, but the competition and number of participants were much lower in that era, thus his achievement would not have ranked alongside Laver's. …

as a reply to what I previously wrote :

Originally Posted by Carlo

Finally Laver, always compared to his pro elders, was also very lucky to be still the world #1 when the Open era arrived so he was the only one among them to have a chance to make an Open Slam. Rosewall was already on the decline (some say since 1962-1963), Gonzales was a Grandpa, Kramer couldn’t move and Tilden was dead.


So I will answer about these 4 players whom you clearly underrate.


I) About Kenny


You claim that Rosewall would not have won an Open Wimbledon even in the early 1960’s : you are almost completely wrong. Of course I add “almost” because these conditions never existed and so I can make only assumptions. However you, you are almost sure that Kenny wouldn’t have succeed whereas you have no argument to assert such a claim.

I think that Kenny would have had a very very great chance to win Wimby in 1962, 1963 and perhaps even in 1960, 1961, and 1965. And I, I will give arguments :


a) In 1960

Gonzales and Rosewall were clearly the best players in the world by far. A notch below we had Hoad. Gonzales was at his very very best in 1960. In best-of-three set matches Gonzales was then the best player in the world far ahead of anyone, Rosewall included, as the World Pro tour clearly showed. In this tour however Rosewall made improvements as the second and last leg of this tour proved with Kenny winning 4 out their last 10 matches. It is likely that in best-of-five set matches the gap between both players would have been less important given that Gonzales, at 32, was not as fit as before.


The best amateurs in 1960 (Fraser, Laver) weren’t at all then in the same class as the best pros.

It is very likely that in 1960 Olmedo was about at the same level as Fraser (and Laver) because apparently neither Olmedo (as a new rookie in the pros) nor Fraser has improved since 1959 when they were very very close. And given that Olmedo was very far from the top in the pro circuit in 1960 it is very likely that Fraser and Laver couldn’t compete at the same level as Gonzales and Rosewall (and Hoad) that year.

So the great favourites for Wimby were the 3 pros aforementioned and especially Gonzales and Rosewall (Hoad didn’t win any major that year while Gonzales and Rosewall shared all the big events between them).

In late June - early July 1960 Rosewall was the best by default because Gonzales was on holidays but had there been an Open Wimbledon it is very likely that Gonzales wouldn’t have temporarily retired as he indeed did in mid-May that year.

So the favourites for a 1960 Wimbledon Open would have been Gonzales with Rosewall in second position

and Hoad clearly lagging behind in third position. In these conditions Fraser’s or Laver’s chances of winning would have been very very low : I can’t precisely quantify them but probably less than 5% and in any case less than those of Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Cooper, Segura and Trabert.


a) In 1961

my own provisional world rankings are as follows :

1) Rosewall, 2) Gonzales, 3) Gimeno 4) Segura 5) Trabert, 6) Hoad, 7) Cooper, 8) Emerson or Laver (first amateurs), 9) Laver or Emerson (amateurs) For the moment I can’t really decide between both Aussies, 10) MacKay, 11) Olmedo, 12) Buchholz, 13) Santana (amateur), 14) Pietrangeli (amateur), 15) Sangster (amateur), 16) Sedgman, 17) Anderson, 18) Ayala (amateur and pro), 19) Krishnan (amateur), 20) Whitney Reed (amateur).

You can note that I don’t even include McKinley in this combined Top20 list. McKinley had an especially easy draw at Wimby until the round of 16 included and then beat locals Wilson and Sangster before being crushed by Laver.

Emerson and Laver, the best amateurs in 1961, were clearly less good than the very best pros (Rosewall, Gonzales)

and were also probably less good than the other leading pros (Gimeno, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, and possibly Cooper).

How can I state that the amateur Aussies were clearly below Rosewall and Gonzales ?

Apparently Rosewall was more or less at the same level between 1961 and 1963 whereas in the same time Laver hugely made progress. Firstly Laver clearly improved between 1961 and 1962 as his amateur results showed,

then in September 1963 after his loss to Rosewall in the French Pro final, Laver claimed that he had improved by 50% in one year that is since September 1962 when he had completed his amateur Slam.

Therefore in 1961 Laver or Emerson were clearly at the time classes below the very top pros (Rosewall and Gonzales).

Besides the latter were also clearly better than the rest of the pro troupe (Gimeno, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Cooper).

So in an open Wimbledon Rosewall and Gonzales would have been once again the clear favourites but this time Rosewall ahead. Why ?

Because Rosewall a) won the only great pro tournament on grass in 1961 (the New South Wales pro championships), and b) .

Rosewall was also the only pro who won the great best-of-5-set events that year

Gonzales won the Scandinavian Pro Indoor Champs in Copenhagen where the unique best-of-5 set match was the final).

At the end of June-early July 1961 this time it was Rosewall (and not Gonzales) who was on holidays

and as in 1960 (for Pancho) Rosewall would have prepared and played an Open Wimbledon in 1961.

So in 1961 Rosewall would have been the favourite of an Open Wimby with Gonzales behind and all the other players without exception would have had very few opportunity to win this event.


In 1962

Rosewall was head and shoulders above everyone else. His chances to win an open Grand Slam would have been equal to … 90%. He won 7 out of the 8 most important events of the year (chronologically the South Australian Pro, the Victorian Pro, the Geneva Gold Trophy, the Zurich Pro, the French Pro, The London Indoor Pro, the Milan Pro, the Swedish Pro) especially the two big ones, the London Indoor and the French. Besides he was undefeated in the Kramer Cup which he won with his team and he also won the two small tours (New Zealand, France) he played. Among these 8 great tournaments, 2 (the South Australian Pro, the Victorian Pro) were played on grass and he won both without losing a set except in the finals which he won 3 sets to 1 in both cases. He also entered in 2 other grass court tournaments not completed because of heavy monsoon rains, the 2 editions of the Queensland Pro Champs (January, November), where he played 3 matches without losing a single set. Therefore in grass court tournaments he won 100% of his matches and 90,9% (20 out of 22) of his sets.

It is likely that the New Zealand tour and the Kramer Cup final were also played on grass so his “probably grass” win-loss record is 10-1 in both events.

Among the pros he was so far ahead his colleagues even Hoad, Segura, Gimeno, on every surface without exception and especially on grass.

And I don’t talk about the amateurs who were not only so much below Rosewall but also Hoad on grass in 1962 : in January 1963 Laver who was, at the time, at the peak of his form after the “Hopman” training for the Davis Cup Challenge Round in late December 1962, was unable to win a single match from Hoad (on grass, I precise) and won just 2 matches from a rusty Rosewall who was still on holidays (as Hoad recalled) … 2 days before facing Laver in that tour. Once Rosewall had recovered his usual level, he beat Laver 7 straight times in New Zealand, very probably on grass, losing a single set in all. Look at the scores : 6-4 6-4 (Auckland), 10-8 6-4 (Dunedin), 7-9 6-3 6-4 (Palmerston North), 6-1 6-3 (Napier), 6-2 6-3 (Masterton), 6-3 6-3 (Wellington), 6-3 7-5 (Hamilton) and especially the last four matches with Laver never winning more than 3 games a set but once.

Then Rosewall and Laver met on other surfaces (indoor courts) in North America and Rosewall won the 5 following meetings, and later in June 1963 when they met again on grass at Forest Hills, Rosewall crushed Laver 64 62 62.

So, Phoenix1983, stick it in your head, the very best amateurs until 1962 (and in reality up to 1967) were two classes below the very top pros on every surface and especially on grass, whatever sort of grass (British, American, or Australian) which is the point of our debate.

Fraser-Laver (in 1960), Laver-Emerson(-McKinley) (in 1961), Laver(-Emerson) in 1962 were absolutely no threat on grass to the very best pros in these years (Gonzales-Rosewall in 1960, Rosewall-Gonzales in 1961, Rosewall (and Hoad or even Segura) in 1962.

In a 1962 open Wimby, Rosewall’s odds of winning would have been as high as Federer’s in the mid-2000’s, as Sampras’s in the late 1990’s, as Borg’s in the late 1970’s, as Laver in the late 1960’s or as Gonzales in the mid-1950’s.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

In 1963

Rosewall was still far ahead of everyone, even on grass, as his New Zealand tour and his US Pro tourney proved

(see what I previously wrote in the “1962” section) :

neither Laver nor Hoad nor Buchholz nor Sedgman nor Gimeno among the pros and even less McKinley, Osuna, Emerson, Stolle, Santana could have beaten Rosewall at an Open Wimby in 1963 unless a miracle.

So as in 1962, Rosewall would have been a heavy favourite at a 1963 Open Wimbledon.


In 1964

Rosewall was clearly the second player in the world and on grass the second tied probably with Gonzales.

So Laver would have been the favourite of an Open Wimbledon and Rosewall and Gonzales would have been behind but not far from Rocket.


In 1965

Rosewall won the greatest event on grass of the year, the US Professional Champs, at Brookline on the Longwood Cricket Club courts where he crushed his greatest opponents, Gonzales 63 62 64, and Laver 64 63 63, so without letting them more than 4 games a set. Rosewall was awesome in July 1965. It is true that in January of this same year he was less impressive on grass because he was second to Laver (though he had a negative win-loss record, 1-2, against Gonzales in Australia, Kenny had an overall better record there with 1 win and 3 finals against 1 win and only 1 final for Gorgo).

In conclusion on grass in 1965 Rosewall was 2nd in the world in January and 1st way ahead anyone else in July.

So Kenny would have been, with Laver and perhaps even very slightly ahead of Rocket, given Muscles’s form in July, the most likely winner of an Open Wimbledon in 1965.


In 1966

Rosewall was the 2nd player in the world very close to Laver : among the five greatest pro events of the year, Kenny won 2 and on grass he was also second to Rocket both in the Australian circuit and in the US Pro Champs where he extended Laver to 5 sets.

So Kenny would have been the second favourite after Rodney in an 1966 Open Wimby.


In 1967

Kenny lost the Pro Wimby event in late August but he wasn’t as strong as in late June and early July, the dates of the traditional Wimby : then he won Newport Beach over Laver then lost to the same player the World Pro Champs in Oklahoma City (both events weren’t played on grass).

In any case Laver would have been the most likely winner of an Open Wimby that year

(Rosewall, Gimeno and perhaps amateur Newcombe being clearly behind Rocket).


In conclusion

ROSEWALL would have been the most likely winner of an Open Wimbledon in 1962 and 1963.

you can’t give any more credible name that Rosewall for those years : absolutely impossible simply because he was way ahead of anyone both years on any surface including GRASS.

In 1961 he would still have been the most likely winner but Gonzales would have had almost as many chances.

1965 is identical except that the great challenger would have been Laver (Gonzales behind both Aussies).

Finally in 1960 and eventually in 1966 he would have been the second favourite after respectively Gonzales and Laver.


THEREFORE THERE IS A VERY GREAT PROBABILITY THAT ROSEWALL WOULD HAVE WON

ALMOST SURELY 2 OPEN WIMBLEDON (1962, 1963),

AND POSSIBLY 4 OPEN WIMBLEDON (1961, 1962, 1963, 1965).


Given that there may always have surprises

it is not sure at 100% that Rosewall would have won these Open Wimby editions though the first favourite

but it is also not sure at 100% that he could not have won Open Wimbledon years when he wasn’t the first favourite.

In other words

he could have lost in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965 though the favourite #1

but he could have won other years when not the favourite #1,

especially in 1960 and 1966 (and also in 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1967 (see my explanation above for the last year)).


For every single year detailed above

I don’t think you can’t contradict any list and order of favourites that I propose

for these hypothetical open Wimbledon tournaments

therefore your assertion that Rosewall wouldn’t have won any of these,

is WRONG with a probability of around 99%.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

II) About Pancho


The probability that “Gonzales may well not have won the FO” as you claim is not completely null

however in my post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339351&postcount=1093 I gave strong enough arguments stating that Gonzales could have well won one or even several French Opens.

As for Kenny at Wimby in my long previous analysis,

please give me other names than Gonzales who could have been those of winners at a French Open on clay in 1952 and 1955.

I don’t think you will find many serious names.


In 1952 in the amateur ranks the only player who was at Gonzales’s and Segura’s level on clay was Drobny as you suggest in one of your answers. So perhaps the Czech could have prevented Gorgo from winning

however the latter would have had his fair chances.

Both players met on the amateur circuit in 1947 and 1948 and faced each other 4 times.

In 1947 when Gonzales was a baby, aged 19, Drobny beat twice Richard (ranked a few weeks later only #17 in the USLTA amateur rankings), first in a private match on Errol Flynn’s own court, then at the Pan American Champs. That same year baby Gonzales was already able to beat Drobny, which he indeed did in the 1947 Pacific Southwest.

So Drobny only led Gonzales 2-1 that year

In 1948 both players met once and Gonzales already a better player than the previous year, defeated Drobny in the 1948 US amateur.

So 1-0 for Gonzales.

It is likely that as soon as 1948 Gonzales would have had the edge on Drobny most of the time.

In 1955 among the pros Segura and among the amateurs Trabert (and perhaps Rosewall and Hoad both absent from the French amateur) could have rivalled Gonzales in a French Open but he would have been the favourite.

Anyway in 1952 and 1955 Gonzales’s chances to win a French Open on clay would have been very high, higher than anyone else

and in 1953, 1954, 1957, 1959 and 1960 wouldn’t have been nil, far from that.


III) About Jack Kramer

Sure, clay wasn’t Kramer’s best surface.

However he had good results on clay as soon as 1941, won his first clay court event in 1942 (Dixie Champs in Tampa).

He made huge improvements in 1948 when he faced Riggs

(who was, contrary to what you seem state, the best clay-courter of the time),

in their three 1948 pro tours.

They met a few times on clay that year :

apparently 3 times in the North American tour where Riggs won twice or 3 times (results not clear)

and once in the following 4-man tour in South America at Buenos Aires

(there were two other meetings in that city on indoor courts)

where Kramer won this time.

So as soon as 1948 Kramer could rival Riggs the world best clay-courter on clay.

In 1949 the best pros played on clay in the spring. The only results that I know are those of Barcelona, April 9-10, where Kramer beat Segura 63 62 then Riggs 57 63 62 the following day, and of Cairo, April 30 - May 1, where Riggs took his revenge in a very contested match, 64 46 97

(the previous day Riggs had been crushed by Segura 60 62).

So the best pros on clay in 1949, based on these very few results, were Kramer, Riggs and Segura

with Kramer very slightly ahead of his rivals

(better win-loss match record than Segura and better win-loss game record against Riggs).

That year the best amateur clay-courters were Parker (clearly the best of all : winner of the French, Egyptian (Cairo), Egyptian international (Alexandria), Paris International (held at Roland Garros as the French), Monte-Carlo, Pan American …), Gonzales (winner of the US Clay court amateur over Parker, and semi-finalist of the French amateur beaten by Patty) and eventually Patty runner-up of the French & Egyptian (to Parker each time).

In open confrontations on clay between Kramer and these best amateurs I would have bet on Kramer :

a) I haven’t still all the Parker-Kramer confrontations but Parker beat only once or twice Kramer when the latter was still a “baby” : it is possible that Parker beat Kramer in 1939 (though I am not sure), and in 1940 Parker defeated Kramer in the Seabright invitational. It is almost sure that Parker never beat Kramer after that match and especially after WWII, Parker always lost to Kramer therefore in 1949 the latter would have been a very huge favourite on any court surface including clay.

b) Gonzales was clearly less good than Kramer in 1949 and Pancho became a great clay-courter only in 1952.

c) Patty’s case is the most complex. I don’t think he ever met Kramer. However in 1949 he didn’t win any amateur clay-court event so once again I would favour Kramer.

In conclusion

In 1949, I think that Kramer was the best clay-courter in the world, by a slight margin, ahead of (in disorder) Riggs, Parker, Segura and so would have been the favourite of a French Open on clay.

In 1950 Kramer lost the US Pro on clay to Segura in 5 sets, the latter being possibly the best clay-courter in the world that year.

In 1951 the only pro clay events with some importance were the US Pro Clay Court Championships (Kovacs winner), the Canadian Pro (Segura winner over Kovacs) and the German Pro (Segura winner over Earn and Gonzales) with Kramer absent from all of them. It is likely that Kramer would have played an Open Slam on clay if it had existed then but my favourite player would have been Segura (then Kovacs and/or Drobny then in disorder Kramer, Savitt, Earn, Trabert, Larsen, Gonzales, Sturgess, Parker, …).

In 1952 there were, as so often in that era, few events on clay, apparently mainly in the European tour. Unfortunately many results are unknown : I just know that Kramer defeated Budge 57 60 63 in Paris on June 29.

In 1953 Kramer beat Sedgman and McGregor but lost to Segura on clay in Caracas. Kramer had also beaten Sedgman on tour in Jackson (possibly on clay).

Since 1954 Kramer was more or less semi-retired but sometimes he had some fine victories.

So in conclusion clay was Kramer’s worst surface however

between 1948 and 1953 Kramer’s chances to win a French Open on clay would have been great,

especially in 1949 when he was the best clay-courter in the world that year.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

IV) About William Tilden

… Tilden is an interesting case - he may have won the Grand Slam had the game been Open in the 1920s, but the competition and number of participants were much lower in that era, thus his achievement would not have ranked alongside Laver's…

It is clear that the competition was very much less intense in the 1920’s than in the 1960’s (Laver’s eraà or the 2010’s (modern era) because tennis wasn’t as popular and accessible

(sport was still an aristocratic leisure in those times though there were some facilities in some public parks especially in the west coast of the United States)

and financially attractive as today

(except some professional teachers and Lenglen and Tilden, very few could make a living from tennis).

However you consider Laver as one of the top players though in the 1960’s also tennis competition was very far from being as tough as today.

And what makes you claim that the draws and the number of participants were much lower ?

Now you have so many events with only 28 or 32 players in the draw. In the Masters 1000 the best players have only 5 matches to win these events. Therefore the draws now, except in the Slam events, aren’t huge.

In the 1920’s you also had events with very large fields.

About the competition there were also good players in Tilden’s era, I would say between 1917 and 1947.

Here is a random list of them

(in bold, top players in 1920-1925 and 1931 when Tilden was the world #1 (in 1931 it is very debatable whether Tilden was the #1)) :

Adrian Quist, Albert Burke, Algernon Kingscote, André Gobert, Béla von Kehrling, Benjamin Gorchakoff, William Johnston, William Talbert, Bryant Morel Grant Jr., Robert Riggs, Brian Norton, Bruce Barnes, Henry Austin, Charles Hare, Christian Boussus, Clifford Sutter, Daniel Prenn, Richard Skeen, Richard Williams, Robert Dennis Pails, John Donald Budge, William Donald McNeill, Dragutin Mitic, Elwood Cooke, Francesco Romanoni, Franjo Puncec, Francis Hunter, Francis Louis Kovacs, Frank Parker, Francis Shields, Frederick Perry, Edgar Moon, Gardnar Mulloy, Eugene Mako, George Lott, George Lyttelton Rogers, Gerald Patterson, Giovanni Cucelli, Giorgio de Stefani, Giovanni Palmieri, Francis Gordon Lowe, Gottfried von Cramm, Gregory Mangin, Hans Moldenhauer, Hans Nusslein, Henry Hopman, Harvey Snodgrass, Heinz Landmann, Hendrik Timmer, Heinrich Henkel, Henri Cochet, Howard Kinsey, Ichiya Kumagae, John Crawford, John Bailey Hawkes, John Kramer, Jacques Brugnon, James Anderson, Jan Kozeluh, Jaroslav Drobny, Jean Borotra, Jean Washer, James Cecil Parke, Jiro Satoh, Jiro Yamagishi, Joseph Hunt, John Bromwich, John Colin Gregory, John Hennessey, John Nogrady, John Doeg, John Van Ryn, József Asbóth, Kurt Gies, Karel Kozeluh, Kho Sin Kie, Lester Rollo Stoefen, Robert Lindley Murray, Louis Raymond, Manuel Alonso, Martin Plaa, Norman Brookes, Oscar Kreuzer, Otto Froitzheim, Francisco Segura, Patrick O'Hara Wood, Percival Davson, Pierre Pellizza, Randolph Lycett, Jean René Lacoste, Robert Kinsey, Robert Ramillon, Roderich Menzel, Roman Najuch, Sidney Wood, Takeichi Harada, Frederick “Ted” Schroeder, Theodore Mavrogordato, Umberto de Morpurgo, Vernon Kirby, Vincent Richards, Vivian McGrath, Wallace Johnson, Watson Washburn, Wayne Sabin, Welby van Horn, William Laurentz, Willis Davis, Wilmer Allison, Yvon Pétra, Zenzo Shimidzu.

