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

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Exactly.

But in a 128-draw in the open era, there's greater chances for the top 10 players getting upset(as we agree today's greater depth) due to having to play more matches to win.
The numbers don't support that. Again, the Big Three today do as well in majors as in smaller tournaments winning games and matches. That is indisputable.

Match% in early rounds of majors is extremely high, high enough so that in general they almost guaranteed wins, on average, and the modern seeding makes that even more likely. With 32 seeds top players are protected. Upsets still happen, but they are relatively rare.

It is the number of rounds that seems to be the counter factor in both games and matches. We know instinctively that the average final in a M1000 and a M500 can't be as competitive as what happens in a slam final. If we compare the last three rounds of all tourneys, the % lowers as the tourneys become more elite. That is expected.

If you go through finals only, all tourneys, the margins are small, and I believe they are smallest in majors, but I have not yet run those figures. I could though. Would you expect smallest margins in M250s or in majors?

Again, if you have the very best players playing against each other in final after final, and there are very few rounds leading up to those finals, percentages are going to fall. They have to.

I don't have any figures for the 50s and 60s, but intuitively we can look at the H2Hs of top players, and those figures are very high. Other people here may now have complete numbers for Rosewall/Gonzales and so on, but I remember a huge number of meetings between Kramer and Gonzalez. Gonzalez had to play Kramer night after night in his first year in the pros.

Nadal and Djokovic are about to face each other for the 50th time.

Compare that with the number of times Laver faced Rosewall, conservatively three times as often and probably closer to four times as often when you get all the matches missing. @BobbyOne probably has that number, also @krosero and @pc1. @Limpinhitter probably has complete figures for Laver. And so on...

Now, if you have the Big Four all facing each other 150-200 times, all of their stats are going to fall. So when you have guys like Kramer, Gonazlez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver all going against each other and then throw others like Little Pancho, Sedgeman (and others I'm forgetting at the moment) all going at each other night after night, no one is going to appear to dominate the way players do now and have done so since the open era began.
Also, the top 10 players today has to deal with a much bigger pool than the top 10 in pre-OE. Greater number of athletes realistically means it's difficult to reach the top 10 because there's more quality players to overcome. While it can never be proven, but very likely the top 10 in the OE is better than the formers.
Do you mean like the top 10 of the early OE were clearly better than the "formers"?

Doesn't that clearly show that old Laver and old Rosewall would have been lucky to win a few tournaments here and there when they were up against "more quality players"?

Doesn't that mean that 40 year-old Gonzalez would have been massacred by the "bigger and deeper open era fields"?

And wouldn't that suggest that old Pancho, moving on into the OE, would have been lucky to win a match here and there against only the weakest players around?
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
True enough I think.

I do believe that in general the smaller field did in general have most of the best players. It's all debatable of course. Perhaps John Newcombe would have defeated everyone in an Open Wimbledon in 1967.

Older players imo tend to have more problems in best of five with seven rounds due to their slower recovery time compared to younger players. On the Old Pro Tour there weren't any tournaments similar to the majors now with seven rounds.
In Laver's GS year the AO was a bit light in rounds, only five, but the other majors all had 7 rounds. We have to keep in mind that he won the GS at age 30-31 at a time when there were no ice baths, eggs, traveling physios and automatic massages. If anything went wrong physically, treatments then were primitive compared to what we have now.

I fully agree that the physical demands of five sets matches and seven of them is huge, but we have records of that from the beginning of the OE, and then (as now) the percentage of matches won in majors, and percentage of games won, was very high compared to non-majors.

This is a balance that seems to have remained constant from '68 through to today. The only guy I've found so far with a better record outside of majors is Lendl. Some others are close (Connors and JMac), but not Borg. Not the Big Three of today.

So something skews down non-majors. The only logical explanation is the greater number of rounds, where early rounds are pretty predictable. More sets and more rounds certainly should wear out older players, but the extra rest between rounds may play a much larger factors than we realize.

The way M100s are set up it is very common to play matches daily from R16 on. Certainly from the QFs to the end of tourneys.