Tilden met most of them either in official meetings or in private matches

(for instance he never officially played Kramer but he met him several times in mere exhibitions or training matches and each one beat the other, at the time neither player was at his peak)

and beat at least once all those he faced.

Johnston was NOT HIS SINGLE rival as I read incidentally in one of your posts in another thread but his greatest rival during his peak years :

here are the other great or good players that Tilden beat in great events during his whole career :

in great competitions Tilden defeated Kumagae (US 1918), Kumagae again (US 1919), Brookes (US 1919), Williams (US 1919), Patterson, Wimbledon’s winner (in the international match USA vs-Australia) (this match was the true 1919 world team championship, given that the USA, the greatest nation then, didn’t enter the Davis Cup to let the other nations win the Cup in a chilvarous gesture because the other nations had greatly suffered from WWII), Parke (Wimbledon 1920), Kingscote (Wimbledon 1920), Shimi(d)zu (Wimbledon 1920), Patterson (Wimbledon 1920), Laurentz (DC 1920), Kingscote (DC 1920), Parke (DC 1920), Johnson (US 1920), Johnston (US 1920), Brookes (DC 1920), Patterson (DC 1920 on Jan 1, 1921), Nicolae Misu (World Hard Court amateur Champs 1921), Jean Washer (World Hard Court amateur Champs 1921), Brian Norton (Wimbledon 1921), Shimi(d)zu (DC 1921), Kumagae (DC 1921), Shimi(d)zu (US 1921), Johnston (US 1921), Willis Davis (US 1921), Johnson (US 1921), Patterson (DC 1922), Anderson (DC 1922), Patterson (US 1922), Richards (US 1922), Johnston (US 1922), John Bailey Hawkes (DC 1923), Anderson (DC 1923), Manuel Alonso de Areyzaga (US 1923), Norton (US 1923), Johnston (US 1923), Howard Kinsey (US 1924), Vincent Richards (US 1924), Johnston (US 1924), Patterson (DC 1924), Patrick O’Hara Wood (DC 1924), Borotra (DC 1925), Lacoste (DC 1925), Richards (US 1925), Johnston (US 1925), Borotra (DC 1926), Cochet (French 1927), Cochet (DC 1927), Borotra (US 1927), Hunter (US 1927), Borotra (Wimbledon 1928), Lacoste (DC 1928), de Morpurgo (French 1929), Borotra (DC 1929), Doeg (US 1929), Hunter (US 1929), Karel Kozeluh (Beaulieu 1930), Borotra (French 1930), Borotra (Wimbledon 1930), Allison (Wimbledon 1930), Borotra (DC 1930), Karel Kozeluh (Pro Tour 1931), Richards (Pro Tour 1931), Howard Kinsey (US Pro 1931), Richards (US Pro 1931), Nüsslein (Pro Tour 1931), Nüsslein (Pro Tour 1932), Nüsslein (German Pro 1932), Karel Kozeluh (Pro Tour 1932), Nüsslein (Pro Tour 1933), Karel Kozeluh (German Pro 1933), Cochet (Pro team events 1933), Ramillon (French Pro 1934), Plaa (French Pro 1934), Hans Nüsslein (British International Pro Championships 1935, Southport), Nüsslein (Wembley Pro 1935), Cochet (Bonnardel Cup 1936), Nüsslein (Bonnardel Cup 1937), Cochet (Wembley Pro 1937), Vines (Wembley Pro 1939), Cochet (French Pro 1939), Budge (British International Pro, Southport 1939).

Not bad and not restricted to Johnston as you seem to think when Tilden ruled the tennis world between 1920 and 1925.

During these 6 years Tilden not only dominated Johnston but also greats such as Lacoste, Borotra, Patterson, Richards, Parke, Anderson, and an ageing Brookes. And when he was not the undisputed world #1 he was still able to dominate in head-to-head conforntations for some years such players as Cochet (1926-1927), Williams, Karel Kozeluh, Nüsslein. Among the great players only Cochet (between 1928 and 1930) and Lacoste (between 1926 and 1927) recorded several successive wins over Tilden.

You can note that I don't agree with you when you make these sort of comparison between greats.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

… Tilden is an interesting case - he may have won the Grand Slam had the game been Open in the 1920s, but the competition and number of participants were much lower in that era, thus his achievement would not have ranked alongside Laver's…

And in that case I can’t understand why you dare compare Laver with Nadal or Djokovic or Federer. If I use your own reasoning then Laver’s achievements aren’t nothing compared to Djokovic’s or Nadal’s or Federer’s.

I will explain to you why I completely disagree with your statements.

Of course there is no comparison between the strain supported by modern players and ancient players. Even the great Australians in the 50's didn't do weight lifting exercises. Rosewall explained that the only one who did that sometimes was Hoad but at the time there was no scientific approach of those exercises and Rosewall said that Hoad made them without any scientific knowledge and possibly hurt his back forever. Hoad being very athletic accepted every muscular challenge but doing badly those exercises (bad positions, ...) ruined his health and physical potential.

So yes the competition was lower in absolute terms but was it the case in relative terms ?

The true question is : what would have done Hoad or Rosewall had they been born fifty years later ?

And in our precise case here

What would have done Tilden if he had been born 94 years later against Djokovic

(1987 (Djokovic 's birthyear) - 1893 (Tilden's birthyear) = 94)

or the reverse

what would have done Djokovic against Tilden if the Serb had been born 94 years earlier ?

In his era Tilden made all his possible to find anything in order to be better than the others. At that time there was no video, almost no coaching, no physical training, no scientific approach of every stroke motion, no psychological training, ... as now

so it is evident that Tilden couldn't be as effective as a modern player. But with the small knowledges of his time he tried all the time to improve his game.

Perry for instance, thought that Tilden was a greater player than Budge because

on one hand when Budge has reached his peak in the late 30s-early 40s he didn't try to improve his game because he thought that it was sufficient to beat the others

and on the other hand Tilden after WWII, that is when he was about 52-53 years old, was still trying to improve his forehand.

So Tilden was a perfectionist. And in his time he was ahead of his generation in every department.

As Johnston put it, tennis was Tilden’s life.

Do you know that this is he, Tilden, who organized almost all the US pro circuit in 46 ? There was about 30 tournaments (which was enormous at the time) with (I don't exactly remember) 17 tournaments giving ranking points. Open tennis would have arrived in the late 40's (and not in the late 60's) if Tilden hadn't been put in jail in 1947 (then all the US Pro circuit collapsed).

Tilden had sometimes bad behaviours but he was very intelligent and always fought the establishment and always tried to better his game. Had he been born today I think (of course I can't be sure) he would have fought against the dominance of the hard surfaces which are the main responsibles of modern players' injuries. John Alexander, a good player of the 70's, claimed that it should be clearly indicated that hard courts are dangerous for health as cigarettes are. Tilden would have possibly pushed world tennis to find more comfortable surfaces for the players. Even the ATP indoor tournaments on the main circuit are played on hard surfaces. Consequently hard surfaces are too much used. I close the bracket.

All this to say that Tilden was always after perfection and was ahead of his time and so it is possible (not sure of course) that he would have been also a great champion in the 2010's. But I recognize it is only an assumption.

Nowadays what is the main factor behind the competition : the physical aspect of the tennis so the fitness and the power are the most important, not the only ones, but the most important part of modern tennis. Yes in the 1920’s the players were not as fit as today, there is absolutely no comparison. But it is very likely that Tilden and his contemporaries would be much fitter in the 2010's than they were in the 1920's and that Djokovic or Nadal would have been much less fit had they been born 93 or 94 years earlier.

So to compare abruptly Tilden as he was in the 20's with the modern players as they are now isn't an accurate comparison to say the least. Your reasoning is clearly wrong.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Conversely you could claim that Nadal or Djokovic or Federer would have been great champions in the 1920's but it is also an assumption.

In other human fields what really counts when comparisons are made, is to know if a person was (is) ahead of his generation. Nowadays it is evident that Edward Witten, the theoretical physicist

(known for the string theory or the M-theory or quantum field theory),

know many more scientific theories than Einstein did.

And the same can be said when you compare Einstein and Newton.

Does it mean that Witten is greater than Einstein or that Einstein was greater than Newton ? I'm not sure at all.

Without Einstein, modern physicits including Witten woudn’t have made all their new discoveries.

Idem with Newton. Without the latter’s discoveries, many Einstein theories would have been impossible and so on.

Newton made immensely progress his discipline and this is what really counts, then others and especially Einstein and Witten did the same.

Why wouldn't it be the same in tennis ? Why judge tennis players in absolute terms and not in relative terms ?
I remember Lendl, around 1987, saying that his superb forehand will be forgotten 15 or 20 years later (to the great astonishment of the interviewer) because tennis (as other human disciplines) would improve. However we can today retort that if Lendl played today he would possibly have a modern forehand very efficient. Don't forget that Federer's and Nadal's current forehands will be a little outdated, old-fashioned in 20 years because then forehands will probably be more powerful and precise. Does it mean that we will have to dismiss those players's strokes in a future GOAT comparison of forehands ? I don't think so. I think that even William Johnston's forehand could be taken into account in those sort of discussions.

The fact that the modern players nowadays are much fitter doesn't mean that they are greater. It is essentially due to the scientific progress which helps the modern training.

The fact that Usain Bolt now runs faster than Carl Lewis doesn't mean that Bolt is greater than Lewis as a sprinter.

What really counts is how you dominate your own generation, how you are ahead of your generation.

To compare players of different generations is almost impossible because the only way would be to take back a modern player to the ancient times or vice versa.

So the only good questions are those like

What would have done Nadal against Tilden had Rafael been born 93 years earlier ?

or

What would have done Tilden against Nadal had Bill been born 93 years later ?

These are the right questions-comparisons ?

Unfortunately the answers to these pretty tough questions are almost impossible not to say more.

However it is very likely that Tilden could have been a great champion in the 2010's

(and Djokovic could also have a great one in the 1920's).

But to compare (in absolute terms) "Djokovic 2016" with "Tilden 1924" is a pure nonsense.

In other human domains we don't compare men in absolute terms.

So to say that Federer or Djokovic are greater than the previous players just because the competition is supposed tougher or because they are physically stronger isn't a good argument.

So many persons have a tendancy to ignore and despise the past though the latter builts the present.

If players are so fit today this is in part thanks to players of the past.

Wilding was possibly the first tennis player who focused on fitness. Then other players followed his example. Hopman borrowed many physical exercises from Kramer and Schroeder when both US players came to take the Davis Cup from Australia in 1946. In their turn the Australians (in particular Emerson, the fittest of them all) became examples for younger players as Borg who, in his turn, was a strong influence on Lendl who later followed a very serious training program and so on until the modern players. So all are indebted to their elders.

So claim that modern players are greater than ancient players because they are physically stronger is just a fallacy.

In many other scientific or technologic domains, the human being improves so it would be a shame if in sport it wasn't the case.

It would be sad if athletes didn't run faster today than before or didn't jump higher, etc ...

However more athleticism in modern tennis doesn't mean that modern tennis players deserve more praise than the ancient ones. Now you have much more knowledge about weight and lifting exercises than you had in the 1950's. Had Hoad been born 50 years later nothing proves that he would have been less fit and strong than Djokovic or Nadal. And in reverse the latter couldn't have profit from all the modern knowledges if they had been born 50 years earlier and therefore even though they had had in the 1950’s the same mental and physical skills than today they would have been much less stronger than they actually are.

So (physical or other) improvement doesn't mean more greatness.

And even some don't consider that more athleticism is an improvement :

see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2865108&postcount=73

What has really changed is that the knowledges have improved but I don't think that dedication and quest of perfection has so much changed.

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. Why woudn’t it be the same in tennis ?

So I repeat the good, accurate comparisons are in relative terms but those ones are damn difficult to make not to say more.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

… If Laver's career had followed the same trajectory as it did in reality (but four years earlier), his theoretical 1957 and 1958 would be equivalent to his actual 1961 and 1962.

I don’t think because 4 years earlier Laver wouldn’t have been under the same circumstances :

a) Laver would probably have turned professional, in 1956 or 1957 as his elders, Rosewall and Hoad, and not in 1958 because in the mid-1950’s the amateurs couldn’t make a living as the amateurs of the early 1960’s.

In other words amateurs Hoad and Rosewall won much less money than amateurs Laver, Emerson, and Santana.

This explains why the former turned professional earlier than the latter (Santana even never turned pro),

b) Even though Laver would have turned pro as late as the end of 1958, the amateur circuit in 1957-1958 with Hoad (first half of 1957), Cooper, Anderson, Davidson and even Fraser, was more competitive than the amateur circuit in 1961-1962 with Laver, Emerson and eventually Santana (Fraser in 1957-58 was better than injured and ageing Fraser in 1961-62) :

the first pro matches of Laver in January 1963 showed the true level of the top amateurs in 1961-62 that is pretty low.

So if Laver had been born in 1934 as Hoad or Rosewall then it is almost sure that Rocket would never have made an amateur Grand Slam.

In the 1957 Wimbledon, you're right, he would probably have lost to Hoad. I give him a good chance of winning in 1958 against Ashley Cooper though. In fact, he may well have won the Grand Slam in 1958, given that Cooper won 3 of the 4 majors that year (and as we have already established, Cooper was in actuality pretty weak, never reaching the final of a pro major)…

Yes Cooper was never a World Top5.

In 1958 he was probably the #6 in the world

(behind Gonzales/Sedgman (I can’t decide between both), Rosewall, Hoad and Segura)

but Laver in 1961 was at best #8 in the world

and in 1962 Laver was clearly below Rosewall and even Hoad and Segura.

One can assume that Laver was probably quite equal to Gimeno and Buchholz in 1962

(in the early standings of the 1963 pro American tour, Buchholz was ahead of Laver who was himself ahead of Gimeno; Laver only evened then surpassed Buchholz later in the spring at the end of the 1963 American tour).

When Cooper turned pro in January 1959 he beat every top pro including Gonzales in the Australian tournaments before playing the 4-man tour (with Gonzales, Hoad and Anderson) starting in February

while Laver in his pro debut was crushed by Rosewall and lost each of his matches against a declining Hoad.

So in 1958 Cooper and Anderson

(you seem to forget that Anderson was very close to Cooper in 1957-58 and that Anderson, he, won a pro major at Wembley in 1959, beating Sedgman, Rosewall, and Segura)

would have been tough competitors to Rocket who, in my mind, couldn’t have made an amateur Grand Slam with this tougher 1958 competition than in 1962.

…Rosewall is an all-time great, of course he's capable of beating another all-time great. It doesn't mean he was more talented than Laver. Few would argue that Nadal > Federer in terms of diversity of shots, but he has sure beaten him often. … [QUOTE/]

This quote was your answer to my quote which reads as follows :

“You claim that Laver or Federer are multi-talented players than Rosewall but how do you explain that a man, Rosewall, with apparently no service in particular, was able to crush Laver in 1965 when Rocket was clearly the #1, in both the US Pro Champs on grass (truly faster than modern grass) and the French Pro on wood (the fastest surface ever used) respectively 64 63 63 and 63 62 64, at a time when Rosewall was supposedly already in decline.”

I agree with your last quote but not with your (chronologically) earlier quote.

In this one you wrongly claimed that “Laver or Federer are multi-talented players than Rosewall” :

I still strongly contradict that argument. Rosewall was pretty talented, much more than a fair quick look at his game seems to indicate. The only department where Kenny was not talented was the service. But in all the other departments he was pretty good not only because of regular work but because of his huge talents. Just take his backhand, the most obvious example. Ashe in his diary book ‘Portrait in Motion’ claimed that both players’ (Ken & Rod) best groundstroke was the backhand : Ashe said about Laver that Rocket had three backhands, a sliced one, a flat one and a lifted one whereas Kenny had only one backhand, slightly sliced almost flat. I guess that according to you Rosewall wasn’t multi-talented at all given that Kenny had only one backhand with no alternative. However when Ashe finished his description about Kenny’s stroke he did state that Rosewall had only one backhand, THE PERFECT ONE.

So Rosewall’s backhand was always the same, never surprising but so much efficient. Everyone knew how Ken would strike it, where the ball would land, and so on .. However no one could handle this stroke easily. Pc1 once talked about Sampras’s surprise at Wimby in 1994 when the latter was beaten several times by GrandPa Kenny’s backhand.

It makes me think of some critics’ assertion about Brazilian footballer Garrincha’s dribble

(Garrincha, true name : Manoel Francisco dos Santos, was one of the best, if not the best, football players in the late 1950’s-early 1960’s) :

always the same dribble, the same movement, the same feint. They were right.

However though there was no surprise in Garrincha’s dribble, no opponent could stop him : the Brazilian was always the winner in duels because his dribble was so fast and powerful that no one could counteract or stop it.

With Rosewall it was the same : no diversity, no surprise but very few solutions for the opponent.

So yes Rosewall was very much less versatile than Laver : no doubt about this. Yes Rosewall’s game was much less sparkling, attractive, enthralling than Laver’s but nonetheless Rosewall’s game was very efficient and talent is first that : to be efficient and not to make diverse, attractive, beautiful shots.

Furthermore talent is not restricted to technique. You give Nadal as an example of less talented player than Federer but it is perhaps (and not even sure) true on a technical level but not on physical or mental terms. Federer is not as talented as Nadal on the mental aspect

(of course I am not talking of the Nadal of 2015-2016).


Therefore Rosewall was certainly not much less talented than Laver as your “Multi” assertion claims.

Rosewall’s talent, though inferior to Laver’s, was in reality much more closer to Laver’s than you stated.

In reality, many, as you, confuse talent with variety and “beauty” or “aesthetics”.


Besides Rosewall was not only capable of beating Laver every now and then

but he indeed dominated Laver in major events’ head-to-head confrontations

… Presumably through intelligent play, in the same way that a player like Murray does well today. (forgive me but I don't think Murray has a "powerful and decisive weapon" in the same way that Sampras had his serve, Edberg his volleys, Federer his forehand etc. although Murray is certainly a talented player)…

as an answer to my quote :

How could you explain that such a little man with apparently no powerful and decisive weapon could not only extend but even defeat such players ?

Yes intelligence is a part of talent and this just shows that Rosewall was pretty talented.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…Sure. It would be interesting to know how their h2h would have turned out had they been the same age, and yes, Rosewall would surely have had a positive h2h against Laver in the period up to 1962, if they had met during that period.
Once again though, I must point out that it's double standards to say "look how great Rosewall was in his mid-late 30s, he was still winning almost everything" and then to turn around and say "his h2h against Laver was inevitably poor in that period as he was so old …

as your answer to my quote :

So it is true that Laver dominated Rosewall in head-to-head matches from 1964 to 1972 but Kenny won his fair share of matches

I disagree with you. There is no contradiction with the fact that Rosewall was still one of the best players in the early 1970’s (in his mid-late 30s) and the fact that his head-to-head statistics with Laver were biased in favour of Rocket.

You wrongly exaggerate statements I (or others) made just to build up a contradiction from nowhere given that my statements had no contradiction at all.

So I explain to you if you haven’t understood.

Linda Timms (UK) who made the 1966 Wembley tournament account for World Tennis stated that Rosewall had declined after the 1965 French Pro.

Kramer at the end of 1967 stated that in 1967 Rosewall played at 95% of his 1961-62 level for half of the year and played at a lower level for the left half of 1967.

Laver when he detailed his 1969 Grand Slam success talked of his French Open success and stated that in 1969 Rosewall’s decline was clear and that in particular Muscles’s concentration wasn’t his forte as in the early-mid 1960’s.

I could pick up many other examples.

In other words the Rosewall of the Open era was inferior to the Rosewall of the pre-Open era and especially of the early 1960’s.

It means in particular than in 1961-62-63 his serve was more efficient and that Kenny made less errors on his forehand.

It means that there were less bad days, etc …

It simply means that in the early 1960’s Rosewall played at his peak or close to it more often than in the early 1970’s.