So there is a lot of extra recovery time in majors, the biggest problem being in the past that Fs were often played the day after SFs, or weather could cause to matches to played on subsequent days.

Also, we forget that there were no TBs back in '68, and players were absolutely destroyed by ridiculously long matches (Gonzalez/Pasarell.) Then you also had older players get completely destroyed by scheduling AND trying to play doubles at the same time.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
That's where the fun begins.
1967 Open Wimbledon hypothetical seedings
This almost is retroactive seeding in hindsight.

1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. John Newcombe (I think Kramer put money on Newk to win the amateur Wimbledon in 1967.)
4. Roy Emerson
5. Arthur Ashe (Ashe didn't play Wimbledon that and only played the Australian among the four majors. Ashe reached the final losing to Emerson. Great grass game. Ashe had a bigger serve in those days and we do know he won the first US Open in 1968.)
6. Andres Gimeno
7. Pancho Gonzalez (took into account he was in his late thirties and may not handle best of five for many rounds well. As his peak he could be top seed. I may seed 1956 Gonzalez top seed.)
8. Tony Roche
9. Tom Okker
10. Butch Buchholz
11. Dennis Ralston (number 10 and 11 are close and could be switched)
12. Manuel Santana
13. Fred Stolle
14. Lew Hoad (He had a lot of injuries and frankly I'm not sure if he should be seeded. I believe he had not won a tournament in many years by 1967! He clearly would be one of the top seeds at his peak.)
15. Drysdale
16. Graebner
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I've never totally disagreed with you on any subject before, but on this one I'm a polar opposite.

That's fair enough.

As I've stated before, when the best players in the world have to consistently play against other top players in the world it is a different competition. You can say that familiarity makes things easier, but to me it's like having a situation where the best meet each other again and again and again. I don't see small groups such as Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka plus a few other very good players meeting each other week after week being easier.

I don't really see that as an accurate analogy, it's little bit extreme compared to the real fields imo. It would be more like the mid 00's with Federer/Nadal, then Agassi and often injured Safin making up the top flight. Plus some older guys like Moya, Henman etc...that's more like the situation in the 60's at least imo. Or maybe instead of Agassi it was Sampras coming out of retirement in 2005. Would that be so much tougher than the kind of situations we've seen throughout the Open Era? At the end of the day in the Open Era you still often met the top players at the back end of tournaments. I don't think a top heavy tour is necessarily tougher than one with more depth - especially if the top players are still there.

If these top players were segregated from the rest of the tennis world I think they would all make each other even better. Over the last few years tennis would have been more interesting, since almost everyone below these top players has failed to step up.

We might have never had Wawrinka if that had happened. The top players would have even more majors than now most probably. I enjoy the early rounds personally. We've had a couple of garbage generations but in the past 20 year old upstarts used to make their mark by claiming scalps. Like Federer-Sampras, Safin-Sampras etc...Nadal probably wouldn't have turned pro until 2007 or so in this sort of scenario. Federer would have swept the majors when we now know Nadal had his number on clay. I think there's another angle to look at this. Tennis being open is far more interesting IMO.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that modern M500s are as difficult as majors to win. I'm saying something different - the match structure pushes down match%. The competition is obviously lower and favors the top players who enter them because usually they are not all there in the same tourneys. But the competition is also not watered down by 7 rounds and 32 seeds, guaranteeing a couple of easier rounds.

I think I get you now. Obviously playing smaller field events where if you lose the final you only won 75% of your matches 85% at a slam makes a difference. My point is that day to day across an entire year the competition might be tougher on the pro tour but when looking at individual tournaments it's not. The competition might have been more consistently tough, but I think the potential for difficult opponents and draws is tougher now and in the OE. I don't think today's majors are easier to win because there's rounds with lower ranked players. Going back to the original point on Gonzalez I don't think that because his tournaments had smaller draws that they count for less than 250, assuming that pro event had top players and the 250 did not.

Essentially I would qualify the statements a bit more. Average tournament on the pro tour might be tougher, but the majors, masters and YEC are a different matter IMO.

-------------------------------------------------

To respond to your other post a little;

How am I devaluing anything? I'm not saying that the best players of the 50's and 60's weren't way ahead of the amateurs. Goes without saying. I'm talking about the guys they met in the QF and SF. I think an Emerson etc...would been a tough opponent to meet earlier on, I think bumping into a young Roche, Newcombe or Ashe in the first few rounds of a major might have been dangerous etc...

I think more rounds and a bigger field of players, assuming it includes the top guys as well is generally tougher than a smaller field with only the top players. That's my POV.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
To respond to your other post a little;

How am I devaluing anything? I'm not saying that the best players of the 50's and 60's weren't way ahead of the amateurs. Goes without saying. I'm talking about the guys they met in the QF and SF. I think an Emerson etc...would been a tough opponent to meet earlier on, I think bumping into a young Roche, Newcombe or Ashe in the first few rounds of a major might have been dangerous etc...

I think more rounds and a bigger field of players, assuming it includes the top guys as well is generally tougher than a smaller field with only the top players. That's my POV.
I agree. A bigger field also has more rounds and sometimes you could run into a person like Ashe who can blow a person away with his serve and volley and power game. A player like Kodes could be in the zone and win.

Incidentally in a small field with fewer rounds you can win more tournaments and yet have a lower winning percentage.

It is also not unusual for the top players to have a higher winning percentage in the majors because they are best of five sets. The odds of winning three out of five sets when you are the inferior player are lower than winning two out of three sets from the superior player.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree. A bigger field also has more rounds and sometimes you could run into a person like Ashe who can blow a person away with his serve and volley and power game. A player like Kodes could be in the zone and win.

Incidentally in a small field with fewer rounds you can win more tournaments and yet have a lower winning percentage.

It is also not unusual for the top players to have a higher winning percentage in the majors because they are best of five sets. The odds of winning three out of five sets when you are the inferior player are lower than winning two out of three sets from the superior player.

There can be odd match ups in a big field. A guy like Fognini who seems to give Nadal trouble, or Andreev who gave Federer issues for a while etc...Unexpected match ups that add to a draw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
There can be odd match ups in a big field. A guy like Fognini who seems to give Nadal trouble, or Andreev who gave Federer issues for a while etc...Unexpected match ups that add to a draw.
Yes of course.

Also playing more rounds before you get to the quarterfinals make it more strenuous. So if a young player survives until the quarters he will have a better chance to defeat an older superior player.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
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, Fantastic research.

I believe that Ned Potter had Seixas as No.1 for 1953 but I could be wrong (have read it many years ago).
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
- 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.





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, …).





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.





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.





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, Here I disagree: I think we should consider the big amateur titles as a plus in a player's career because of the tradition and prestige of the GS tournaments, albeit to a lesser extent than the open era majors and even the pro majors. It's you who emphasizes the great meaning of the old Davis Cup. The amateur GS majors came behind but yet were distinguished events.

Of course we should differ a bit regarding stength of the field, not only at the amateur majors. In some of the 1950's events there were top players like Rosewall, Hoad and Trabert, in others not. Similary to the early open era majors: 1972 AO was not a big tournament (but still a major).

I strongly guess (or even know) that Muscles is very proud of his amateur feats (Davis Cup, GS tournaments).

I agree that Drobny was a tough player at Wimbledon in 1954. The final was a classic. Ken claims that he was ill-adviced by (authoritarian) coach, Hopman, to prefer the baseline instead of searching the net more often...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
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.





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.





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.





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 :




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.






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, Let me disagree also here a bit: I don't think that there is a significant difference in Rosewall's strength between Wimbledon and the other GS tournaments.

In 1956 the Wimbledon and Forest Hills outcomes could easily had been reversed or at least Hoad could have won at F.H. if he would have been in the same top form as he was at Wimbledon. Thus Rosewall would also have "failed" at the US Championships. Similary in 1970: If Newcombe had been as tough at Forest Hills as at Wimbledon he might have beaten Rosewall at the US Open. Rosewall, if not for a strenuous schedule at Wimbledon, might have beaten Newk because he would not got tired as he actually did, especially in the fifth set (even though Kenny still made several games close in that set). I recently have shown in this forum that Rosewall had played many more sets at Wimbledon (both singles and doubles) than he had played at F.H. before he met Newcombe in both events. A deciding factor for an 35 years old.