It doesn’t mean that Rosewall never reached again his peak in the early 1970’s but just that he reached it less often than in the early 1960’s.

When one less often plays at his best means that he declines.

Rosewall’s peak was between 1961 and 1963

and not in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s

Ok.

So yes Rosewall could play very well in the early 1970’s

(He stated himself that the 1971 Australian Open was his best tourney ever on grass)

but it simply occurred less often than in the early 1960’s and even the mid-1960’s. That’s all.

So when you state

… Rosewall … His age is surely irrelevant if he is still playing so fantastically. I use this same argument when people talk about Federer only facing "old Agassi", which apparently diminishes his h2h against Agassi. This ignores the fact that Agassi was actually a lot more consistent and focused in his 30s than in his earlier career. ..

Once again I think you are wrong about Rosewall.

Rosewall has reached his peak at 27-28-29 years old.

Then given his style of play, his professionalism he has been able to stay close to his peak for many years

but he hasn’t been able (as everyone) to prevent a steady (though not strictly linear) decline.

So since 1964 Laver at his very peak has faced a Rosewall not at his very peak and so I am adamant that Laver was mostly favoured in his h2h.

It just means that if both players had met at their respective very peak at the same time,

Rosewall’s h2h statistics against Laver would have been better than the actual percentage (as of early 2017 given the results actually known to this day) stats’ of about 44,97% = 67 / (67+82).

I am just saying it would have been > 44,97% : I (and everyone by the way) am unable to estimate what would have been the percentage, but very likely closer to 50%.

One thing is sure, Rosewall was more regular and seldom (but sometimes) played below a certain level

while Laver was much more irregular with many downs and many ups.

In other words

most of the time you had to beat Rosewall

while most of the time Laver ruled the roost either in his favour when he was hot or in his opponent’s favour when he made many errors.

As I have said elsewhere

the very best Laver was better than the very best Rosewall

(the serve being the main explanation)

but Muscles was more consistent than Rocket and so their h2h would have been slightly different if they had been born around the same time.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

About Agassi and Federer I also disagree much with your argument.

You are right when you say that Agassi was more consistent after than before his deep sinking in late 1997.

However if you read his autobiography you will see that his last decline was due to his damaged body which caused his retirement earlier than he had wished.

When did Federer beat for the first time Agassi ? At the Masters Cup in Houston in November 2003 when Agassi was already slightly declining (#4 at the ATP rankings).

When did Federer defeat Agassi for the last time ? At the 2005 USO when Andre was ATP #7 (after this tourney he climbed to the 6th place and then steadily lowered in the rankings).

So was Agassi declining after November 2003 or were all the other players becoming better ? Perhaps both options.

However Agassi clearly indicated that his body was constantly torturing him in the last years of his career.

So Federer has never beaten Agassi before November 2003

and when he finally overcame the American the latter was physically handicapped, his body was (and probably will always be) broken then.

So once again it is likely that the best Agassi (mid 1994 to September 1995, 1999 to 2002) would have been a greater threat to Federer than the Agassi of late 2003-late 2005.

Agassi himself recognized that Federer was a greater player but it doesn’t contradict the fact that Federer never met the very best Agassi in top form physically.

Besides what I claim is not in contradiction with the fact that Federer improved after late 2005.

… Also, as I've pointed out before, the game pre-Open Era was less physically demanding, so players continuing to compete at the highest level into their late 30s/40s was much more common. Gonzales, Tilden, Segura etc. all did it. This doesn't imply to me that Rosewall, and these guys, were supermen. It means that they could compete to a later age due to the game requiring less in terms of physical fitness and stamina. Tennis was still, to an extent, something of a 'country club' sport until the Open Era and the era of Borg/Connors/Mac. It wasn't as bad as golf, but it was still one where players (granted, only the best players) could still compete at the top level to an age which today would be seen as extremely advanced. …

I don’t understand where you are wishing to go. I never claimed that Rosewall was a most superman than modern players because he had some successes at an age when modern players have been retired for years.

I have never claimed that a record of the 1960’s-1970’s (and earlier) could be directly compared with a record of the 2010’s.

The reasons I think that Sampras is inferior to Laver are not because Laver’s longevity has been longer than Sampras’s because I perfectly know that tennis has been more physically demanding in the 1990’s-2000’s than in the 1960’s-1970’s.

There are other reasons, the main one being the versatility : Laver made in particular the effort to adapt his game to slow European clay court and has been at least one or two years the best clay-courter in the world. As soon as 1963 Laver was able to beat Rosewall (and their colleagues) on clay. Sampras has never made this effort : he never tried to learn to adapt his footwork to clay and in particular he never learnt to slide on that surface. He didn’t want Lendl’s help when it was suggested (I can’t remember if the proposition was Lendl’s or someone else’s). Well I won’t develop, it is not the subject here.

There is no doubt the game was less demanding before.

This is even one of the less attracting part of the game of modern tennis : it is more and more based on physical strength and condition and less and less on technical prowesses : just look at the lack of net abilities of most of the players.

Besides nowadays the rackets are super large and the materiel allows much more power and sureness than the old wooden rackets.

So yes in the 1960’s the players could compete till their late 30’s/early 40’s

but it doesn’t mean that they were at this age as good as they were in their late 20’s.

So what ?

Rosewall was still a good player in the 1970’s

but he was undoubtedly less good than in the 1960’s as the witnesses of the time confessed.

Yes the game was physically clearly easier but even in these “old” eras players declined as modern players

though much less quickly.

Is it a definite argument to consider that modern players are greater than ancient players ?

Of course not

Because now athletes run the 100m at 9’58” and so on, are they greater than Carl Lewis or Jesse Owens ?

The true question, as I’ve said before, is how modern athletes would have done in Lewis’s or Owens’s time.

In tennis the question is the same.

You are talking about country club sport ? What do you think people will say in 2, 3 or 4 decades about Nadal’s, Djokovic’s, Federer’s physical prowesses ? They will laugh as people now laugh about Rosewall’s, Laver’s, Newcombe’s & al speed of strokes. They will say that Nadal’s serve was so low it was farcical.

And people then will have the same 100% wrong reasoning as you

and most of them will dismiss Nadal, Djokovic or Federer because they will say that tennis in the 2000’s-2010’s was a toddler’s game compared to the tennis of their times (2030’s-2040’s-2050’s, etc ...).

The true greatness of a tennis player is not the girth of his biceps but the imagination, the creativity, the will, the concentration, the method etc … he uses in order to be better and eventually better than his contemporaries.

So yes the tennis of the XXth century was not as athletic as the modern tennis but it doesn’t mean it was worth less.

I think you use that argument of “country club” sport to rate Laver below Federer in your GOAT ranking :

I won’t detail here my position but I think that Federer is below Laver in a GOAT list

(though undoubtedly in absolute comparison the best Federer wouldn’t have lost many games and even points to the Laver of 1967)

because mentally and technically (of course in relative and not absolute comparison) Federer isn’t as strong as Laver was : especially Laver’s forehand weakness wasn’t as important as Federer’s backhand weakness.


So if the physical aspect is so important in your GOAT measure

then your Goat ranking list is already obsolete before you even make it.

It is not impossible that Federer, that you consider as the Goat, is possibly already out of date compared to Djokovic vintage 2015-2016 because even at his best Roger is less good than the best Djokovic. And this player, in his turn, will be quickly exceeded by a new generation more physically trained (and perhaps mentally and even technically).

In other words when one considers that modern athletes are greater than ancient athletes simply because the modern ones works longer (and especially the physical side) and, above all, take advantage of the modern advances

then in that case establish a GOAT list is a nonsense because it becomes obsolete as soon as it is listed.

… That's good to know, but you are by your own admission picking and choosing events, and cannot give exact numbers for either men. Therefore I can't take these numbers entirely seriously, sorry

as an answer to :

Originally Posted by Carlo

And in my opinion, at least in majors (that is the 4 most important events of each year, a sort of equivalence of the 4 modern Slam tourneys)
Rosewall’s record is at least if not superior to Laver :
I assign Rosewall with about 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 majors (equivalent to modern Slam events) (my updated stats’ here can be slightly different from previous ones of mine)
while I assign Laver with about 18 or 19 or 20 majors (my updated stats’ here can be slightly different from previous ones of mine).

and

You also said “that Rosewall/Laver/Gonzales were all broadly in the same era, as were Hoad and other greats. These guys would have all taken slams off each other, so there's no guarantee that anyone would have reached 20 slams”…

.

I will answer to these two quotes simultaneously.

Of course my numbers are 100% sure because it’s pretty tough to select the greatest 4 events of any given year before the open era and even as late as the late 1980’s-early 1990’s

(is the Australian Open won in 1983 by Wilander a greater event than the 1983 Masters (held in January 1984) won by McEnroe ? Not evident).

So my choices are of course debatable but they are very close to the truth and better choices are very few.

Perhaps there are other attempts made by other persons to consider majors as I have done

but the only other one I found is that of SgtJohn (Jonathan) :

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3098710#post3098710

For some years he chose more than 4 events this is why he put a weight for each event with the annual sum of these weights being equal to 4.

So given that my list is not entirely identical to SgtJohn’s it just proves that at least my or his list is not completely objective.

However until proven otherwise

our lists are closer to the truth than MOST OF ANY OTHER LIST

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Below here is my personal updated list

of the 4 biggest events (in disorder when no ranking is indicated),

year by year,

from 1950 to 1972.

years when either Gonzales or Rosewall or Laver were very close to the top and able to win a true major,

(with the event winner underlined).


But first some remarks about it :

From 1950 to 1967 almost only professional events are selected given that at least the #1 pro (and eventually other following pros) was (were) clearly better than the best amateurs

except perhaps in 1952 when it is not sure at all whether the best player in the world was a professional.

What makes difficult to rate the best players in 1952 is their more or less similar records in … 1953.

So let’s have a try in comparing these players in both years.

In 1952,

the best pro was Gonzales clearly ahead of Segura though the latter was wrongly ranked #1 (as US Pro winner) by the PLTA (Kramer being #3); besides in known head-to-head meetings Gonzales defeated Segura 4 times out of 5.

The best amateur was Sedgman very slightly ahead of Drobny.

In 1953 either group of players probably improved but for different reasons.

Sedgman stated in late 1953 to Tennis de France that in contact with the best pros (first he met Kramer, then Segura and finally Gonzales) he had hugely improved as a tennis player since his amateur days.

It is also likely that Segura and Kramer had also hugely improved in 1953 for the simple reason that in 1952 they had played very few tennis competition.

In 1952 the professional circuit had been moribund with no great North American tour, with only some dates in Europe during summer and even less in America, and only 7 international pro tournaments. Segura the most “stakhanovist” of all entered in all these events (including the small tours) and played probably less than 35 matches in the whole year, Gonzales played only 5 of these events and Kramer, being injured most of the time, entered in only 2 tourneys

whereas that same year Sedgman has played about 118 matches in 1952 (22 tournaments + a Davis Cup challenge round)

so he had much more played competitive tennis than any pro, at least 3 times more than Segura.

Gonzales has probably not much improved in 1953 given that he was excluded of the Kramer-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor tour and that he met his first great player very late in the year (Nov. 19, Segura at Wembley)

So given that

a) pros Kramer and Segura have clearly improved in 1953 and that Sedgman has also hugely improved after turning pro that year,

b) Kramer, Segura, Sedgman were very close in 1953,

then it is possible that these players were also close in 1952.

Was Sedgman (and Drobny) close to Gonzales (and Segura) in 1952 ? Yes it is very likely.

Therefore picking so-called true majors in 1952 is a task almost impossible

and you will note in the following list that I can’t make now a choice..


So here is my list of the greatest four events of each year from 1950 to 1972 :


1950 : 1) the Kramer-Gonzales pro tour (Kramer), the US Pro (Cleveland) (Segura), Philadelphia Inquirer Pro (Gonzales), 4) perhaps the Paris Pro indoor round robin (Kramer) or the beginning of the Kramer-Segura pro tour (ended in 1951) (Kramer)

so whatever was the 4th event in 1950, Kramer probably deserved 2 majors that year.

In conclusion :

1950 : Kramer 2 majors, Segura 1 major, Gonzales 1 major.


1951 : 1) the U.S. Pro (Forest Hills) (Segura), 2) Philadelphia Pro (Kramer)), 3) the main part of the Kramer-Segura pro tour (Kramer), 4) Wembley Pro (Gonzales))

1951 : Kramer 2 majors, Segura 1 major, Gonzales 1 major.


1952 : as stated earlier I can’t pick up 4 events.

Among the pro events the greatest ones were 1) Wembley Pro (Gonzales), 2) the U.S. Pro (Cleveland-Lakewood) (Segura) and Philadelphia Pro (Gonzales), 4) Berlin Pro-Rot Weiss Tennis Club (Gonzales).

Among the amateur events 1) the Davis Cup (Sedgman), 2) Wimbledon (Sedgman), 3) Roland Garros (Drobny), 4) Forest Hills (Sedgman).

The best amateurs in the world were 1) Sedgman, 2) Drobny, 3) McGregor, and far behind the top three, more or less tied, Seixas and Rose then in disorder Mulloy, Flam, Sturgess, Larsen, Savitt, Rosewall, Hoad.

Even the 4-man Berlin pro event had perhaps a tougher field than any amateur event : Gonzales, Segura, Pails and Budge were the pro players who entered in Berlin. Gonzales and Segura were probably as strong as Sedgman and Drobny while Pails, a very underrated player because he played little due to the fact he wasn’t a drawing card, was possibly as good if not better than McGregor, Rose or Seixas. Pails beat Gonzales as late as 1954 in the Australian Pro Champs. In late 1954 Pails played a set with amateur Seixas, then holder of the US amateur championships, during the Davis Cup Challenge round training and trounced the American who quit the court disgusted. As late as 1957 Pails was able to beat Rosewall and Hoad in pro tournaments and beat several times Segura in their pro tour. So though the 1952 Berlin Pro event had a very small field (4 entrants) he was about as tough to win as the Davis Cup or Wimbledon

(in 1952 Budge was not anymore in Gonzales or Segura class but was still a strong opponent).

So being not able to choose the greatest 4 majors in 1952

I will grant one major (any one) to each of the very best players :

1952 : Sedgman 1 major, Gonzales 1 major, Segura 1 major, Drobny 1 major

but without any solid argument except the fact that these players were the very best in the world, clearly ahead of the rest of the pack and very close in their own category


1953 : 1) Wembley Pro (Sedgman), and then probably tied at #2) the New York Pro indoor Champs (Kramer), the Chicago Pro indoor Champs (Kramer), the Venezuela Pro round robin Champs (Segura). As often it is very tough to rate the professional North America tour because as ever long tours were based on commercial considerations and the players selected were not automatically the best two players in the world but the best attractive cards : the Kramer-Sedgman tour just proved that in the first half of the year Kramer was slightly better than Sedgman on fast board courts and that Segura was clearly better than McGregor on that surface. In fact the small 4-man events in New York and Chicago gave more information about these players’ level : on fast wood Kramer was ahead of Sedgman and Segura, both more or less equal, themselves ahead of McGregor.

Here again the choice of majors is pretty hard given that there was not a single event with all the best players

(this time undoubtedly the best pros : Segura, Sedgman, Kramer and eventually Gonzales)

1953 : Kramer 2 majors, Sedgman, 1 major, Segura 1 major

The fact that a player has won more majors than anyone else doesn’t automatically mean for me that he was the best in the world : for instance I consider that in 2016 Murray has been a better player than Djokovic by a margin superior to that of the ATP year-end rankngs whereas the Serb has won 2 majors against only one for the Scottish.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

1954 : 1) the US Pro in Cleveland (Gonzales), 2) the Australian Pro (Sedgman), 3) perhaps the Far East Segura-Gonzales-Sedgman-Kramer pro tour (Segura) (there was apparently no official winner in this tour but Segura had the best record), 4) the Australian Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor pro tour (Gonzales).

I only rank the Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge (and Earn) pro tour at the 5th place because, though it was sort of entitled the World pro Championships, the players involved were less good than those in the aforementioned events :

Budge was less good than Kramer (who played the Far East tour) or McGregor (the Australian tour) as his record shows.

Budge in the North American tour won only 1 match against the triumvirate Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura

while McGregor and Kramer both registered several wins against these same three players.

1954 : Gonzales 2 majors, Sedgman 1 major, Segura 1 major.


1955 : 1) the US Pro in Cleveland (Gonzales), 2) the Australian Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-Ayre pro tour (Gonzales), 3) the US Pro Hardcourt in Los Angeles (Gonzales), 4) either Slazenger Pro in Scarborough or even the pro tour matches in Rome with Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor in June

(in the last event the winner was possibly but not sure at all, either Segura or Sedgman).

1955 : Gonzales 4 majors (or eventually 3 majors), Segura 0 major (or eventually 1 major)


1956 : 1) Wembley Pro (Gonzales), 2) the first Pro Tournament of Champions at Los Angeles (not held at Forest Hills that year) (Gonzales), 3) the US Pro (Cleveland) (Gonzales) and the French Pro (Roland Garros) (Trabert)).

1956 : Gonzales 3 majors, Trabert 1 major


1957 : 1) the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) (Gonzales), 2) the Masters Round Robin Pro in Los Angeles (Gonzales), 3) the Australian Pro (Sydney) (Segura), 4) the U.S. Pro (Cleveland) (Gonzales).

I only rank Wembley Pro at the 5th place (incidentally won by Rosewall) : it has always been an invitation tournament and that year Sedgman and Trabert weren’t invited which weakened much the field.

1957 : Gonzales 3 majors, Segura 1 major

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

1958 : 1) the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) (Gonzales), 2) Wembley Pro (Sedgman), 3) the French Pro (Roland Garros) (Rosewall), his first major ever in my opinion), 4) Masters Round Robin Pro in Los Angeles (Segura)

then follow 5) Melbourne Pro (Hoad), and 6) the Australian Pro (Sydney) (Sedgman)).

1958 : Gonzales 1 major, Sedgman 1 major, Rosewall 1 major, Segura 1 major


1959 : 1) the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills) (Hoad), 2) Masters Round Robin Pro-Los Angeles (Gonzales), 3) the February edition of the New South Wales Pro-Sydney (Gonzales), 4) the Victoria Pro-Melbourne (Sedgman)

then follow 5) the South Australia Pro-Adelaide(Hoad), 6) Western Australia Pro-Perth(Hoad), and only 7) Wembley Pro(Anderson), and 8) French Pro(Trabert)).

Though the Wembley Pro and French Pro tournaments had a (small) tradition I only rank them at the 7th and 8th places because, contrary to other great events, Gonzales, then probably the best player in the world, was missing both tournaments. The fact that a great player, even the best in the world, is absent from tournaments is not a sufficient reason in itself to downgrade their importance,

but Gonzales had good reasons to boycott these events as a rebellion against Kramer : it was a legitimate dispute given that Kramer didn’t pay fairly Gonzales in pro tours against the newcomers.

I also don’t rank the 4-man tour won by Gonzales among the very greatest events given that too many great players were not invited : this tour just confirmed that Gonzales was better than Hoad, Cooper and Anderson though he lost to Hoad in direct confrontations.

1959 : Gonzales 2 majors, Hoad 1 major, Sedgman 1 major


1960 : 1) the Gonzales-Rosewall-Segura-Olmedo pro tour(Gonzales),

and very far behind 2) Wembley Pro (Rosewall) , 3) the French Pro (Roland Garros) (Rosewall), and eventually 4) the Australian Pro Indoor in Melbourne held in May (Rosewall)

then probably tied at the 5th place the Pacific Coast Pro Champs (Hoad), the Los Angeles Pro tournament (Rosewall).

Here is a year which clearly shows that picking the 4 greatest events is not always at 100% the most accurate comparison with the modern format of the 4 Grand Slam tournaments.

Nowadays the 4 Slam events have more or less the same importance and so are all comparable

(even though, among the male players, Wimbledon is usually (not always) the greatest event, followed by Roland Garros and the USO more or less tied, then the AO).