I still consider the Wimbledon career (including the 1967 pro event) of Rosewall as a plus in his career disagreeing with you and krosero.

A player who at 39 is able to beat the No.1 player of the world at Wimbledon, winning a set by 6-0, and to reach the final cannot had have a weakness in any sense, not even in the smallest one.

Just as Kramer and you, I believe that Rosewall would probably have won four Wimbledons even though "my" years are a bit different from Kramer's who omits 1963 and states 1966. My years concur with yours. But Rosewall was such a great player at the biggest events (best-of-five majors) that he sometimes even won a big event when he was not the top favourite. I could imagine a Wimbledon win f. e. in 1958 or 1966 (and a failure in 1960 and 1965 f.e.).

Unlike to the common opinion I believe that the Little Master was not that consistent day-in, day-out but rather at his top when it really mattered. See his two big wins in 1965 when generally he was clearly weaker than Laver, or 1970 when Laver won so many fine tournaments but failed in the two biggest events while Rosewall peaked in the latter, or 1971 and 1972 when Laver dominated the WCT circuit but had to bow to Muscles in the Dallas Finals.

By the way, I also believe that Rosewall is a bit overrated as a claycourt player (in comparison to Hoad and Laver) and underrated as a grasscourt and wood player.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I think I get you now. Obviously playing smaller field events where if you lose the final you only won 75% of your matches 85% at a slam makes a difference.
That's a bit part of it. Four rounds, lose in the finals, 75% of matches.

Seven rounds, lose in the final, 87% of matches. If you take a look at the major results of Djokovic, you can sort of eyeball that and see that he has won a lot of majors but also lost a few well before finals to get to an average of 87%. Games will work in a similar manner.

So I'm not in any way down-playing the quality of the competition in majors when we get to the end of them. I'm not saying that the competition at the end of small tourneys is the same as majors. I'm not saying that by default we can say that any tourney in the 50s, for example, has that level of competition.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
We might have never had Wawrinka if that had happened. The top players would have even more majors than now most probably. I enjoy the early rounds personally. We've had a couple of garbage generations but in the past 20 year old upstarts used to make their mark by claiming scalps. Like Federer-Sampras, Safin-Sampras etc...Nadal probably wouldn't have turned pro until 2007 or so in this sort of scenario. Federer would have swept the majors when we now know Nadal had his number on clay. I think there's another angle to look at this. Tennis being open is far more interesting IMO.
I agree completely, but that has nothing to do with my point. In other words, in the 50s and 60s tennis was "segregated". I'm not praising that or criticizing. It "is what it is". I'm only saying that the system was a pressure cooker for the very best players, the pros, and it did not allow the amateurs to hit their full potential. We have talked about Emerson. My hunch is that if open tennis had arrived 20 years earlier, Emerson would have been a very good player. He might not have attained the amazing level of the guys who were "drafted" into professional tennis pre-OE, but just don't know how much better he might have become.

Just to make my view clear, I think everyone else was held back by not being exposed to the very high level of pre-open professional tennis, and I believe that gave Laver and Rosewall a huge advantage over everyone else in '68 because it took a few years for the rest of the field to come up to that very high level.

The only place that you and I might differ - I'm not sure - might be about how good the 50s and 60s pros were. And you could argue that either way. You could say that the were the best, playing against each other, and so held to a higher standard. Or you could say that everyone else was prevented from reaching their potential by being deprived of that higher level.

It could be both.

A thought experiment: Let's say Laver grew up in open tennis, starting to play against the very best from the time he was in his late teens, more or less the modern model. By 1962, age 23-24, he might already have been at his peak, a peak that seems to have been delayed until around 64-65. Each of the top pros back then seem to have had their peaks delayed in the same manner. And can't we say that happened in the same way in the early OE days as far as all the former amateurs reaching their potentials? Wasn't letting Laver and Rosewall loose in former amateur tennis a bit like like letting wolves into a hen house?
Essentially I would qualify the statements a bit more. Average tournament on the pro tour might be tougher, but the majors, masters and YEC are a different matter IMO.
I know that @krosero has data about % of tournaments won. I may be wrong, but if I am remembering correctly Gonzalez, comparing him to modern players, does not look very dominant. I don't think any of those 50s and 60s players did. My own assumption is that those great players compare very well to today's players in winning, in being tough, domination, but again you can't see that with Laver from numbers until 1969. If you think Laver improved in '69, you could explain his "lesser success" earlier in those terms, but my assumption is that Laver absolutely peaked sometime a bit earlier. So if his stats/numbers do not reflect that, we need to examine what was different from the OE to push them down.

I'm pretty sure that Laver had a lower match% outside of majors than in majors, also true of modern players, but probably a bit more depressed. I don't have all his non-major matches, but other people tell me my limited data for non-majors is too high because of a lot of matches that are not in most lists. That suggests to me that even after '68, some of the old mentality with smaller tourneys with very strong players continued.
I'm not saying that the best players of the 50's and 60's weren't way ahead of the amateurs. Goes without saying. I'm talking about the guys they met in the QF and SF. I think an Emerson etc...would been a tough opponent to meet earlier on, I think bumping into a young Roche, Newcombe or Ashe in the first few rounds of a major might have been dangerous etc...
We might not be so different in our thinking. I think all of these players you mention, being allowed to play in open tennis from the time they were out of their teens, would have changed everything a good bit. I think, for instance, that if the OE had started in '48 instead of '68 by '69 Laver would have had a LOT more top level competition. I don't see him wining the GS under those conditions, but I think his slam total might have been awesome because of the rest of this hypothetical career.

I know that is heresy to say here, and I just did it, didn't I? I'm fully engaged in sports intellectual masturbation. :D
 

ARFED

Professional
The chance of losing every time a player plays is much higher when he/she only plays other top 10 players. The larger the pool, the better the winning percentage for top 10 players.

However, logic indicates the larger the pool, chances are that the top players who emerged from the bigger one are better than the top players who emerged from smaller pools. Chances are that the number 5 player in the world in 2017 is better than the number 5 player in the world in 1967. So the competition is actually tougher to reach the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Wow, that's tough. I'll look at the field later and try to give an educated guess. Can't do it now. I'm at a restaurant.

I think a guy named Laver would be top seed however. Lol.
I've been to a few Manhattan restaurants, very exciting. I hope that yours is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Limpin, Here my 1967 Wimbledon seeds:

1 Laver
2 Rosewall
3 Gonzalez
4 Gimeno
5 Emerson
6 Stolle
7 Newcombe
8 Santana
9 Buchholz
10 Ralston
11 Hoad
12 Roche
13 Ashe
14 Graebner
15 Bungert
16 Drysdale

Thus 8 pros and 8 amateurs.

pc1 (and of course the others): Thanks for your "like".

I believe that you rate Newcombe and Okker too highly. Newcombe did not too much until mid-1967. Even at the 1968 Wimbledon he was seeded behind Gimeno even though he had won the two big events in 1967. Okker virtually did not exist at all on grass at that time.
 
Last edited:

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
1967 Open Wimbledon hypothetical seedings
This almost almost retroactive seeding in hindsight.

1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. John Newcombe (I think Kramer put money on Newk to win the amateur Wimbledon in 1967.)
4. Roy Emerson
5. Arthur Ashe (Ashe didn't play Wimbledon that and only played the Australian among the four majors. Ashe reached the final losing to Emerson. Great grass game. Ashe had a bigger serve in those days and we do know he won the first US Open in 1968.)
6. Andres Gimeno
7. Pancho Gonzalez (took into account he was in his late thirties and may not handle best of five for many rounds well. As his peak he could be top seed. I may seed 1956 Gonzalez top seed.)
8. Tony Roche
9. Tom Okker
10. Butch Buchholz
11. Dennis Ralston (number 10 and 11 are close and could be switched)
12. Manuel Santana
13. Fred Stolle
14. Lew Hoad (He had a lot of injuries and frankly I'm not sure if he should be seeded. I believe he had not won a tournament in many years by 1967! He clearly would be one of the top seeds at his peak.)
15. Drysdale
16. Graebner