In 1960, given the circumstances, even if the Gonzales-Rosewall-Segura-Olmedo pro tour had a weaker field than Wembley pro or Roland Garros pro or Melbourne pro, it was the greatest event by far because it demonstrated that year the clear Gonzales dominance over his pro collegues :

though Rosewall had led Gonzales in direct confrontations the previous year (1959), 6-4 to my knowledge,

in that 1960 pro tour, Gonzales crushed Rosewall 16 wins to 4,

and besides players were not allowed in this tour to volley just after serving which possibly lowered Gonzales’ opportunities to win some easy points

(Gonzales also overcome easily both Segura and Olmedo).

Therefore this tour had much more importance than the tourneys which followed : I can’t give an accurate estimation of their respective importance but this tour should be weighed perhaps by 1.0, while the Wembley pro, the French pro, and the Australian Pro indoor should be granted each a weight of around 0.2-0.3.

In other words Gonzales’s tour victory counted at least as much as Rosewall’s overall wins in the other 3 less important majors

So instead of granting Rosewall with 3 majors against only 1 for Gonzales

I estimate

1960 as follows : Gonzales 2+ majors, Rosewall 2- majors

I know it is not objective and a mere rough assessment but 1960 is even tougher to apprehend than 1952.

Had the pro circuit in 1960 been structured as it is nowadays, Gonzales would never had ended his season in mid-May as then so he would have played the whole year and entered in the summer-fall majors and it is very likely that he could have won another major among Wembley, Roland or the Australian indoor.

But in 1960 even though Gonzales played only 4 months

his overwhelming dominance on the tour

was enough for him to be considered as arguably and undoubtedly the top dog

so he didn’t have to play anymore for the rest of the year and in particular the two European major events.


1961 : 1) Wembley Pro (Rosewall), 2) the French Pro (Roland Garros) (Rosewall), far behind 3) Vienna Pro (Gonzales), and the Scandinavian Pro-Copenhagen (Gonzales)

1961 : Rosewall 2 majors, Gonzales 2 majors


1962 : 1) Wembley Pro (Rosewall), 2) the French Pro (Roland Garros) (Rosewall), then far behind 3) Gold Trophy Geneva Pro (Rosewall), and Milan Pro (Rosewall)

1962 : Rosewall 4 majors



This is probably the year when Rosewall could have made a Grand Slam



Don’t tell me Phoenix that Rosewall couldn’t have won Wimby that year (and the following year too).

You and anyone else are not able at all to give me another credible player who could have more chances to win a Wimby Open in 1962 than Muscles : Hoad no way, Segura no way, Laver no way, Gonzales no way. The clear favourite by far, 3 classes above anyone else in 1962, would have been Rosewall


1963 : 1) Wembley Pro (Rosewall), 2) the French Pro (Coubertin) (Rosewall), enough far behind 3) the U.S. Pro-Forest Hills (Rosewall), 4) Kitzbühel Pro (Laver) or Cannes Pro (Laver)

Though Rosewall won a professional Grand Slam in 1963 I don’t think he deserved a true Grand Slam because Rocket had made huge progress that year (50% according to himself) and would have had great chances to win a major. But once again, as in 1962, Rosewall was clearly ahead of the pack, winning all the greatest events (Wembley, Coubertin and Forest Hills)

1963 : Rosewall 3 majors, Laver 1 major


1964 : 1) Wembley Pro (Laver), 2) the French Pro (Coubertin) (Rosewall), 3) the US Pro (without Sedgman, whereas he was present in the two big European tournaments) (Laver), then far behind 4) the US Pro Indoor-White Plains (Gonzales)

then follow (5) Masters Round Robin Pro-Los Angeles(Rosewall), and Volkswagen Pro-St Louis Pro(Rosewall), 6) College Park Pro(Gimeno)

1964 : Laver 2 majors, Rosewall 1 major, Gonzales 1 major


1965 : 1) Wembley Pro (without Gonzales) (Laver), 2) the US Pro (without Gimeno) (Rosewall) and the French Pro (Coubertin) (without Gonzales) (Rosewall), far behind 4) the US Pro Indoor-New York City (without Hoad) (Laver)

then follow tied at #5) the Victorian Pro-Melbourne (without Gimeno) (Laver), the New South Wales Pro-Sydney (without Gimeno) (Gonzales), the Queensland Pro-Brisbane (without Gimeno) (Rosewall)

1965 : Laver 2 majors, Rosewall 2 majors


1966 : 1) New York City-Madison Square Garden Pro, the greatest prize money event ever to date (Rosewall), 2) the US Pro (Laver), 3) Wembley Pro (Laver), 4) the French Pro (Coubertin) (Rosewall)

(then (5) Pro Clay Court Championship-Barcelona(Gimeno) and possibly Forest Hills Pro (Laver))

1966 : Laver 2 majors, Rosewall 2 majors


1967 : 1) Wimbledon Pro (possibly the most important pro tournament in the pre-open era though with a reduced field of 8 players) (Laver), 2) the US Pro (the strongest field of the year) (Laver), 3) Wembley Pro(Laver), 4) the French Pro (Coubertin) (Laver)

(then follow 5) Los Angeles Pro (Rosewall), 6) New York City-Madison Square Garden Pro (Laver), and 7) Pacific CoastBerkeley Pro (Rosewall)

1967 : Laver 4 majors

Here is Laver’s year that should be celebrated instead of 1962.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Then at last the open era arrived

However in the first years the events hierarchy was almost as unstable as in the pre-open era until at least 1982 included :


1968 : 1) Wimbledon Open (Laver), 2) the U.S. Open (Ashe), 3) tied Roland Garros Open (Rosewall) (it was the first Slam Open ever but many players missed the tourney a) because of the events of May 1968 in France, b) some amateurs had commitments to play in other European events (Berlin, Saltsjöboden, …), c) Dave Dixon, boss of WCT prevented his players to enter in the tournament, and d) the US Davis Cup team (with Ashe, Graebner, & al) had to play the final rounds of the American zones Davis Cup) therefore among the best claycourt players absent at Roland were Okker, Santana, Roche, Newcombe) and the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles (Laver) (with most of the best, all the contract pros, NTL or WCT, and amateurs Ashe, Okker (registered), Graebner, Richey were there)

(then follow 5) the French Pro (Laver), 6) US Pro (Laver), and 7) Wembley Pro (Rosewall).

Just a remark there to underline once again the Davis Cup importance a few decades ago :

as stated earlier, Ashe, Graebner, Pasarell, Smith, Lutz didn’t play the first Slam Open tourney in Paris because they were selected in the US team facing Mexico (24-26 May) then Ecuador (7-9 June) while the French Open was held from May 27 to June 8 (men’s singles) & 9. Even the first year of the Open era some of the best players in the world could (and should) skip major individual events in favour of that Davis Cup team event.

Do you imagine nowadays Djokovic, Murray or Federer not playing the French because their national team should face a minor country in a Davis Cup tie ? No of course.

1968 : Laver 2 majors, Ashe 1 major, Rosewall 1 major


1969 : 1) Wimbledon Open (Laver), 2) the U.S. Open (Laver), 3) Roland Garros Open (Laver), 4) possibly the Australian Open (Laver) because there were all the best Australians who were the best players in the world ; however were missing some other great foreign players such as Ashe, Graebner, Smith (in fact all the US Davis Cup team) or Okker (the Dutch tennis player had been registered for the AO by his new promoter, the WCT, but he had preferred to refine, to lock his contract as a new professional player and he chose to enter later that year in his first pro tourney in Philadelphia)

(then 5) the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles (Gonzalez) (his name was then spelled with a “z”), 6) the Howard Hughes Open in Las Vegas (Gonzalez), 7) the Philadelphia Indoor Open (Laver)

1969 : Laver 4 majors


1970 : 1) Wimbledon Open(Newcombe), 2) the U.S. Open (Rosewall), far behind 3) Philadelphia Open (Laver), 4) the US Pro (Boston) (Roche)

(then probably tied at #5) the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles, and the Embassy British Open Indoor at Wembley, 7) the Slazenger Dunlop Open International in Sydney, 8) the first Grand Prix Masters in Tokyo)

1970 : Newcombe 1 major, Rosewall 1 major , Laver 1 major, Roche 1 major


1971 : 1) Wimbledon Open(Newcombe), 2) the U.S. Open(Smith), 3) the Australian Open(Rosewall), 4) tied the WCT Finals-Houston&Dallas (Rosewall) or the Italian Open (Rome) (Laver).

The fact that I grant Rosewall with perhaps 2 majors (so eventually more than Newk or Smith) doesn’t mean that I consider Rosewall as the world #1 (if the Australian and the WCT Finals have to be considered both as majors, they were at a clear lower level than Wimby’s : in 1971 there was a huge difference Wimby and any other competition including the USO).

1971 : Newcombe 1 major, Smith 1 major, Rosewall 1 (or 2) major(s) , Laver 1 (or 0) major


1972 : 1) the U.S. Open (Nastase) far ahead any other event of the year given it was the only competititon with all the great players and besides it was a Slam event,

so and far behind 2) tied the Pacific Southwest Open (Smith) in Los Angeles

(the 2nd best field of the year, after the U.S. Open, with many WCT and independent professionals in the field)

and the WCT Finals-Dallas (Rosewall),

4) either the Stockholm Open (3rd field of the year) (Smith)

or perhaps the Davis Cup

(there was no clear top player in that event as Orantes defeated Proisy who beat Gimeno who beat Smith who beat Nastase who beat Gorman … : I would say that (Smith) would deserve the title of the best Davis Cupper that year though he lost to Gimeno))

or Wimbledon (Smith).

So in every case I grant Smith with the 4th most important event, be it Stockholm, Wimbledon or the Davis Cup. I recall that no pro player under contract (WCT) could enter the Davis Cup, Wimbledon and Roland Garros because they were banned from the traditional circuit from January through July : during Wimbledon, Newcombe, a WCT player in 1972, won the St. Louis WCT tournament then commented the Wimbledon final on TV whereas he was the titlist.

1972 : Smith 2 majors, Nastase 1 major, Rosewall 1 major

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

So in the period 1950-1972 my own subjective records are as follows :

When names are followed by (1950-72) it means that these players stats’ don’t take into account major wins outside of the 1952-1970 period : for instance Kramer has won true majors before 1950 this is why I precise Kramer_(1950-72) whereas in my opinion neither Segura nor Gonzales has won a true major before 1950 or after 1972 this is why their name is not followed by _(1950-72) :


Kramer_(1950-72) : 2+2+0+2 = 6

Segura : 1+1+1+1+1+0 or 1+0+1+1 = 7 or 8

Gonzales : 1+1+1+0+2+4 or 3+3+3+1+2+2++2+0+0+1 = 22+ or 23+

Sedgman : 0+0+1+1+1+0+0+0+1+1 = 5

Drobny : 0+0+1 = 1

Trabert : 0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 1

Rosewall : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0+2-+2+4+3+1+2+2+0+1+0+1+1 or 2+1 = 21 or 22

Hoad : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 1

Laver : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+2+2+2+4+2+4+1+1 or 0 = 19 or 18

Ashe_(1950-72) : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 1

Newcombe_(1950-72) : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+1 = 2

Roche : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 1

Smith_(1950-72) : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+2 = 3

Nastase_(1950-72) : 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 1


So I grant Gonzales with 22+ or 23+ true majors, Rosewall with 21 or 22 majors and Laver with 19 or 18 majors.

You stated in a post that you doubt these three players could have won as many majors

but you don’t seem to understand that there were not really rivals of the same generation

as Federer-Nadal-Djokovic used to be in a recent past (and perhaps again since the start of this year).

The latter are born within an interval inferior to 6 years: 1981-08-08 (Federer) and 1987-05-22 (Djokovic)

whereas Gonzales-Rosewall-Laver were born more than 10 years apart : 1928-05-09 (Gonzales) and 1938-08-09 (Laver) and Rosewall was born 6 years and a half after Gonzales and and almost 4 years before Laver (1934-11-02).

Though there was a pretty intense rivalry between these three players from early 1964 to mid-1965 when they share all the great titles, each of them reached his peak years at different times due to their different age.

Therefore the Gonzales/Rosewall/Laver (in that order because it was the chronology order) rivalry was not so strong simply because these three players were not broadly of the same era.

According to my “numbers” Gonzales would have won his first major in 1950 (see earlier “Philadelphia Pro”)

while Rosewall would in 1958 (1958 French Pro, I still don’t consider the 1957 Wembley Pro as Ken’s first true major)

and Laver in 1964 (US Pro) that is a span of 14 years

whereas the great modern players have won theirs in 2003 (Federer), 2005 (Nadal) and 2008 (Djokovic) in a span inferior to 5 years so very shorter than that of Gonzales-Rosewall-Laver.

Now let’s have a look at the chronology of all these players’ dominations :

In my opinion Gonzales was the undisputed #1 for 4 years (1954-1957) before Rosewall could claim any true major :

I think that Gonzales would have won something like 15 or 16 majors before Ken won the 1958 French Pro).

Rosewall only became a true rival of Pancho from that moment.

The same is true if one compares Rosewall and Laver.

Rosewall hugely dominated the world tennis from mid-1960 (during Gonzales temporary absence) then September 1961 (once Gonzales had come back) to mid-1964, winning most of the majors before Laver reached his own peak.

It is possible that Kenny would have won about 12 majors before Laver’s first great success.

And of course the Gonzales-Laver rivalry is “almost inexistant” given that Gonzales won his last major in 1964 (US Pro indoor) while Laver won his first (1964 US Pro) two months later.

So Gonzales ruled the tennis world in the mid-1950’s and could be the #1 as late as August 1961 when he won the Geneva Gold Trophy tournament with all the best players in the draw.

Then Rosewall ruled the tennis world in the early 1960’s

while Laver did the same in the late 1960’s.

In conclusion Gonzales’s, Rosewall’s, Laver’s peaks were at different times

especially if we compare them with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who comparatively had their own peaks much closer than the ancient trio of players

(by the way Roger, Rafa and Djoko can still improve their own record).


THEREFORE THERE IS A GREAT PROBABILITY THAT GONZALES, ROSEWALL AND LAVER COULD HAVE WON 20 OR EVEN MORE TOURNEYS EQUIVALENT TO THE MODERN SLAM EVENTS, HAD TENNIS BEEN OPEN WHEN THEY PLAYED


My estimations have naturally a margin of error but the latter is very small.

These numbers, of course, are not official.

But I repeat, the “official” numbers are COMPLETELY INACCURATE and PURE NONSENSE

while my numbers aren’t far from the truth and give a better idea than any official source stupidly mixing apples and oranges.

In the case of Kenny and Rod

it just indicates that it is not impossible that Rosewall could have won a little bit more majors than Laver.

So the conclusion I gave is good :

it is very likely that Rosewall has won as many if not more majors than Laver and what is sure is that both players are very close on that point.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Now not a direct answer about your posts

but my view about the World (US) Pro tours

I do not consider the World Pro tour as the pinnacle, the most important pro tennis event of EACH YEAR WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

In fact I don’t even think there is a single year since 1931 (when Tilden turned pro)

when the World or-North America Pro Tour was undoubtedly the first pro event and the one which designated the world's best pro (or in certain years the best overall, pros and amateurs combined) player.

Here are the years when I think the tour was possibly but NOT SURELY the #1 event :

1931 (with US Pro) ???

1933 (with World Pro in Berlin) ???

1934 (with US Pro, Paris Indoor, Wembley Indoor) ???

1937 ?

1938 ?

1939 (if one consider the Budge-Vines and Budge-Perry tour as one overall tour)? Here again debatable given that once more Nüsslein was discarded though he was roughly at the same level as Vines and probably better than Perry in 1939.

---

1946 (with US Pro) ?

1947 (with US Pro) ?

1948 (with US Pro) ?

1949 (with Wembley Pro) ?

1950 (with Philadelphia Inquirer and US Pro) ?

1951 (with Philadelphia Inquirer and US Pro) ?

1960


In fact I don’t think I consider any North American (World) Pro tour

as the undisputed greatest event of any year.


Perhaps the only tour I possibly favour is that of 1960 (and eventually that of 1946)

in reality I don’t even consider both as really the first events.

The reason I choose them is because the players involved then (Riggs and Budge then Gonzales and Rosewall) were so much better than the rest of the pack that both tours perhaps (but not surely at 100%) decided who was the #1 and #2.

Had Riggs and Budge not be so dominant in the pro tournaments and especially at the US Pro I am not sure I would consider their “world” (North America, South Africa, Europe) tour as possibly the first event.

Had not Gonzales so crushed Rosewall in the early 1960 tour and also had not Kenny dominated the last 2/3 of the year in the absence of Richard

I would not even consider the 1960 tour as a top4 event of that year.

…Mind you, Gonzales and Rosewall are two of the greatest of all time, so I am not taking anything away from their achievements.

.

Of course you are taking something away from their achievements because you are unable to recognize them at their fair value.

The fact that you consider them as two of the greatest of all time is one thing

but the fact that you underrate them is another.

And you underrate them when for instance you claim that “Gonzales' record on clay would be even worse if he'd faced any top-class clay courters in Nadal's league” in another post that I will comment later. And you said, in April 2013, that there was a gap between Federer and Nadal : I wasn’t totally convinced then and not even now in 2017 though Federer has won in succession the Australian, the BNP Paribas and the Miami Opens. I also think that you overrate Federer who technically and mentally is not as strong as some of his earlier successes had made believe.

You indeed downgrade Gonzales’s and Rosewall’s achievements by wrongly considering that Gonzales was no better than Sampras on clay and that Rosewall wouldn’t have won Wimby

whereas Gonzales was clearly better than Sampras on dirt

and Rosewall clearly ahead of the pack in 1962-1963 on every surface including all sorts of grass.

As said before, Gonzales was probably the best claycourter in the world in 1952 and 1955

whereas Sampras has never been the best on clay, far from that :

Sampras’s very apogee was between December 1995 and June 1996 when he beat Kafelnikov (and Chesnokov) in Davis Cup and reached the semis at Roland defeating Bruguera and Courier before falling to Kafelnikov.

Sampras was then at best #3 or #4 on clay (Muster and Kafelnikov being undoubtedly the very best).

There is absolutely no comparison on clay between Gonzales and Sampras.

On a good week or fortnight Gonzales could won any clay event and beat any specialist. Sampras didn’t know how to move on clay : he was absolutely unable to slide on clay whereas any clay-courter indeed is. He played on clay as on fast outdoor concrete courts. He refused to be coached on clay by Lendl. What an error !!!

On the other hand

Gonzales moved on a court like a cat and was one of the best defender ever. Gonzales is not very known for that but in reality he was almost as comfortable in the backcourt than at the net.


And about Rosewall as I proved earlier that

there was no player in 1962 and 1963 who would have been at Ken Rosewall’s level on any surface including Wimby grass.

… Mind you, Gonzales and Rosewall are two of the greatest of all time, … I never said by the way that Laver was "so far ahead" of any of them, in much the same way that I wouldn't say Federer is "so far ahead" of Nadal, or Sampras of Agassi; but there is a gap, in my opinion)…

I may be wrong but

I don’t think I wrote thatYOU stated that Laver was “so far ahead” of Gonzales or Rosewall[/B]

but Iwrote :

“Many, including you, rate Laver far ahead of any of his elders, for one main reason …”

in http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7339343&postcount=1088.

You didn’t state it clearly black on white

but you indeed think it

because you underrate all the players before Laver’s arrival :

a) you consider that it was then a country club sport, in other words a mere leisure,

and b) you don’t know much about tennis history as your Davis Cup perception clearly shows.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

… The normal figures given are 23 'majors or major equivalents' for Rosewall and 19 for Laver. Of course, Laver won three Grand Slams or equivalents thereof (1962, 1967, 1969) and was ranked world No 1 for longer than Rosewall - and was Wimbledon champion four times (4-2 final record) compared to Rosewall's 0-5 final record. For me, Laver gets the nod as greater than Rosewall (I place Laver 2nd, and Rosewall 6th, all-time). I see no weakness in Laver's resume, although there is one in Rosewall's. …

LET ME LAUGH ABOUT YOUR NUMBERS

“Official” figures = stupid figures

As ever there is no subtlety in your analysis, comparing coldly figures without any thinking and interrogations.

You claim that you don’t take my numbers entirely seriously

but you use these pathetic “normal” numbers which have absolutely no sense.

My numbers are debatable, no doubt about it, but they are very closer to the truth than these “normal” figures completely “artificial” :

these “normal” figures as you say, are in reality completely abnormal and gather apples and oranges in the same basket. These “normal” numbers are completely stupid. The fact that they are “official” doesn’t mean that they interpret or have anything to do with reality.