That's an interesting list. I'm working on it. It's a busy day for me, but, I hope to have a thoughtful seeding before the end of the day, if possible.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
In Laver's GS year the AO was a bit light in rounds, only five, but the other majors all had 7 rounds. We have to keep in mind that he won the GS at age 30-31 at a time when there were no ice baths, eggs, traveling physios and automatic massages. If anything went wrong physically, treatments then were primitive compared to what we have now.
Also, players were not allowed to sit between games on changeovers.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
That's an interesting list. I'm working on it. It's a busy day for me, but, I hope to have a thoughtful seeding before the end of the day, if possible.
I tried to put some thought into it. I think perhaps my list shouldn't have Hoad as one of the seeds. Too many injuries, the horrible back, the foot surgery, older. I could also see Gonzalez being a little higher in the seedings mainly because of his great serve.

Looking forward to your seedings.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I tried to put some thought into it. I think perhaps my list shouldn't have Hoad as one of the seeds. Too many injuries, the horrible back, the foot surgery, older. I could also see Gonzalez being a little higher in the seedings mainly because of his great serve.

Looking forward to your seedings.

Shouldn't seeding be done on results? Or are you going for likelihood of winning the tournament?

@Gary Duane I'll reply to your posts a little later.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
pc1 (and of course the others): Thanks for your "like".

I believe that you rate Newcombe and Okker too highly. Newcombe did not too much until mid-1967. Even at the 1968 Wimbledon he was seeded behind Gimeno even though he had won the two big events in 1967. Okker virtually did not exist at all on grass at that time.

To be fair he did say it was with hindsight.

It's tough to really judge how to do these seedings, because if you do it in hindsight then in theory Santana shouldn't even be seeded as he lost in the first round.

The alternative is to simply take the actual Wimbledon seeds and simply filter in the pro/missing players.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
However, logic indicates the larger the pool, chances are that the top players who emerged from the bigger one are better than the top players who emerged from smaller pools. Chances are that the number 5 player in the world in 2017 is better than the number 5 player in the world in 1967. So the competition is actually tougher to reach the top.
Not necessarily...perhaps what we have today is that those athletes who are less than "top" still find a place in pro tennis, or pro other sports.
The limited money in the game in the fifties and sixties placed the limit on how many players could find a career on the circuit.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Shouldn't seeding be done on results? Or are you going for likelihood of winning the tournament?

@Gary Duane I'll reply to your posts a little later.
I'm going for likelihood of winning or at least doing well in the tournament. Obviously all subjective. In those days they did do that. If I went for achievement the list may be different.

How do we compare achievement in those days? Is winning an amateur Wimbledon in 1967 better than winning an Old Pro Tour Wembley that year? Laver beat MacKay, Davidson and Rosewall to win it. The first match for Laver was best of three. The rest were best of five but that's only two matches. However he did play the great Rosewall in the final and won.

Newcombe won the 1967 Wimbledon by defeating Jauffret and Fairlie in straight sets, than Stan Smith in four sets. He then defeated the tough Graebner in straight sets. Newcombe then defeated the tough Ken Fletcher, Pilic and Bungert with the loss of only one set to Pilic. Oddly enough Oven Davidson played in both 1967 Wimbledon and the 1967 Wembley. Davidson won the first round and lost in straight sets to Ken Fletcher at the 1967 Wimbledon.

Laver played Davidson at the 1967 Wembley and beat him 6-3 3-6 6-2 7-5 before beating Rosewall in five sets in the final.

Newcombe lost two sets at the 1967 Wimbledon in all best of five matches but he faced no one imo the level of Rosewall.

For example one of my favorites Kuerten at his best when he was number one to my mind would shouldn't be seeded number one at Wimbledon.

The problem here is comparing amateur achievements to the Old Pro Tour achievements and what I know of the players and the Pros.

For example I know Arthur Ashe in those days had an even bigger serve than he had in the early to mid 1970s because that was before injuries affected his serve. I know he was capable of winning a strong grass major (1968 US Open) with the stroke equipment he had at the time. I know he had incredible power but he wasn't as consistent as for example a Rosewall was but he was capable of beating anyone. He would have a great chance to beat anyone with the exception of Laver who was his nemesis.

If I compare Ashe to the great Rosewall I would say Ashe clearly had the superior serve but Rosewall had a slightly better backhand (Ashe had a great backhand), a better forehand, a better volley and better movement. However Ashe could have days when everything is clicking with his great power and that's when he would have a shot to defeat Rosewall, especially on a fast surface although Ashe has I believe defeated Rosewall on clay. Ashe was a very low percentage player so I would favor Rosewall on any surface.

It's not easy to compare but it's clear to me Newcombe was superior to Ashe at that point and should be seeded higher than him. However how do you compare him to Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Gonzalez and Gimeno considering they were different tours except for Emerson? Was Emerson declining? Was Gimeno really that good? Gimeno won the French in the Open Era but really didn't do that well. The same with Emerson but Emerson didn't win a major.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You tell me? Only one of us was alive then :D It was by committee, I assume they based it on a bunch of things - form seems like the best bet?
I remember in I think in 1969 Tony Roche was seeded number one over Rod Laver in a tournament because the logic was that Roche had the second best year however he was beating Laver most of the time so if they reach the final they figured Roche would be favored over Laver. I guess in modern terms that would be like seeding Nadal over Federer at Wimbledon in Roger's peak years.
 

ARFED

Professional
Not necessarily...perhaps what we have today is that those athletes who are less than "top" still find a place in pro tennis, or pro other sports.
The limited money in the game in the fifties and sixties placed the limit on how many players could find a career on the circuit.

You cannot draw a definitive conclusion, but it goes without saying that probability indicates that the one who dominates a larger field is the one who has the odds in his favour. You can spin it all you want, but there is no 2 ways around that fact. Just the population worldwide has at the very least doubled, perhaps even tripled since the 50`s, worldwide there are much more people playing tennis than ever before. Both professionals and amateurs. That is a cold hard fact.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
To be fair he did say it was with hindsight.

It's tough to really judge how to do these seedings, because if you do it in hindsight then in theory Santana shouldn't even be seeded as he lost in the first round.

The alternative is to simply take the actual Wimbledon seeds and simply filter in the pro/missing players.

70sHollywood, The question was about the seeds not about how the players have done in the 1967 Wimbledon. Santana would have been seeded high because he was the holder of the amateur 1966 Wimbledon and would have done rather well in an open 1966 event as well (maybe QFs).
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
To be fair he did say it was with hindsight.

It's tough to really judge how to do these seedings, because if you do it in hindsight then in theory Santana shouldn't even be seeded as he lost in the first round.

The alternative is to simply take the actual Wimbledon seeds and simply filter in the pro/missing players.
I didn't seed Santana high because I felt he didn't deserve it, not because he lost early.

When I wrote hindsight I meant in knowing the abilities of the players and their talents which were demonstrated in how well they did in the NEAR future. Okker did do well in the amateurs that year in winning at least 6 tournaments plus we knew that he would be in the US Open final in 1968. I also respected his great talent.

I wasn't going to make Santana or some others unseeded because they lost early.

Nastase was in the tournament but he was too raw I believe to make a dent at any point in a 1967 Wimbledon. I wasn't going to seed him despite the great things he would do in the early 1970 to mid 1970s.

In 1968 Newcombe was in the finals of the three Pro Majors at Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro. He even beat Rosewall on red clay at Roland Garros at the French Pro. I seeded him very high because I felt he deserved it over some players like Emerson or even Gonzalez. Newcombe was perhaps the top player in the amateurs in 1967 and won at least 12 tournaments that year including Wimbledon and the US Championships on grass.
 
Last edited:
7

70sHollywood

Guest
70sHollywood, The question was about the seeds not about how the players have done in the 1967 Wimbledon. Santana would have been seeded high because he was the holder of the amateur 1966 Wimbledon and would have done rather well in an open 1966 event as well (maybe QFs).

Then as I said, there is really no need to change the actual order of the amateur seeds e.g Santana should be the highest seeded amateur, but you seed him below Emerson and Newcombe.