I try to pick up the true greatest 4 tennis events of each year

given the tumultuous politics in tennis before the structured ATP tour created in 1990 and improved in 2000.

Your “normal” (“official”) numbers come from mixing amateur Grand Slam events with Pro and Open Grand Slam events in the same way

which is just ridiculous.


Firstly

amateur Grand Slam events,

especially in the last years of traditional shameful amateur years,

were minor events

won by “immature” players who were not (or not yet) the very very top players in the world.

These amateur Grand Slam events should never been compared with Pro or Open Grand Slam events

because the former were simply second or even third class events.


Now let’s talk about the supposed Pro Slam events (Wembley Pro, French Pro and US Pro).

Yes they were “easier” to win than Open Slam events

given that the Pro Slam events draws were much smaller than those of the Open Slam events,

but they were less numerous than the traditional Slam events

so

it is completely unfair to compare numbers of Pro Slam events won by the professionals before the open era

with numbers of Open Slam events won by modern players :



there were, in the best years, only 3 Pro Slam events per year (or 2 or 1 or even 0 in 1944)

while there are 4 Open Slam events.


For instance in 1948 Kramer, who was at the height of his powers, could have won 2 or 3 or even 4 Slam events if tennis had been open

but he won only 1 Pro Slam event (the US Pro) and not 2 or 3

because there was no Wembley Pro and no French Pro that year.


Riggs is another example.

In 1946 and 1947 there were 4 amateur Slam events each year

while there was only 1 Pro Slam event (the US Pro) each year

that Riggs won both years, etc …


There are so many other examples.


And besides, as the amateur Grand Slam tourneys or Open Grand Slam tourneys in the first decades of the open era,

there were sometimes professional tournaments more important as the so-called Pro Slam tournaments.

For instance

the Professional Tournament of Champions held at Forest Hills from 1957 to 1959

(there was an earlier edition in 1956 at Los Angeles)

was possibly the most important (pro) event in tennis, even ahead of the London Indoor Pro Champs (Wembley)

but is not considered nowadays as a Pro Slam event.

Other pro events such as the Bristol Cup (1920-32), the World Pro Champs in Berlin (1932-33), the International Pro Championship of Britain held at Southport (1935-39), the US Pro hardcourts (1945-46), Australian Pro (1954,57,58), the Masters Pro round robin in LA (1957-59), the Madison Square Garden Pro (1966-67), Wimbledon Pro (1967) and perhaps others should be considered in most cases as Pro Slam events.


In other words the so-called “official” majors aren’t true majors.

Therefore trying to determine the true greatest events is more accurate, suitable, adequate

than simply considering the “official” majors

even though this task can be pretty difficult not to say impossible in some years.

In tennis, more than in most other sports,

politics have so much disturbed the tennis competitions

and thus skewed the true levels of the players and consequently their true world rankings

for one main reason :

the players simply could not decide where they could play.

It was pretty unfair.


For instance how could anyone consider Wimbledon 1958 as a major

when the best six players in the world

(Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura and Trabert)

were not allowed to enter in this event ?

To consider Wimby 1958 as a major is a pure nonsense.


So Phoenix these 19 and 23 figures that you cite, are completely inadequate.



Therefore you can’t use them to rate Laver and Rosewall and claim from these figures that Laver has no weakness whereas Kenny has one.



You also can note that I don’t use this biased argument to state that Rosewall has won many more majors than Laver (23 to 19).

I never denied that Rosewall succeeded in Davis Cup. However, that is a team event and should not be used as the basis for ranking the GOAT contenders. Otherwise we would have lots of reasonably good Americans and Aussies appearing high up on GOAT lists just because they had great Davis Cup records.


Wimbledon was still tops for individuals.

Completely inaccurate :

just shows how much you ignore about tennis history and that you are not all competent to establish any GOAT list.

As I have previously said,

look once again at the http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7333674&postcount=1053 krosero post

who perfectly contradicted you and revealed your profound ignorance of tennis history.

Besides there wouldn’t be so many Americans and Aussies in any good GOAT list because of their Davis Cup records.

This is due to the fact that

the Davis Cup was the true greatest tennis event only in the late 1900’s, the first half of the 1910’s (given that WWI prevented any competition from 1915 to 1918) and in the 1920’s.

As soon as Tilden turned pro late in 1930

many other great amateur players walked in his path and did the same after him.

Then the pro tennis became more important

so the amateur Davis Cup lost some of its greatness and its place as the first tennis event

(ahead of Wimby until circa 1959 which is the original case of our disagreement)

to become progressively only the first AMATEUR event

and not anymore the first event.

Therefore many Aussies and Americans did well in the Davis Cup

but at a time when the Davis Cup was “just” the greatest amateur event without any very best pro allowed to play this competition.

In other words Emerson, Fraser, Trabert, McKinley & al won a (or several) depleted Davis Cup event(s).

Their feats in that event helped them to get very good AMATEUR rankings

but not very good overall pro-amateur combined rankings.

Emerson has probably the best amateur Davis Cup amateur record of all :

it just helped him to be the best amateur in his best years

but only the #4 or #5 tennis player in the world and not the #1

(Laver, Rosewall and possibly Gonzalez and Gimeno were ahead of him in the mid-1960’s).

… See some of my comments above about age in the earlier eras of tennis.

I completely agree with the fact that tennis was physically less demanding in previous years. Even a guy such as Ljubicic claims that tennis was less physically tough when he began his career than when he ended it. Federer also confirmed recently that the physical side importance has grew since his career debut.

However I completely disagree with you when you sort of state that great players of the 1950’s-1960’s were as good in their mid (or late)-thirties as in their late twenties or early thirties considering that they didn’t decline with advancing age.

It is wrong.

Even in those times the physical side was important though much less than nowadays, 50 or 60 years later.

The players of the 1950’s-1960’s also declined physically

but simply much less quickly than modern players

because the physical part was not as important as today.

However the physical part was already important in those times :

do you really think that the Australians’ training after WWII was just for the fun ?

If Australia has won so many times the Davis Cup in the 1950-60’s

it was mainly because of the physical training of its nationals

(and also because of the advantage of the home conditions (public support, surface, weather and so on ...)).


In other words Gonzales was less good in 1964-1965 than in 1960

and idem for Rosewall respectively in 1968-1969 and 1961-1962-1963.


That Gonzales’ and Rosewall’s physical declines in 4-5-6-7 years were less important than modern players’s physical declines in the same lapse of time is undoubtful

but

that these “ancient players’s” declines were EFFECTIVE is also undoubtful.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

… Rosewall led Laver 10-6, according to you. However, the non-clay score is 5-5. This does bias things a bit towards Rosewall. (Nadal also had a leading h2h against Federer in majors even when the latter was at his peak; a 3-2 record in the period 2005-07). …

Your wrong argument here just shows how incompetent, ignorant, and very inaccurate about tennis history you are.


So I copy here my old quote about the 16 (10-6) confrontations in question :

“US Pro 63 (Rosewall winner), French Pro 63 (Rosewall), French Pro 64 (Rosewall), Wembley Pro 64 (Laver), US Pro 65 (Rosewall), French Pro 65 (Rosewall), Madison Square Garden 66 (Rosewall), US Pro 66 (Laver), Wembley Pro 66 (Laver), French Pro 66 (Rosewall), Wimbledon Pro 67 (Laver), Wembley Pro 67 (Laver), French Open 68 (Rosewall), French Open 69 (Laver), WCT Finals 71 (Rosewall), WCT Finals 72 (Rosewall).
(I don’t think that the Dunlop Open Sydney 70 was a major but I don’t entirely dismiss it as a major so I can eventually add a Laver win here).


You can see that

Rosewall led Laver in major matches, 10 to 6 (or 7 with Sydney 1970).

At one point, March 1966 after the MSG event, Rosewall even led Laver 6-1 !!!

Laver began to reverse the trend in July 1966 at the US Pro when Rosewall was close to 32 years old

but never evened the score and stayed clearly behind Ken in those great confrontations.


If I put aside 1963

in order to compare a Rosewall, in his true declining years, with a Laver at his top

(which is clearly biased in favour of Laver)

you can note that Rosewall still led Laver 8-6 (or 7).”


So in these very important confrontations

ONLY TWO were played on clay, Roland 1968 & 1969, and only another one on a slow court, MSG 1966,

thus 13 MEETINGS WERE PLAYED ON FAST (outdoor or indoor) COURTS

Therefore AN ALREADY DECLINING ROSEWALL LED A PEAK LAVER 8-5 ON FAST COURTS

in these great events.


So where do your 5-5 stats come ? I remember you that the French Pro was played on very fast indoor wood between 1963 and 1967. Do you ignore that ?


PHOENIX YOU ARE CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN TENNIS HISTORY AND ANALYSIS WITHOUT ANY SLIGHTEST DOUBT

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo

Rosewall not only beat Laver in majors on grass but even 4 years in a row on the Coubertin French Pro wood court, one of the fastest court ever used in tennis (the East Court of the Queen’s Club was very likely the fastest ever), from 1963 to 1966 (I recall that Laver’s best years were probably 1964 to 1967), so a surface apparently truly more suited to Rocket.

…Nadal has beaten Federer on grass, albeit not 4 years in a row (this is probably the most impressive Rosewall achievement you have enlightened me to, and I concede, it is very impressive). …

How can you make such a comparison :

Nadal beat Federer on 1) “SLOW” grass and not on fast grass and besides 2) ONLY ONCE.

… I don't think I underrate Rosewall. I have him at sixth place all time. Four of the men I have above him (Federer, Laver, Gonzales, Borg), you have already stated as GOAT contenders, so you can't blame me for putting them ahead of him presumably? Again, why on earth you have left Sampras off your GOAT list, I can't imagine, but there are many reasons for ranking Sampras ahead of Rosewall;

- six straight years as YE No 1, in the Open Era
- 7 Wimbledons (7-0 record in finals, Rosewall's 0-5)
- 14 Open Era majors + 5 WTFs (is this better than 23 total majors, including 4 amateur, 15 pro, 4 Open? - not sure, but it's close)
- won the Davis Cup when it wasn't that important (Rosewall couldn't win Wimbledon, when it "wasn't that important"

)

T.B.C... …

Once again wrong reasoning. The fact that you place Rosewall at the sixth place doesn’t counteract the fact that you underrate Rosewall because you judge his career without fully considering his feats in the pro ranks between 1957 and 1967 when he was at the apex of his career.

You judge him mainly on his “amateur” and “open” careers

but you completely underrate his “pro” career when at his best

and especially between 1961 and 1963 :

at that time he was not only the world #1

but also the world #1 on every conceivable surface.

If tennis had been “open” in 1962, he could have won easily each Open Slam tournament

and in 1963 he very probably would have won at least 3 Open Slams and conquered a 2nd Wimbledon Open title.

I don’t criticize your ranking (for the moment) but your arguments :


It is clear that Rosewall was the better by far on grass in 1962 and 1963



and that the probability that he won Open Wimbledons both years would have been very close to 1 (that is 100%).



Besides in 1961 and also possibly in 1965 he would have been again the favourite.



In those years (1961, 1962, 1963, 1965)

Rosewall was clearly better than later during “his” open years

so it is very likely that his results at Wimby in the first half of the 1960’s would have been better than in the early 1970’s (1970 to 1972, his best Open years on fast courts).


You don’t want to admit it whereas it is completely true.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Another error of yours :

I haven’t claimed that Rosewall was ahead of Sampras (but neither the reverse too) as you wrongly suggest.

I said that Sampras was less good than Federer

(especially since Fed’s success at the 2017 AO and in the first two Masters 1000).

This conclusion is very likely good given that both players’ careers can be compared.

Both had the opportunities to play all the majors unlike elder players (especially those of the pre-open era) and though they weren’t of the same generation (10 years apart) they both had played in the early 2000’s at a good level, Top10 players nevertheless not at their respective peaks.

Therefore their careers are quite easy to compare unlike for instance Budge’s with Connors’s.

It is almost certain that Sampras was slightly less good than Federer.

Consequently it is almost sure that Sampras can’t be the GOAT given that at least one player in tennis history is ahead of him.

Sorry for repeating the same thing as before

but apparently you need to be recalled some trivial things.



As I have said before, Sampras was perhaps very slightly better than Fed on fast courts due to his most efficient service

but Fed was really better on slow courts and that last point makes Fed the better of the two almost surely.


Rosewall’s case is different : his greatest rivals were Gonzales (6 years older) and Laver (4 years younger)

and unlike what you are claiming it is not sure at all that Laver was greater than Rosewall or Gonzales.

Your arguments are biased because your comparisons are wrong.


You consider that Laver has won everything

(which is true if one excepts the WCT Finals in the early 1970’s which were Laver’s main goal at the time, a goal that he didn’t reach).

but you think that Rosewall didn’t

(which is true only in “technical” terms : he was barred from Wimby for 10 successive editions when he was at his best).


You also think that Gonzales would never have won an Open Garros

whereas he was very possibly the best claycourter in the world in 1952 and 1955.

Besides even against greater claycourters than him such as Rosewall, Segura or even Laver,

Gonzales has always won a good share of his matches against them on clay.

It has never been one-sided as it has been most of the time with Sampras.

Almost everybody could beat Sampras on clay

while Gonzales was rarely beaten on that surface by a second-rate player.


So in conclusion of these two topics

(Rosewall’s and Gonzales’s)


I would say that

a) it isn’t sure at all that Rosewall was less good than Laver or Gonzales

so there is a small possibility, not a great one but a small, that Rosewall could be the GOAT

while Sampras is almost surely not the GOAT

given that at least one player in tennis history is almost surely better than Pete : Federer.


So if you read closely what is written above you will understand that it does not mean that Rosewall was better than Sampras.


It means that Rosewall was perhaps the GOAT (very small probability)

and it also means that Ken was perhaps less good than Gonzales, Laver and eventually other players including Sampras.


The only almost certainty is that Sampras was not the #1 id est the GOAT.

Capiche ?

In any case, I can present a good case for all of my top 5 being greater than Rosewall. Why is 6th place all time so bad? It's the guys here who say he is GOAT that I think are going a bit over the top…

I have never said anywhere that a 6th place is so bad. And perhaps this is the right place.

What is so bad is your wrong arguments

and it is very likely you don’t have good ones to prove that any of your top5 list player is above Kenny.

… Maybe I underestimated this aspect of his game a bit. It still didn't help him Wimbledon in 1970 though, Newcombe was still superior at that style of game. (Please refer to my previous arguments if you're tempted to bring Rosewall's age into this) …

Your answer to

Originally Posted by Carlo

Rosewall became a true top player once he turned pro because then he learnt to play a serve-and-volley game on fast surfaces and thus made his game much more complete..

Yes Rosewall’s age is an argument : at times in that final he seemed lacking energy and being tired.

What is age argument ? The fact that tennis was physically less demanding in the 1950’s-1960’s-1970’s than nowadays and you conclude that players in their mid-30’s were as good as in their in late 20’s.

As I’ve said earlier this is simply wrong.

So I repeat

Yes in those times decline was much slower than today

however decline was a reality even though it was much less pronounced than today.


So Rosewall was less good, not much but slightly, in his thirties than in his late twenties

and so was less good in the open era than in the 1960s of the pre-open era


as Laver was slightly less good in the 1970’s than in the mid-late 1960’s

as Gonzales had slightly declined after 1960.


Of course these declines were not definitive day after day :

these players could still on a given day play their very best tennis.


Rosewall probably played at the USO 1970 or at the AO 1971 at his very best,

Ken claimed that the AO 1971 was his best ever grass tourney performance.


However his great days in the open era were much less frequent than in the pre-open era.


As I have said earlier,

Kramer thought that in 1967 Rosewall was worth 95% of Rosewall in 1961-1962 and besides for only 6 months

and that the other 6 months left of 1967 Kenny was even below these 95%.


Of course this assessment of Kramer was a mean trend and not a constant :


Pierre Barthès,

among the Top10 professional players in 1967 (and very likely among the Top20 in a pro-amateur combined ranking),

thought in late 1967

that Rosewall in June 1967 had been so strong

that even the best Laver has probably never been as good as Kenny during this month

(Rosewall won 3 tourneys out of 4, beating Laver twice out of three).

But day in day out, in 1967 Kenny was very likely less good than in 1961-1962-1963.


So it is likely that Newcombe didn’t face the very very best Rosewall on that July 4, 1970.

This last assertion of mine doesn’t contest however Newcombe’s win that day.

Newk himself in his autobiography stated that he was in the ‘zone’ when he played the fifth set of the final.


So in that match,

Newcombe was at his very best, especially in the fifth set

while Rosewall was a trifle below his best.


Had both players been at their very best that day would Kenny had won this final ?

Not impossible but the probability that Newcombe would have won this fantasy match was in my opinion, slightly superior :

I can’t give precise numbers but possibly 52%-48% in favour of Newk.

The younger player had a much better serve, especially the first serve while Kenny had better groundstokes and a much better footwork and anticipation. At the net it is likely that both players were more or less equal (Ken’s backhand volley was at least as good as Newk’s forehand volley and the same on their reverse volley).

So it is possible that the very very best Newcombe was better than Rosewall ever, was on Wimbledon grass

that is fast grass with low rebound.


This last assertion doesn’t contradict

a) the fact that Rosewall wasn’t at his very very best on July 4, 1970,

and b) that in 1962-1963 and perhaps in 1961 & 1965,

Rosewall was better on grass than any other player in the world (Gonzales, Laver, Emerson, Gimeno,…)

and so could have won at least 2, if not 3 or even 4 Open Wimbledon titles.

… Nope, still not convinced that Rosewall is GOAT.…

Answer to

Originally Posted by Carlo

With the above arguments, if anyone considers Laver as a GOAT contender then he has to look very carefully to Rosewall’s career and not dismiss the little Masters of Sydney in any consideration related to a GOAT analysis..

Once again your answer is inaccurate.

My argument was that Rosewall should be considered in any GOAT list

but I never said that he was the GOAT as you wrongly claim.

… Interesting stats but I'm not really sure how this is making the case for Rosewall > Laver. The years they both played from when Laver debuted in a major championship (AO 1956) to the end of this period (1971), it seems they each had eight years of being the best player (1956-1963 for Rosewall, 1964-1971 for Laver). I tend to think that, if tennis had been Open earlier, Laver would have caught up with Rosewall, Gonzales et al earlier on (he didn't even have the chance to do so until 1963 in actuality). .…

Once again your reasoning is biased because as always in Laver’s favour.

You consider that if tennis had been open Laver would have been at the top earlier

(which is probably true)

so in your opinion he would have been even greater than he actually was

(which is probably very false).


Yes it is probably true that he could have rivalled Gonzales and Rosewall earlier if tennis had been open.

But you simply forget that

one can state exactly the same thing about all the amateur players at the time who couldn’t face the very top professionals.

Therefore you can claim exactly the same thing for Gonzales and Rosewall when they were amateurs :

Had tennis been open Gonzales would perhaps have dominated tennis well before 1954

and Rosewall would have improved also earlier.

You can use that same argument about all the players of the pre-open era :

for instance Kramer could have been the #1 before 1948 and so on …

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…"Close" to the top spot isn't No 1. Connors and Agassi were close to the top spot in the Open Era for ages (both 16 years inside the Top 10), yet neither spent (in reality, not according to the ATP ranking system) that long as the best player in the world. In Agassi's case, one year (1999), in Connors' (actual, not rankings) case, probably three years (1974, 1976, 1982).

No-one is denying Rosewall's incredible longevity, but it's not as if he was No 1 for 10-15 years. He was below Hoad in the amateurs, then below Gonzales in the pros, then below Laver in the pros/Open Era, with only a brief period at No 1 in the early 60s. Similarly to Borg and Nadal, he racked up loads of majors without being a consistent, year-in year-out No 1 like Gonzales/Laver/Sampras/Federer. .…

answer to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo

So Rosewall was close to the #1 spot for almost 15 years (1957 to 1972 except 1969)

while Laver was for “only” 10 years (1963 to 1972). :


Where did I say that “Close to the top spot” means “No 1” ? Nowhere.

I do not dispute the fact that Gonzales/Laver/Sampras/Federer were #1 longer than Rosewall :

in my opinion Rosewall was #1 for probably 3 years (1961 to 1963)

while Gonzales was #1 for possibly 7 years (between 4 and 8), Laver for 6-7 years, Sampras for 6 years and Federer for 5 years (4 consecutive).

So on that point these players were superior to Rosewall, there is absolutely no doubt.

But if one considers the “close to the #1 spot” point which effectively is more or less equivalent to the ability of winning majors

then Rosewall was a very top player longer than Laver.

There is no question that this feat (“Close to the top spot”) is not as great as the fact that Laver was #1 longer

but it is not so minimal.



Incidentally I don’t agree, once again, with another of your assessment, this time about Borg :

Similarly to Borg and Nadal, he racked up loads of majors without being a consistent, year-in year-out No 1 like Gonzales/Laver/Sampras/Federer.

Unlike Nadal (who is a “non-continuous #1 : 2008, 2010, 2013),

Borg was a #1 year-in year-out for four consecutive years in a row (1977 to 1980)

though he was completely unfairly ranked #3 by the ATP computer at the end of 1977 and fully stupidly ranked #2 by the computer in 1978.

Borg is the first very great that I watched live many times during his apogee.

For some years (1978 to 1980) he was nearly invincible and almost extraterrestrial as he was nicknamed by Nastase, Barazzutti and other players.

When you claim that Borg wasn’t a year-in year-out #1, you just reveal that

you are either too young to have watched Borg

or you are blind because Borg has dominated the pro circuit in a way that very few have done.

The ATP rankings of the time were very wrong and didn’t rightly show Borg’s domination in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s.


Once again you show your ignorance of tennis history.



(even relatively modern history because Borg is not of Tilden’s era).

I can tell you that at his peak Borg was a more complete player than both Federer or Nadal have ever been.

As soon as 1978 Borg had improved to the point that he had not Federer’s weakness on the backhand

(Fed’s backhand in the 2017 AO final was an exception because it was pretty good whereas his forehand was mean enough that day; since Federer ‘s backhand has been still pretty good on hard courts as his successes at Indian Wells and Miami have shown)

and Borg had a much more threatening service than Nadal and a better backhand than the Spaniard.

Since the mid-1970’s I have never seen a player so mentally strong, even perhaps Nadal. Until the very last point was over you never could say that Borg had lost.

Borg’s technique was, I think, the most complete I have ever seen in 4 decades.

Yes you could find some weaknesses on the return for instance, especially on his backhand side

(Borg stood very far back on his return and that left him vulnerable to very great serve-and-volleyers)

and on his volley

(which was not always hit cleanly and was a little weakness on high bouncing courts while it was vey efficient on the XXth century Wimbledon grass because the ball died on the lawn with its low bounce) .

However these weaknesses weren’t as huge

as Federer backhand’s at the backcourt against high bouncing topspin shots

or as Nadal’s serve.

Just a remark contradicting for once, as an exception, what is said just above :

in the 2017 AO, Indian Wells and Miami matches against Nadal, Federer’s backhand has been pretty good

(at the 2017 AO it was very likely due to the speed of the court : the “Court Pace Index (CPI)” of the 2017 AO Rod Laver arena was 41,7 id est the fastest court of all the recent great tournaments after the 2016 Masters 1000 of Shanghai at 43.8).

In fact in the 2017 AO final, Federer’s backhand was for once his best weapon. It was clearly better than both his own forehand which was mean in comparison and also Nadal’s forehand of the day.

It was one of the rare matches where Federer beat Nadal on the ad court while usually the Spaniard has the last word.

Federer had repeated his backhand performances on apparently clearly slowest hard courts at Indian Wells, CPI=30,0 and Miami, CPI=33.1 both in 2016 (in 2017 however Miami was “slowest” according to Federer).


Now some words about the CPI : it should be called the SPI (“S” for surface) and not the CPI (“C” for court)

because the CPI does not rate the speed of the court

but rates the speed of the Surface of the court

which is slightly different.

The speed of the court depends of course on the speed of the surface of the court

but also on the geographical conditions (temperature, humidity, altitude)

and the CPI doesn’t mesure these conditions.

Finally there is a third speed

which is the only true speed :

the speed of the “tournament” which is the speed really felt by the players.

This one takes into account everything :

the speed of the surface, the geographical conditions and a third element : the balls used.

These can truly change the conditions and be as important as the first two elements.

So even if the surface speed (wrongly called CPI) was quicker at Miami (at least in 2016)

and the balls used different,

the much greater relative humidity in March at Miami, about 69.5% against about 37% at Indian Wells,

explains perhaps why the speed of the “Miami tournament” was slower (according to Federer) than the speed of the “Indian Wells tournament” :

the greater relative humidity at Miami adds weight to the balls which are consequently slower than in a dry atmosphere.


After this huge bracket

I come back to Borg

in the late 1970’s and sometimes in the early 1980’s

no one could attack Borg on his backhand

while one could attack Fed’s backhand(especially on slow courts) or Nadal’s serve (even that of the 2010 USO).

Of course I am talking in relative terms.

Borg 1978-79-80 couldn’t have rivalled with players of the late 2010’s

but Borg, given the conditions of his time, possibly reached what was the best then.

If conditions (training, equipment, dietetic, etc…) had been the same

I think that Federer would have ****ted in his pants against Borg’s physical, technical, mental strengths.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Hadn’t Borg been injured (the thumb holding the racket) at the 1978 USO

there is a great probability that he would have beaten Connors

(something like 3 sets to 1 or 2, because Jimmy played that day one of his best matches ever)

and made the trip to Australia.

It is not unlikely at all that Borg could have made the Grand Slam in 1978.

In 1979, Tanner was pretty lucky too to have his match scheduled on a night-session at Flushing Meadows with artificial lights decreasing Borg’s vision and so his reflexes to return Tanner’s lightning serves.

Finally in 1980 still at the USO, Borg apparently didn’t move well laterally

and above all there is this so much important point in the fifth set that McEnroe very likely missed though he was granted the point by the umpire.

So from 1978 to 1980 Borg was so much ahead of the pack, clearly the very dominant player.

Already in 1976 Borg had missed the world #1 place by the slightest margin :

in my opinion, Connors was still the world #1 in 1976

because Jimmy’s superiority in “Masters 1000” equivalents of the time made up his inferiority to the Swede in true majors.

But as soon as 23 January 1977, at the Pepsi Grand Slam, Borg beat Connors for the first time since more than three years

and it upset the balance of power between both players.

In July, the Swede confirmed his position as the true #1 by defeating Connors in the Wimby final

(Borg still considers today this match as the greatest between both players

because he knows that it was the definitive match which confirmed he had upset Connors from the top)

(some claim that Vilas was the #1 in 1977 but in fact Vilas was “only” the world #1 on clay when Borg was absent and the world #2 when Borg played in the same event).

From this moment Borg laid a rarely achieved domination on the circuit.

For instance in 1978 his win/loss games ratio was of about 2/3 which is one of the best ever and probably the best of the open era.

He continued this sort of domination until his loss to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimby final.

Therefore you are wrong when you state that Borg wasn’t a world #1 year-in year-out :

Borg was the world #1 from January 1977 (Pepsi Grand Slam tourney) to June 1981 (Roland Garros).

The ATP rankings were very wrong at the time

(these rankings are again bad since 2016 given that they don’t count Olympics and Davis Cup in their calculations).

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

You could say that Borg never won the USO and that’s true

but he had three great obstacles that few players, especially the modern ones, had to handle :


a) Borg had to endure the greatest pressures than any player in tennis history had to face.

In terms of popularity he was the Beatles of tennis. It means in particular no security : anybody was able to get in his property or hotel.

The modern celebrities are nowadays unattainable

(I already told that John Lennon’s murder is what triggered all the protections and precautions surrounding the modern celebrities).

Federer, Nadal or Djokovic are pretty much more protected than Lennon or Borg were.

Borg suffered from many more death threats and hysteria than the modern players.

Anybody could touch or physically assault Lennon or Borg.

No tennis player in tennis history had to endure the stress that Borg endured.


As I quickly said earlier,

b) Borg was the victim of one of the most important ever umpiring error in a fifth set of a major title match, in the 1980 USO final

In that fifth set, the controversial McEnroe ball was clearly out (I watched it live)

and was counted in for McEnroe, at the expense of Borg.

The Swede who was not on his best physical form (he seemed not to move laterally very well),

didn’t need that twist of fate.

I am not saying that had there been justice on this critical point

he would have won the match and the title

but he was clearly unfavoured or Mac was clearly helped.


c) Borg was a member of a generation who had to adapt to more difficult conditions at the USO than other generations

simply because his generation (Nastase, Connors, Borg, Vilas, Orantes, Panatta and so on)

had to play the USO

on three different surfaces (American grass, Har-tru clay and hard decoturf “cement”)

and at two different venues (Forest Hills and Flushing Meadows).

No other generation of the Open era (and of the amateur era) had to deal with such difficulties.



Now another subject :

many dared and still dare to compare McEnroe with Borg

but there is no comparison possible at all between both players.

Borg is pretty superior to McEnroe.

a) On any surface but clay, Borg was pretty equal to McEnroe as their many (official and unofficial) meetings showed

but b) on clay there was a huge gap between both players, the Swede being largely better than the US citizen.

On clay, Borg was a giant while McEnroe was a Lilliputian compared to the Swede on that surface.

Unfortunately for the Swede and very luckily for the US citizen, seedings have never been made on rankngs by surface

which is for me heresy.

Given that during Borg’s era, Mac was almost always seeded about #2, 3 or 4 and in mid-1981 even #1,

Borg couldn’t have the chance to show his clear domination over Mac on clay by meeting him on that type of court

seeing that the US citizen player wasn’t able to reach the semis or the final of any clay tourney where Borg was present.

Mac has never reached the semis of any clay major before the 1984 Roland final at a time when Borg was then virtually retired.

In the end McEnroe has never won any major on clay, his 1984 Roland result being his best ever.

Had McEnroe rightly not been seeded on clay during Borg’s era (given his poor results then on that surface),

he would have probably met Borg several times on clay because the meetings would have been scheduled in earlier rounds

and in that case McEnroe would have been crushed by the Swede each time they would have faced each other.

Borg was so much better than McEnroe on clay but the US player has been very lucky not to face Borg on clay.



Now I will talk about Nadal’s interrupted reign as world #1.

You are right when you claim that Nadal has not been a year-in year-out #1

however the Spaniard had some extenuating circumstances.

This is due, IN PART to the facts that Nadal had

a) to face an unparalleled competition,

and b) as a modern standard, to play too much on hard traumatic surfaces.


Nadal has not retained in 2009 his world #1 crown obtained in 2008 because mainly of the second fact.

Injuries also prevented Nadal a lot from keeping his first place ranking in 2012 and 2014.

As early as the spring of 2008 Nadal has taken the measure of his, then, greatest rival Federer on every surface possible except the fast indoor ones

and in 2009 he had confirmed his reigning status by beating Federer on the Australian plexicushion hard surface.

Then probably only injury prevented him from winning the 2009 French Open and very likely retaining his #1 world crown.

In 2012 same thing, it is not unlikely that a not injured Nadal could have reached the #1 spot.

I recall that after the 2012 AO, Djokovic didn’t play anymore at his 2011 stratospheric level and the Serb was not anymore a dominant player in 2012 with Murray and Federer being strong contenders.

Finally once again in 2014 injury made Nadal miss the USO and probably lose once again his #1 place :

Nadal was leading the ATP race before the 2014 USO

and once again Djokovic didn’t play as well as in 2011 and above all 2015 and early 2016.

The former fact (very strong competition) explains why Nadal lost his world title in 2011 (and to a lesser extent in 2012).

So between 2009 and 2014, that is 6 years in a row, Nadal had very strong obstacles

that other dominating players such as Gonzales, Laver, Sampras and Federer had not to get over for such as long a period.


Gonzales for instance had not to face pretty very strong rivals over six consecutive years.

Gonzales’s reign was between Kramer’s physical decline and Rosewall’s maturity.

Between 1954 and 1960 his greatest rivals were Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall and to a lesser extent Trabert and Hoad.

In those years,

Gonzales usually beat most of the time Segura and Sedgman (except in 1958 for the latter),

Rosewall had to wait until 1959 to lead Gonzales in yearly head-to-head meetings (but Gonzales took a pretty strong revenge in 1960),

Trabert couldn’t rival day in day out

and Hoad was too many times injured.

Only in 1950-1951 and above all in 1964-early 1965, Gonzales had to face pretty strong rivals :

- in 1950-1951 Kramer and Segura were even slightly better than Gonzales but Kramer was often injured,

- from 1964 to July 1965 the competition was pretty tough between Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver but as you can see it lasted less than a year and a half.


Laver’s reign was after Rosewall’s decline and before any other true greats (Borg, Connors, McEnroe) :

Smith, Nastase were transitory #1

and I am not even convinced that Newcombe and Ashe have ever been #1 of any calendar year

(1971 for Newk and 1975 for Ashe).


Sampras could have had a great contender in the person of Agassi but the latter was one of the most inconsistent #1 ever.


And finally when Federer became #1 his contenders were “only” Hewitt, Roddick, Safin or Ferrero,

players who could play very well, especially Safin, but only on short periods.

Once Nadal and Djokovic have been mature,

Federer has lost his #1 ranking (except in 2009 when Nadal was injured)

and has never been able to regain that position once his two rivals have “definitely” took the first place.

Here I am talking about true rankings which mean about calendar year (year-end) rankings,

I am not talking about being #1 on Monday, April 16 or any other stupid date.


All this to say that

a) unparalleled competition and b) injuries due in part to hard court surfaces

are in part responsible of Nadal’s failure of being a year-in year-out #1.

…"Nope.

= Answer to

Originally Posted by Carlo

So Rosewall can be selected without any doubt in any GOAT discussion.

Just a brittle response but with no valid argument.

…But, Federer > Nadal and Laver > Rosewall…

I have demonstrated earlier that

Rosewall even in slight decline (since 1964) was a great contender to Laver and even beat, on very great occasions, Laver more often than the reverse on fast courts

though a) I repeat, Ken was already past his peak and b) those surfaces were more suited to Laver’s game.

One of the main reasons is that Rosewall was a much consistent player than Laver, the latter could either be very strong and almost unbeatable or play badly.

So this fact that even on his least suited surfaces and even during his declining years, Rosewall beat Laver more often than the reverse in great occasions,

explains in part why Rosewall has possibly won more majors than Laver

See my calculations above : (Rosewall 22 or 21 versus Laver 19 or 18).

I don’t claim at all that this argument is enough to rate Rosewall as better than Laver

but this argument must alert anyone before stating too quickly, as you are doing, that Rocket is better than Muscles.

So please be cautious and give right arguments before claiming a Laver superiority.

In favour of Laver, there is the fact that on a given match at his very peak he was possibly better than Kenny at his very peak

(but as said earlier, Pierre Barthès thought the reverse).

You could also argue that Laver has been #1 much longer than Rosewall

(6 or 7 or perhaps 8 years against 3 years).

and that Laver would probably have won 2 Open Grand Slams

(1967 (not 1962) and 1969)

while Rosewall would have won “only” one in 1962.

(in 1963 Kenny was very dominant but I think he would have won “only” a little Slam)

However do these last points give the final edge to Laver ?

I am not sure at all.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

And Federer superior to Nadal ? This is also very debatable.


Federer is superior to Nadal

a) in the number of Slam tournaments won,

b) in the number of “Masters Cup” won,

and

c) on true fast (indoor) courts

but

On all the other points, Nadal is better than Federer.

Peak Nadal is clearly better than peak Federer on clay.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Fed on slow outdoor hardcourts

as almost all their Australian Open

(usually slow courts in the 2000’s and early 2010’s but fast courts since 2016 and especially 2017)

and Indian Wells

(not always but usually slow courts in California)

results had shown :

on slow outdoor hardcourts Nadal had lost only twice to Federer both at Indian Wells, in 2012 when the Spanish was slightly injured and in 2017 when Nadal played badly (but apparently Federer played even better than at the 2017 AO final).

Until 2016,

peak Nadal has been better than peak Federer on fast outdoor hardcourts.

But I have to recognize that

it is likely that

“Federer early 2017” is on fast (and perhaps even slow) hard courts better than peak Nadal (early 2009 / 2010 / 2013) ever was.

I still do not claim “surely” but “likely”

because “Nadal early 2017” is not as good as he was in 2009 (before his injury) or 2010 or 2013.

Nadal is not anymore as fast as he was in his young years

and besides in his three matches against Federer in 2017, the Spaniard has played too often Federer’s forehand including on the serve which he didn’t do in previous years (in some ancient matches Nadal had fully served to Fed’s backhand).

On the contrary “Federer early 2017” is better than he ever was on hard court surfaces.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on XXIth Wimbledon slow grass.

Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.

In other words

peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.


Nadal has a much better record in Davis Cup,



Nadal has a much better record in Olympic Games singles event,



Nadal has a much better record in “Masters 1000”.


On August 19, 2013, Nadal had a positive head-to-head record against every other Top30 player in the world.

Since that date the Top30 list has changed

but it is very likely that Nadal has still a positive record today against everyone except of course Djokovic

(and perhaps a new rising player)

who leads Nadal in head-to-head confrontations since their 2016 Doha final on Saturday, January 9th.

It just shows how Nadal has been a dominant player

(before his recent years decline).

Federer at the same age

(27 years 2 months 16 days)

had not such a positive record

(in particular he was already dominated by Nadal in head-to-head record).

When Nadal was at his top he was superior to any player except Djokovic when the latter was on “stratospheric” heights

while Federer had and still has enormous problems to say the least when he met (meets) Nadal

or when he faces Murray when the Scots is in form

(though the Swiss has won their last 5 matches to lead 14-11 up to April 2017).

Federer is possibly the only player in tennis history who, as a world #1 was dominated during his reign by the supposed world #2, then Nadal.

…Doherty has no claim. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Tilden has very little claim.
Rosewall, Gonzales and Borg are all-time greats but they all have weaknesses in their resumes.
Laver and Federer are the only true GOAT contenders. …

Doherty no claim ?!?! Wrong argument, see my previous posts.

Tilden very little claim ?!?! Wrong argument, see my previous posts.

And Rosewall, Gonzales, Borg pretty certain below Laver and Federer ?!?! No sure at all.

About Rosewall versus Laver you didn’t give any valuable argument.

You just UNINTENTIONALLY pointed out that Laver was lucky to be born at the right moment :

able to win the amateur Grand Slam when the amateur competition was close to its lowest,

able to win the Pro Grand Slam when he was at his very peak (1967 is possibly Laver’s best year ever)

and again very close to his peak in 1969 to win an Open Slam

while Rosewall was much unluckier than Rocket because born too early in a “wrong” era.

“Muscles” peak years were 1961-1962-1963 when he was the world #1, by very far in the last two years.

However Rosewall wasn’t, very unfairly, considered then as the world top player

because all the glory reflected on Laver due to his domination in the amateur ranks (in particular his 1962 Slam)

whereas Rocket was clearly less good than Rosewall during these years.


Kenny’s apogee is simply either ignored or unknown.


Once again considering Laver’s Slam in 1962 as a very great feat is a pure nonsense given that some pros were clearly better than him that year.

Of course many players born earlier than Rosewall were even unluckier than Kenny and are nowadays completely forgotten even more than Rosewall : Gonzales, Segura, Kramer, Riggs, Budge, Vines, Perry, Tilden, Wilding, Brookes, the Dohertys and others.

…Well, you should. :-? You can't just pick and choose events which you think are the "greatest"...

Your answer to :

“Originally Posted by Carlo

PS.. 2 : my list of majors as indicated above is of course subjective because I don’t rely on tradition.”

Well I should have written

“my list of majors as indicated above is of course subjective

however the list of majors considered as official is in fact so laughable that it deserves only ignorance and contempt.

Therefore my subjectiveness is nothing compared to the stupidity of the so-called official designation of major tourneys”.

This supposed official list relies on supposed tradition

but ONE CAN’Trely on tradition.



The reason is that the players couldn’t choose their tournaments.

They were due to obey their federation and/or had financial (in amateur tennis) needs.

They couldn’t play according to so-called tradition but according to their possibilities which could be very restrained.


Tradition in tennis in those days was a fallacy, a pure nonsense.


The so-called “greatest” events according to dubious standard weren’t the true greatest events at all

given how the tennis circuit was structured at the time.


The problem is that almost everybody now refers to statistics compiling numbers from the so-called majors in order to rate players

whereas these majors were in fact, so many times, very strong depleted events.


So my choices are necessarily subjective and so debatable

but I don’t think that many of my choices can be denied.

Probably few choices are wrong. In particular perhaps should I choose more often some North America (or World) Pro head-to-head tours.

In the end my subjective choices are anyway very much closer to the “truth” than the “official” list.


Besides I don’t make any GOAT rankings etched in the stone from my list :

I would never say that a player A with 10 majors (according to my list) is better than a player B with 9 majors

because I perfectly know that my estimations of majors won, have all a margin of error given that the choices of majors are debatable.


Moreover it is a great error to rate tennis players on majors won alone.

There are many other criteria to use in order to judge players’s feats (I won’t detail them here).


However it is clear that 11 Slams tourneys for Laver don’t make him justice at all.

Nevertheless in the public opinion Laver is a much inferior player than Federer because the latter has won 18 majors.

So when I state that Laver has indeed won almost 20 majors it is very much closer to the truth than 11

which is, as I have said earlier, a pure nonsense.


So choosing events that I think as “greatest” is less error-prone than the “official” alternative.

According to who? You?...

Your answer to :

Originally Posted by Carlo

Why ? Because in the pre-open era, tradition was more an ideal, a hypothetical concept, a fruit of imagination than a reality.

Even in the amateur circuit, tradition was an illusion and so-called great traditional amateur events didn’t always deserved this label.

I can retort exactly in the same way as yours : these so-called greatest events were labelled thus according to who ? According to officials who just wanted to rule players and to prevent some of them, especially the very best, to enter in their so-called majors.

It is pure common sense. Look at the draws of these supposed great events.

So many of them were so weak that it is evident that the “tradition argument” is a pure fallacy.

Look at the draws of the Australian amateur champs, the French amateur champs and even the US and British amateur champs.

Are you blind ? Stop playing the blind, please. Open your eyes !!!

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

…I'm still not buying this Davis Cup > Wimbledon thing. The former is a team event. It doesn't matter if it was more prestigious in former eras, it still shouldn't count as the "be all and end all" of a player's career, given that they needed teammates to win it. I'll go so far as to say that, if indeed the Davis Cup > Wimbledon in general popular opinion in the 1950s, then that thinking is faulty and should not be taken into consideration. ...

Stop talking about what you don’t know.

No, once again just shows that are pretty ignore tennis history. You are wrong and being pretty stubborn, you don’t want to admit that the references in those times were different than those of today.

In those times NATION was a much more important notion than today and egocentrism (and so money desire) were not as recognized.

Not playing the Davis Cup was considered as a betrayal while it isn’t as much the case today.

See both all my arguments about the Davis Cup importance above and krosero’s admirable posts about the subject.

Besides here is krosero’s perfect answer to your SO MUCH WRONG argument :

… This is a prime example of studying history according to present-day thinking. I was always taught that this was a basic mistake in studying/understanding any kind of history.
We, today, can have any opinion we want on what the status of Davis Cup should be. But there is no denying that it meant the world to players and fans of the major tennis nations at the time; and no denying that the pressure they felt was real.
Injecting our opinions into it would be like saying that they should not have felt so much pressure because (.... fill in the blank with our reasons). But they did. That can't be changed.
IMO if you judge the sport's past according to present-day thinking, it is virtually assured that the present-day players will be understood better, and given their due more fairly, than champions of the past. ...

…But anyway, forgetting that for a moment, you're now saying that we can't even rank amateur players based on the DC/W/USC/FC/AC, and that we have to look at the nuances of all tournaments? Does that mean that we should rank Nalbandian as one of the top players of 2007 because he won two Masters series events near the end of that year, beating all the top players and clearly showing a higher level than anyone other than Federer had that year? So we should award him the No 2 ranking for 2007 rather than Nadal? I really think you do need to look at the biggest events (and maybe the results of the pro tours) - it's the only way. …

Once again you don’t know much about tennis history.

To rate events and players you use the same criteria in the pre-open history as used today.

You don’t make the difference between the 2010’s and the 1950’s.

60 years ago it was completely different from today.

In the 1950’s any player was forced to enter or not any event by his boss(es), by money and time.

If his federation ordered him not to play the Australian Champs he didn’t play it.

If the German Champs, run by Kleinschroth, offered better “money expenses” than the US “Slam” Champs, which was often the case, the European players entered in the German Champs and didn’t fly to New York.

You don’t understand that in those times the players couldn’t play where they wanted

and that the so-called major events could be clearly third-rate or even fourth-rate events.


Nowadays it is completely different.

All the best players can enter in the major events without any problem and they do it.

This is why nowadays major events are truly major events and very solid foundations

(though it can always change)

whereas it wasn’t the case at all in those days.

In the 1950’s the Pacific Southwest amateur Champs were a greater event than the French amateur Champs or the Australian amateur Champs

because the former tournament always attracted the very top players

while the latter events often attracted only “local” (European for the French and Aussies for the Australian) players.

Even the US amateur Champs couldn’t attract many foreign players because the US officials didn’t welcome financially foreign players

and besides crossing the Atlantic cost too much money for amateur players.

You don’t understand anything about the situation of the time.

So-called great events were not.


If you consider that the French amateur and the Australian amateur champs and even Forest Hills and Wimby were great events whereas year in year out many top amateurs didn’t enter them because they couldn’t

then you are wrong.

Idem for the Davis Cup when

either players couldn’t play at all

(for instance Drobny when he became stateless in 1949)

or were not selected because the selector(s) had unjustified grievances against him :

for instance Francis Shields, the US selector and captain (and ex-Wimby runner-up) didn’t choose in the US team Savitt in 1951 though Richard was, with Drobny, the best amateur in the world (many wrongly rated Sedgman #1) because Shields didn’t like Savitt.

So in 1951 the best two amateurs in the world could not play the greatest amateur event by far, that is the Davis Cup.


In fact in those days there were for almost all the so-called amateur majors many top amateurs missing without their own approval.

It isn’t comparable at all with the modern situation.

Nowadays every player, not guilty of misconduct, doping, betting or anything against the laws,

can enter in the great events and does it without any restriction except his ATP ranking.


So there is no need to question the legitimacy of the great modern events :

in the first rank you have the 4 Slam tournaments (with Wimby in the lead) then in fifth position, the ATP world tour finals.

In the 2010’s the only debate concerns the place of the Davis Cup :

possibly between a “Masters 1000” and a “500” tourney ? That’s all.


Except on this Davis Cup point there is no doubt about the importance of the great events of today

whereas

before Flinders Park (the new site of the Australian Open in 1988) was created and above all before the open era

the so-called majors were a pure choice of convention but certainly not a reality.



Therefore your example of 2007 with Federer and Nalbandian is a pure nonsense.


In 2007 the Slams were (already) clearly the greatest events so Federer and Nadal were without any doubt the best players in the world while Nalbandian was clearly behind both of them and also others as well.


Your comparison is clearly inaccurate, wrong because you don’t want to admit that the historical context in the 1950’s was clearly different from that of the 2000’s-2010’s.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

By the way that year in Madrid and Paris Nalbandian played even better than Federer ever did that year on indoor slow hard courts. Federer and Nadal were very lucky not to face Nalbandian in the Tennis Masters Cup

(if my memory is right Nalbandian was #9 at the ATP race and so the first alternate so didn’t qualify)

because it is not unlikely that Federer wouldn’t have won the Masters Cup in 2007 if Nalbandian had been there.

… I take your point - Pancho lost many opportunities to win a clay major. The only tournament you gave any indication of him winning on the surface, however, was the 1952 German Open. This can, in my view, be considered equivalent to Sampras winning the 1994 Rome tournament. Gonzales' only decent opponent for much of the early 1950s appears to have been Segura; would Gonzales have won an Open clay major, if he'd had to also face Drobny and the other good amateur clay courters? (His amateur record, brief as it was, suggests he was better off clay than on it, as he won two USCs but did not reach an FO final).. ..

Once again you make inaccurate comparisons.

How can you compare Gonzales’s win in Berlin 1952 with Sampras’s in Rome in 1994.


Sampras had the opportunity, unlike Gonzales, to play on clay, true majors (Roland Garros) and sort of “Masters 1000 of the time”, EVERY YEAR WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION

and he failed every time but once in his whole career, winning that “Masters 1000” in Rome in 1994.

Besides that “Masters 1000” victory didn’t prove that Sampras was very temporarily (for just a week) the best on clay

given that the true clay courts master of the time, Sergi Bruguera, didn’t compete in that tourney.

Moreover the Italian wasn’t the true major on clay that year, it was Roland Garros

and also other events on clay, such as Monte Carlo (with Bruguera) and Hamburg, were as important as the Italian that year.

Therefore

SAMPRAS HAS NEVER BEEN THE BEST PLAYER ON CLAY IN THE WORLD EVEN A SINGLE WEEK IN HIS LIFE.


Gonzales, with his victory in the German Pro championships in 1952,

WON THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT ON CLAY THAT YEAR

so even though, as the 1994 Italian Open, the 1952 Berlin event was not a true major

the latter was however the most important clay tourney of its year

while it wasn’t the case at all of the 1994 Rome event.


So do not compare what it isn’t comparable.


In 1955 there was no great tourney on clay but Gonzales was probably the best on that surface that year given that he bettered what Segura did that same year on clay.


And about Drobny I recognize there are few elements available to compare both players

but I gave you earlier indications with their head-to-head confrontations

with Drobny only able to beat Gonzales when the latter was a 19-year-old baby in 1947 before becoming a future champion.


So there is absolutely no comparison between Gonzales’s record on clay and Sampras’s.

Pete won once a great tournament on clay but the best claycourter was absent.

Sampras has not even been in the World Top2 Claycourt players



while Gonzales was probably the best in the world on clay for at least two years (1952 and 1955) and the second best many other years as his 1956 or 1961 World Pro Clay Court Finals show when this tourney was held.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

… This is a bit hyperbolic. As I said above, all you've given is one clay title that Gonzales won, and the fact that he beat Segura a few times (he seemed to lose against all other decent opponents in big matches on the surface).

By contrast, Federer, year after year, lost only to one man at the French. He would have won five FOs (2005-2009, 2011) if not for Nadal. I think it's insulting to Federer to say that Gonzales is his equal on clay …

No, no, no !!!


In 1952 and 1955 Gonzales was very likely the best on clay : he beat the other players more than the reverse on clay these years. You, you intentionally mix these 1952 and 1955 years with other years when he lost as in 1956 to Trabert or 1958 to Hoad, etc ...

In 1952 and 1955 I repeat his record was positive and you have absolutely no valid argument to deny it.


Federer has only been the best a single year, 2009,

and besides by default when Nadal was injured

(the Swiss won the French and also beat Nadal, already injured, in Madrid).


How can you say if Federer would have won 5 FOs in the absence of Nadal ?

Pure assumption on your part.

And if Kuerten had not had his numerous hip (and other) injuries,

the Brazilian would have been a great rival of Nadal perhaps until 2008

and above all Kuerten would have possibly beaten Federer many times :

in 2004 Gustavo, though on one only leg, gave Federer a lesson of clay-court tennis and beat the Swiss easily three sets to love.

Kuerten has declined since Roland Garros 2001 because of his hip injury.

As he stated in his autobiography, in 2004 he was already the shadow of himself given that he was so diminished since he could play on only one leg and couldn’t move easily on the court.

Federer was already the best player in the world and close to his peak on clay.

Though tennis steadily improves through time

I am not completely sure that Federer once played on clay as well as Kuerten did on some occasions in the early 2000’s.


So it’s right that Federer was not lucky to face Nadal from 2005 to 2008, the best clay-courter ever (with Borg ?).

It is clear that Federer had strongest opposition on clay these years than Gonzales.

However the latter had to face Segura and Trabert in their prime and Rosewall at the beginning of his peak (in 1961) which was not the weakest era on clay, far from that.

Segura and Trabert were in the same league as Courier, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall and probably Kuerten (not injured).

Except Nadal, the biggest mountain on clay

with Borg,

(I insist, those who haven’t watched LIVE peak Borg on clay, don’t know what a fortress the Swede was on that surface)

the other players who had some success on clay in the years 2005-2008 were not very impressive on that surface :

Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian. Puerta, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Djokovic (until 2008), Monfils.

Coria and Nalbandian in particular were not mentally strong whereas they were more talented than others and should have had better results.


Once again you underrate Gonzales and overrate Federer.

… Gonzales' record on clay would be even worse if he'd faced any top-class clay courters in Nadal's league. …

In return it also can be said for every player on earth from the start of the game until now :

if Federer and Nadal had played on true fast indoor courts and on true slippery fast grass their records on these fast surfaces would have been much less impressive had they faced players in Gonzales’s league.

And besides Gonzales had guts that very few players had.

In a fifth set of a great match between Gonzales and for instance Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic

I would give the edge to Gonzales.

It is very unlikely that Gonzales in the same conditions as Federer in the fifth set of the 2008 Wimby final

would have lost.

Federer, with his technique, much more suited to the grass, even the grass of the XXIth century,

at his peak should never have lost to Nadal that Wimby final

but the Spaniard, at the time, had mentally the Indian sign on Federer,

the latter had been especially shaken by his rout in the Roland Garros final a month earlier.



Now here are some krosero’s replies to your wrong posts that show the big lack of good arguments from your answers.

...By contrast, Federer, year after year, lost only to one man at the French. He would have won five FOs (2005-2009, 2011) if not for Nadal …

krosero perfectly replied with

… Tilden was 8 years older than Cochet and 11 years older than Lacoste. He didn't face them at the French until 1927 when he was 34 years old and past his best years.
You've said that Federer and Laver are the only champions with no holes in their resume, but I don't think that's the case if Tilden's late-career losses to the Musketeers are considered a hole in his resume. To repeat your argument just as you put it: Federer, despite his so-called GOAT status, could not win the FO when facing Nadal.
And there's only 5 years between them.
Yes, I know, Nadal is greater than Cochet or Lacoste. That's fine: but Tilden did have the disadvantage of having to face more than one great champion at the French. In '27 he met Cochet in the semis and defeated him in straight sets, but fell to Lacoste in a draining five-set final that I think contained more points than any French final to date. Hardly a knock against a 34-year-old. …

.

krosero proved that you both overrate Federer’s feats on clay and also underrate Tilden’s feats on clay.

In particular you claimed that Tilden couldn’t win the FO when facing the Musketeers

but you just forget that Tilden was past his prime when he faced the French at Saint-Cloud and Paris on clay.

Yes I once agree with krosero on that other point :

yes Nadal is better on clay than Cochet or Lacoste

but it is also true that Federer had “only” Nadal to beat

as I detailed earlier

while Tilden had to beat both French (Lacoste and Cochet)

and besides a peak Lacoste on clay was almost as strong as Nadal :

in the second half of the 1920’s Lacoste was endowed with a flawless concentration and played as a brick wall.

I also said earlier that Tilden had a bad call on match and title point in his favour in the 1927 French amateur final.



krosero also contradicted your judgment about Rosewall because you do not rate the Aussie when he was at his best that is during his pro years before the open era :

... I agree with you that Rosewall's Wimbledon losses occurred during periods when he was winning the other majors, so the losses can't be excused for age. They can count as losses. I just don't think they can come near to disqualifying him as a GOAT candidate, because they did not occur during his best years. The longest period of his career -- and all his best years -- were in the pro circuit, so what he did there has to carry the greatest weight.

.

As simple as that.

 

[Gary Duane]

Phoenix1983, you haven’t seen evidence that the Davis Cup topped Wimbledon before 1960 so I will give you some references, and sorry for not summarize but I have to give you numerous examples in order to clearly prove that you are deadly wrong on that point :

- Most of the years the world #1 amateur won the Davis Cup competition before 1960 (and even until 1967);

- in 1905, the US team decided to play the British tourneys including Wimby in order to train for the Davis Cup series : Beals Coleman Wright, from the USA, was rated higher than Brookes in world rankings, though the latter did pretty much well at Wimby but Wright later beat Brookes in Davis Cup.

- In 1907 this same Wright was ranked ahead of Wilding though the latter had beaten Wright in a straight-setter at Wimby whereas Wright needed four sets to overcome Wilding in the DC.

- In 1912 Gore beat twice Gobert including at Wimby but Gobert took his revenge in DC and was better ranked than Gore.

- In 1914 McLoughlin won no individual major but his two defeats of Brookes and Wilding in the Davis Cup Challenge Round put him at the top of the world ahead of his victims.

- From 1920 to 1925 Tilden and Johnston trusted the first two places though they didn’t play Wimby respectively in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 (and 1926) and in 1921, 1922, 1924, 1925 (and in later years) but both were undefeated in Davis Cup.

In 1925 though he won both the French amateur International and Wimby, Lacoste was only ranked #4 in the amateur ranking after Tilden, Johnston and Richards. Tilden and Johnston had beaten Lacoste in Davis Cup while Richards had defeated Lacoste in the US amateur and none of the 3 Americans had crossed the Atlantic to play the French and the British (Wimby) events.

Read Tilden’s autobiography “My Story” and you will note that his greatest disillusionment in 1927 was not his failures at Saint-Cloud or Wimby or Forest Hills but at Philadelphia when his team lost the DC

(about his Saint-Cloud setback I will use later an argument contradicting one of yours about Tilden).

- Lacoste claimed that his greatest triumph ever was the 1927 Davis Cup.

- Cochet had written in his book ‘Tennis’ (co-written with Jacques Feuillet) : “La Coupe Davis est la plus prestigieuse des épreuves tennistiques. / Elle est la moderne Toison d’or dont ils (les joueurs) rêvent d’être les nouveaux Argonautes" (« The Davis Cup is the most prestigious tennis event. / It is the modern Golden Fleece they (the players) dream of being the new Argonauts”.

- When Cochet lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon in 1931 the French nation was disappointed but it was nothing compared to the fear of losing the DC. That year Cochet’s health had been bad : he was ill since the Italian Champs which he lost in the final then he skipped the French, unable to play, and when he entered Wimby he hadn’t recovered and even at the end of July for the DC Challenge Round it was hoped he wouldn’t play any 5-setter. Happily for him and France he won both his singles in 4 sets : the main goal was to win the team event and not Wimby. And Myers ranked Cochet world #1 amateur (though I contradict his ranking).

- Vines’s defeats in Davis Cup are always considered as great failures in his career and Borotra considered that his defeat of Vines in the 1932 edition was his greatest feat ever, greater than winning Wimby or Roland, both tourneys won by the Basque

(incidentally Vines and above all Allison were robbed in this DC tie and I mean it given that I am French but that’s another subject).

- Henri Christian Hopman wrote in “Aces and Places” p. 141 : “… the world’s most universally sought sporting trophy - the Davis Cup.”. In this book, published early in 1957, he devoted a chapter for each great player of the time and each annual Davis Cup but no chapter were devoted to Wimby.

- Had von Cramm beaten Budge in the 1937 Davis Cup USA-Germany tie, his fate would have been quite different : their match in this event was the match of the year in everyone’s eyes.

When Brookes invited in September 1937, Budge (and Mako) to play in Australia during the following austral summer, Budge began to think about his 1938 season. In the previous years the USA had not won the DC (their last success being in 1926) so they had to play each year several ties in order to win the event : therefore they planned their season based on the DC ties. But at the end of 1937 this process has changed because the USA had just won the DC at last. So instead of playing 12 matches (4 ties) spread over several months as in 1937, Budge had to play only 3 matches (1 tie) over a week-end. It suddenly created a gap in his schedule. So he decided to set goals before the Davis Cup climax. Brookes’s invitation fired Budge’s imagination who then thought of playing the amateur championships of the great nations who had won the Davis Cup that is the USA, the British Isles, Austral(as)ia and France and so he definitely sort of created the Grand Slam (which had been used earlier as, for instance, Alan Gould, did (before Kieran and Danzig) in The Reading Eagle (Pennsylvania), Tuesday, July 18, 1933, http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...3gzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DeIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2327,2495314).

So the Davis Cup is the Grand Slam events’ MOTHER and not the reverse though two of them (the British and US events) were born before (the Davis Cup) but were not then Slam events. This is the Davis Cup which has given these 4 tourneys their future legitimity. Wimby was already a great event but it really became the greatest with the advent of the open era. In the meantime the Slam events have killed their mother by becoming much more important than the modern Davis Cup which now has even less prestige than the ATP World Tour Finals and even any Masters 1000 Series tournaments.

- “…the greatest honor in the lawn tennis world, the win of the Davis Cup.” Stephen Wallis Merrihew (“American Lawn Tennis” editor) in “American Lawn Tennis” April 20, 1938 p. 40.

- In 1939 Bromwich was ranked as high as world amateur #2 by Francis Gordon Lowe, Pierre Gillou and Edward Clarkson Potter though he didn’t play Wimby and only reached the semis at Forest Hills but his team won the Davis Cup (and he won 8 singles out of 10).

Norman Brookes, as President of the Australian Lawn Tennis Association, wanted his country win the Davis Cup and not Wimbledon. Especially in 1939 the Australian team was not allowed to travel to Europe but to go directly to the US in order to recapture the Cup. And for instance a player such as Bromwich had not the opportunity to play Wimbledon at his apogee three editions in a row (1938, 1939, and 1946).

- Mervyn Weston in ‘American Lawn Tennis’, April 20, 1939 p. 34 wrote “… The Davis Cup is regarded far more highly as a prize than individual championship honors (including Wimbledon) …”

In his book “Playing for life” page 95, William Talbert wrote “the climactic event of the tennis year : the challenge for possession of the Davis Cup”

- In 1946 Pétra’s failure in the decisive match of the Yugoslavia-France tie (against Puncec) was more lamented in France than his success at Wimby was celebrated.

John Sheldon Olliff ranked Frederick Frederick Rudolph Schroeder as high as #2 amateur in the world from 1946 to 1948 though the American never played Wimby in those years but he won all his DC singles during that period.

- In American Lawn Tennis, February 1947, page 36 Harley Malcolm wrote “the premier event in the lawn tennis world, the Davis Cup challenge round.”

- In 1953 Rosewall won 2 Slam events while Trabert only won one and didn’t won a single match in the 3 other Slam tourneys (in fact he didn’t enter neither the Australian nor the French nor Wimby). Nevertheless Trabert was considered by the great majority as the #1 amateur in the world because he had beaten Rosewall in the DC Challenge Round (in head-to-head meetings Rosewall trailed Trabert only 2-3 in 1953). Some even considered Hoad as the #1 amateur in 1953 because he had beaten Trabert and Seixas in that DC tie even though he had lost to Seixas something like 6 times previously this year and especially at the French and Wimby. And Seixas, though Wimby winner was never rated as the #1 in any world amateur ranking.

- About the 1955 Davis Cup Henry Christian Hopman wrote in his book ‘Aces and Places’ p. 184 :

“It was decided that the (Australian) team might become over-tennised if it played in the Italian and French championships and that it would be hardly fair to ask our players to try to be at their top for these championships and Wimbledon and also the Davis Cup engagement. It must be remembered that our main objective was to bring back the Davis Cup.”

So you could note that the Italian (and at the time it was much more important than nowadays) and French amateur champs were merely sacrificed (Rosewall, Hoad and Hartwig didn’t enter these events) and though the Aussies were allowed to play Wimby, the greatest individual amateur event, this tourney was nevertheless that year a sort of “warm-up” to the true climax of the amateur season, the Davis Cup ties played in July and August (the challenge round being held the last week of that month).

- Hoad’s wife, Jennifer Staley, claimed that her husband when reading newspapers, in the tennis section, was only interested, until his death, in Davis Cup results and not Slam results.

Great stuff. Just fantastic.

If only you had not posted all these entries on Sunday night, when everyone is apparently asleep except insomniacs like me.

Please keep on posting!

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Great stuff. Just fantastic.

If only you had not posted all these entries on Sunday night, when everyone is apparently asleep except insomniacs like me.

Please keep on posting!

Thank you,
living in France I posted them on Monday since 07:21 a.m. to 07:44 near Paris (Sunday 10:21 to 10:44 p.m. as indicated in this forum) so Europeans, Africans and above all Asians (billions of peple in this huge continent) aren't asleep except few.
Sorry but I won't post frequently, if you read my first post of today I claimed that I came back after more than 4 years.
So it is likely that I won't post much in the following weeks.
Besides I am a little fed up of talking about the old Aussies as I used to do in this forum in the early 2010's.
Nevertheless as I don't accept easily some wrong posts
there is a probability that I reply to some in a short time.
Now it is 10:50 in France so 01:50 in that forum.

 

[Gary Duane]

Thank you,
living in France I posted them on Monday since 07:21 a.m. to 07:44 near Paris (Sunday 10:21 to 10:44 p.m. as indicated in this forum) so Europeans, Africans and above all Asians (billions of peple in this huge continent) aren't asleep except few.
Sorry but I won't post frequently, if you read my first post of today I claimed that I came back after more than 4 years.
So it is likely that I won't post much in the following weeks.
Besides I am a little fed up of talking about the old Aussies as I used to do in this forum in the early 2010's.
Nevertheless as I don't accept easily some wrong posts
there is a probability that I reply to some in a short time.
Now it is 10:50 in France so 01:50 in that forum.

You have to remember that today most people have very short attention spans. I fear most people will not read all of even one of your posts.

Your analysis of the open era seems very spot on to me, and you have talked a lot about matters before the open era, which I have only a very small knowledge about, but your knowledge seems very impressive.

I especially like your stress on analyzing players in their own times, according to the mindset of those times.

 

[NatF]

Carlo, it's great to see you posting. There's a lot of content from your recent posts, more than I could hope to respond to. I will however focus on some of the stuff you've written on Federer/Nadal.

And Federer superior to Nadal ? This is also very debatable.


Federer is superior to Nadal

a) in the number of Slam tournaments won,

b) in the number of “Masters Cup” won,

and

c) on true fast (indoor) courts

but

On all the other points, Nadal is better than Federer.

Peak Nadal is clearly better than peak Federer on clay.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Fed on slow outdoor hardcourts

as almost all their Australian Open

(usually slow courts in the 2000’s and early 2010’s but fast courts since 2016 and especially 2017)

and Indian Wells

(not always but usually slow courts in California)

results had shown :

on slow outdoor hardcourts Nadal had lost only twice to Federer both at Indian Wells, in 2012 when the Spanish was slightly injured and in 2017 when Nadal played badly (but apparently Federer played even better than at the 2017 AO final).

Until 2016,

peak Nadal has been better than peak Federer on fast outdoor hardcourts.

But I have to recognize that

it is likely that

“Federer early 2017” is on fast (and perhaps even slow) hard courts better than peak Nadal (early 2009 / 2010 / 2013) ever was.

I still do not claim “surely” but “likely”

because “Nadal early 2017” is not as good as he was in 2009 (before his injury) or 2010 or 2013.

Nadal is not anymore as fast as he was in his young years

and besides in his three matches against Federer in 2017, the Spaniard has played too often Federer’s forehand including on the serve which he didn’t do in previous years (in some ancient matches Nadal had fully served to Fed’s backhand).

On the contrary “Federer early 2017” is better than he ever was on hard court surfaces.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on XXIth Wimbledon slow grass.

Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.

In other words

peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.


Nadal has a much better record in Davis Cup,



Nadal has a much better record in Olympic Games singles event,



Nadal has a much better record in “Masters 1000”.


On August 19, 2013, Nadal had a positive head-to-head record against every other Top30 player in the world.

Since that date the Top30 list has changed

but it is very likely that Nadal has still a positive record today against everyone except of course Djokovic

(and perhaps a new rising player)

who leads Nadal in head-to-head confrontations since their 2016 Doha final on Saturday, January 9th.

It just shows how Nadal has been a dominant player

(before his recent years decline).

Federer at the same age

(27 years 2 months 16 days)

had not such a positive record

(in particular he was already dominated by Nadal in head-to-head record).

When Nadal was at his top he was superior to any player except Djokovic when the latter was on “stratospheric” heights

while Federer had and still has enormous problems to say the least when he met (meets) Nadal

or when he faces Murray when the Scots is in form

(though the Swiss has won their last 5 matches to lead 14-11 up to April 2017).

Federer is possibly the only player in tennis history who, as a world #1 was dominated during his reign by the supposed world #2, then Nadal.

Most of your posts are well written, however your post here on Federer/Nadal is rather superficial. More than that it's the same tired stuff that we see on the general section...

Federer is indisputably better than Nadal on all kinds of HC and grass, overall he leads Nadal not just on Majors and YEC's like you say but also on;

- Time at #1
- Overall dominance
- Consistency
- Longevity
- Total titles

To say otherwise is IMO to ignore facts.

Firstly, meetings H2H are not the best indicator of relative level, something I would assume you are aware of. Instead performance against the field is an infinitely better measure. Nadal leads 3-1 at the AO, but it is important to note that Nadal has met Federer in every single one of his runs where he made the final. That is to say Nadal has met Federer exclusively in his (Nadal's) best form at the AO. Where as Federer's best form at the AO was clearly in 2007, then 2004/2005. I would argue 2009 was arguably at best Federer's 4th best at the AO, where as it was Nadal's absolute best - even then Federer won more points in the match despite falling away in the 5th and without his usual serve. Federer was in very good form in 2012 and lost in a close 4th setter but was 30 at the time against a peak Nadal, even more so in 2014 (where Federer was coming off a terrible year and low in confidence).

Federer has 5 titles to 1 at the Australian. Even if we discount 2017 due to it being far faster, it's still 4-1. Federer also leads Nadal in the H2H and titles at IW, with Nadal's win over Federer being against a clearly injured Federer, and Roger is tied with him in Miami in the H2H and leads 3-0 in titles. Absolutely hilarious that you say Nadal was slightly injured at IW in 2012 but ignore that Federer was clearly far more hampered by his back in 2013

Against the top 10 at the AO Federer is 20-9, Nadal is 7-7. At IW Federer is 11-5, Nadal is 9-6. At Miami, Federer is 9-6, Nadal is 7-8.

In total in those 3 events you listed Federer is 40-20, Nadal is 23-21. Bit of a difference right? Even removing the AO this year Federer would still stand head and shoulders above Nadal. Now if you want to mention competition I would mention that Federer has met Djokovic significantly more times than Nadal has at the AO for example.

You even claim Nadal is better than Federer on current grass and fast HC?! Damn your post got more and more crazy as you went on...

7-2
5-2

That's the difference in their records at Wimbledon and the USO. Against the field you'll find Federer dwarfs Nadal there. Federer leads Nadal on HC/Grass h2h as well.

You might point to 2008 for the Wimbledon final, but that's just a single victory against a Federer who was in the troughs of a terrible year by his standards. The final a year before was of equal quality and Federer won that one. More than that Federer's return numbers on grass against the field had already dipped by then e.g. the 2008 Wimbledon final was the best of Nadal but not the best of Federer and Nadal barely won.

Nadal has been very dominant on clay, but he actually has a losing record against top 10 players on HC. No way is he even Federer's equal let alone his superior on hards and grass. Nadal is less consistent than Djokovic/Federer, therefore when does meet them outside of his preferred conditions he's generally on his A game, his B game rarely seems to get him to slam finals. Where as they might make it to the final on their B game and get beaten. Unfortunately for them Nadal was no where to be seen the other X number of times they made it to the various major finals and were in superior form.

You claim Federer is better than he ever was in 2017? I would say you're clearly wrong there...I shouldn't have to explain why tbh. Not when you've extensively spoken about how Rosewall was worse in the 70's than the early 60's!

As far as Murray goes, he got Federer many times in Masters events. Remember even in 2007 Federer lost twice to Canas and 2 twice to Nalbandian in Masters. Murray has beaten Federer but once in a major, after Federer had already played 5 sets in the last round and only after 5 sets. Federer has straight setted Murray in 3/5 of their major meetings. I would change your sentence to, "The scott troubles Federer when he (Federer) is not in form". That's more accurate.

As far as Davis Cup goes, yes Nadal's record is superior there - BUT - he generally plays mostly home ties (always on clay). He also has a superior team to help him.

Singles Gold is less important historically than the YEC - where Nadal has failed year after year.

As far as masters goes, they're less important than Majors - of course - more than that Nadal has 3 on clay but Federer has none on grass.

I would argue your analysis of Nadal's time at #1 (or lack of it) is flawed as well - also your evaluation of Federer's backhand as some great technical weakness seems unfair, when pretty much all one handers struggle with high balls on surfaces like clay.

Frankly after reading your excellent posts on other players I find this one of yours a bit one sided...

 

[ARFED]

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

WTF did i just read????

Come on man, with all due respect but that has to be one of the most idiotic comments ever on this forum. You were doing a great job untill that point. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you believe that Nadal is superior to Federer on grass or fast hard outdoors then you lost all your credibility as a serious poster.[/QUOTE]

 

[NatF]

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

WTF did i just read????

Come on man, with all due respect but that has to be one of the most idiotic comments ever on this forum. You were doing a great job untill that point. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you believe that Nadal is superior to Federer on grass or fast hard outdoors then you lost all your credibility as a serious poster.

[/QUOTE]

Seriously. Guy must be a massive Nadal fan or something

 

[ARFED]

Seriously. Guy must be a massive Nadal fan or something [/QUOTE]

Not only that. He asserts that Fed is superior to Nadal on fast indoor surfaces, which is a given obviously, based on the fact that Fed has 6 WTF compared to 0 for Rafa, without realizing that 2 out of those 6 were won outdoor in Houston, and London in 2010 and 2011 was at best a medium paced hardcourt.

If he is going by the HTH then Davydenko is a beast next to Nadal on hards. I would also like to know the reasoning behind "Nadal is better than Fed on grass" as well. He must think that Fed in Wimbledon 2008 was at his peak version, which is laughable at best when you consider how utterly crap he was on the first 2 sets of that match.

I am truly shocked because i considered him one of the best posters of this forum, but this stuff you dont even see it from Octobrina

 

[NatF]

Not only that. He asserts that Fed is superior to Nadal on fast indoor surfaces, which is a given obviously, based on the fact that Fed has 6 WTF compared to 0 for Rafa, without realizing that 2 out of those 6 were won outdoor in Houston, and London in 2010 and 2011 was at best a medium paced hardcourt.

If he is going by the HTH then Davydenko is a beast next to Nadal on hards. I would also like to know the reasoning behind "Nadal is better than Fed on grass" as well. He must think that Fed in Wimbledon 2008 was at his peak version, which is laughable at best when you consider how utterly crap he was on the first 2 sets of that match.

I am truly shocked because i considered him one of the best posters of this forum, but this stuff you dont even see it from Octobrina

Yeah I feel the same, the stuff on most of those players was really good and balanced. But as soon as he started speaking about Federer and Nadal (also saying Federer would sh*t his pants playing Borg) it descended into nonsense.

He gives Nadal loads of credit for competition and injuries, but ignores Federer's mono in 2008, back injury in 2013 and knee issues in 2016. Nevermind that Federer has faced the exact same players Nadal has only more often for the most part - as their top 10 record would show.

 

[pc1]

Seriously. Guy must be a massive Nadal fan or something

Not only that. He asserts that Fed is superior to Nadal on fast indoor surfaces, which is a given obviously, based on the fact that Fed has 6 WTF compared to 0 for Rafa, without realizing that 2 out of those 6 were won outdoor in Houston, and London in 2010 and 2011 was at best a medium paced hardcourt.

If he is going by the HTH then Davydenko is a beast next to Nadal on hards. I would also like to know the reasoning behind "Nadal is better than Fed on grass" as well. He must think that Fed in Wimbledon 2008 was at his peak version, which is laughable at best when you consider how utterly crap he was on the first 2 sets of that match.

I am truly shocked because i considered him one of the best posters of this forum, but this stuff you dont even see it from Octobrina

Yeah I feel the same, the stuff on most of those players was really good and balanced. But as soon as he started speaking about Federer and Nadal (also saying Federer would sh*t his pants playing Borg) it descended into nonsense.

He gives Nadal loads of credit for competition and injuries, but ignores Federer's mono in 2008, back injury in 2013 and knee issues in 2016. Nevermind that Federer has faced the exact same players Nadal has only more often for the most part - as their top 10 record would show.

Well Carlo is a great poster in my opinion but everyone errs at times. I tend to agree with the both of you but who knows, perhaps we are wrong also.

Anyway it's good to have Carlo posting but I will say that it takes a few days to read just one of Carlo's posts. It's very hard to have a response to his posts because it's so hard to answer every point unless you have a tremendous amount of time and generally I don't.

But let's not underestimate Nadal. He is or was a great player so I hate lowering him. The Federer versus Nadal rivalry could be my favorite of all time. To paraphrase a quote decribing the Laver/Rosewall rivalry, "It's not the shots, but the shots off the shots." That was describing the reasons what the rivalry was so great with Laver and Rosewall. I would easily apply that to Federer and Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Well Carlo is a great poster in my opinion but everyone errs at times. I tend to agree with the both of you but who knows, perhaps we are wrong also.

Anyway it's good to have Carlo posting but I will say that it takes a few days to read just one of Carlo's posts. It's very hard to have a response to his posts because it's so hard to answer every point unless you have a tremendous amount of time and generally I don't.

But let's not underestimate Nadal. He is or was a great player so I hate lowering him. The Federer versus Nadal rivalry could be my favorite of all time. To paraphrase a quote decribing the Laver/Rosewall rivalry, "It's not the shots, but the shots off the shots." That was describing the reasons what the rivalry was so great with Laver and Rosewall. I would easily apply that to Federer and Nadal.

No doubt, I have a huge respect for Carlo. I really enjoyed reading his posts - up until the stuff on Federer/Nadal

And yes Nadal is a great player but if you examine his record next to Federer's it's clear that he's behind, 70% of his titles have been won on clay. No way is he superior to Federer on any other surface. Even if we're going for isolated peak for peak matches Federer has many matches on grass and HC lauded as being among some of the highest displays of tennis ever. Nadal doesn't really sit in the same breadth there.

 

[BobbyOne]

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.

Carlo, I'm very happy that you are back in this forum. It's probable that several (or even many) readers have missed your input since years. Your come-back is a huge and overwhelming one in a two-folded way: hundreds of convincing arguments but at the same time rather long posts. I fear that the self-confident Phoenix1983 will not be ready to read all you wrote (but hopefully I'm wrong).

I confess that I also will need pretty much time to read your detailed posts after the first two summaries. I only had some glances so far-

Even though I might disagree in a few points I want to stress that I'm convinced you are the only poster in this forum who can compete with krosero regarding providing intelligent arguments and meticulously researched facts.

I confess I'm also glad that you disprove especially Phoenix because that poster has revealed once my proper name and announced to do it again plus to reveal krosero's name. I dislike that poster also because he announces since years that Rosewall will or shall die soon.

At last a minor point: You are the first poster (I've seen) who correctly writes "criterion" instead of "criteria"...

 

[treblings]

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

Welcome back Carlo,

i just want you to know, i´m taking a week off work to read your recent posts
it´s probably worth it.

 

[pc1]

Welcome back Carlo,

i just want you to know, i´m taking a week off work to read your recent posts
it´s probably worth it.

You must be a speed reader. I usually take far more than a week to read just one of Carlo's posts.

 

[abmk]

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

so djokovic is not a true great rival on clay ? that's news to me.

As far as talking about 03 goes, federer wasn't even at his prime level then. hadn't even made the SF of a slam, let alone coming close to winning a slam.
04 he got taken out by kuerten turning back the clock.

 

[abmk]

How many times Federer, that you rate as the GOAT, did win the French when facing Nadal ?

Absolutely 0 :

4 finals and 1 semifinal lost.

The Swiss only won Roland Garros when Nadal was clearly injured

(besides Federer against Haas in their round of 16 match was led 2 sets to love 4 games to 3 and break point in favour of the German player).

Nadal got eliminated by soderling's power hitting in RG 09. He was not injured. That stuff is made up as an excuse after his loss.

 

[abmk]

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

WTF did i just read????

Come on man, with all due respect but that has to be one of the most idiotic comments ever on this forum. You were doing a great job untill that point. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you believe that Nadal is superior to Federer on grass or fast hard outdoors then you lost all your credibility as a serious poster.

Seriously. Guy must be a massive Nadal fan or something

yeah, I was like what sort of rubbish is this ?