My prediction for how Wimbledon may have seeded a 1967 Open tournament, assuming the pro/am split was in place up to the start of the tournament:

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Gimeno
4. Santana
5. Emerson
6. Gonzalez
7. Hoad
8. Stolle
9. Newcombe
10. Buchholz
11. Ralston
12. Ashe
13. Davies
14. Anderson
15. Roche
16. Drysdale
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Then as I said, there is really no need to change the actual order of the amateur seeds e.g Santana should be the highest seeded amateur, but you seed him below Emerson and Newcombe.

My prediction for how Wimbledon may have seeded a 1967 Open tournament, assuming the pro/am split was in place up to the start of the tournament:

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Gimeno
4. Santana
5. Emerson
6. Gonzalez
7. Hoad
8. Stolle
9. Newcombe
10. Buchholz
11. Ralston
12. Ashe
13. Davies
14. Anderson
15. Roche
16. Drysdale

70sHollywood, A few comments: Ralston slightly did more than Buchholz in early 1967 (several wins over Laver). Maybe the seeding committee would have ranked Anderson ahead of Davies (but Davies was British!).

I also think that Roche should not be ranked significantly past Newcombe. I should also reflect about my own list. Roche was the runner-up at Roland Garros.

EDIT: I should also rank Ralston ahead of Buchholz.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
You cannot draw a definitive conclusion, but it goes without saying that probability indicates that the one who dominates a larger field is the one who has the odds in his favour. You can spin it all you want, but there is no 2 ways around that fact. Just the population worldwide has at the very least doubled, perhaps even tripled since the 50`s, worldwide there are much more people playing tennis than ever before. Both professionals and amateurs. That is a cold hard fact.
However, there do not appear to be more ELITE tennis players at the top than in past eras.
In fact, I would say that there were more elite players during the fifties and sixties than at the present time.
You really have to look at the top players themselves, rather than arguing around the point with population numbers. That avoids the key issue.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
70sHollywood, A few comments: Ralston slightly did more than Buchholz in early 1967 (several wins over Laver). Maybe the seeding committee would have ranked Anderson ahead of Davies (but Davies was British!).

I also think that Roche should not be ranked significantly past Newcombe. I should also reflect about my own list. Roche was the runner-up at Roland Garros.

I used the 1968 seedings as a guide and Roche was seeded very low, even below Drysdale, whilst overall they appeared to favour pro's. But I do think it is very possible he could have been seeded above Davies and Anderson in 1967. I was unsure about how to place those.

I think you are right about Ralston (he was also runner up in 66). Thinking about it again I'm not sure why I put Buchholz higher. I'm sure I had a specific reason but I can't think of any now!
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I used the 1968 seedings as a guide and Roche was seeded very low, even below Drysdale, whilst overall they appeared to favour pro's. But I do think it is very possible he could have been seeded above Davies and Anderson in 1967. I was unsure about how to place those.

I think you are right about Ralston (he was also runner up in 66). Thinking about it again I'm not sure why I put Buchholz higher. I'm sure I had a specific reason but I can't think of any now!
It's tough to pick between Ralston and Buchholz at that point. I went with Butch mainly because I felt he faced the best pros in Laver and Rosewall for a longer period. @BobbyOne may be happy to know that Butch felt that Rosewall was his toughest opponent to face by the way.

Roche had a heck of a year in 1967 in winning 14 tournaments by the way. He should be one of the top seeds among the amateurs. Considering that it was on grass and Roche had the game for grass I believe he was a threat to any player.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Then as I said, there is really no need to change the actual order of the amateur seeds e.g Santana should be the highest seeded amateur, but you seed him below Emerson and Newcombe.

My prediction for how Wimbledon may have seeded a 1967 Open tournament, assuming the pro/am split was in place up to the start of the tournament:

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Gimeno
4. Santana
5. Emerson
6. Gonzalez
7. Hoad
8. Stolle
9. Newcombe
10. Buchholz
11. Ralston
12. Ashe
13. Davies
14. Anderson
15. Roche
16. Drysdale

70sHollywood, The seeding committees of that time mostly put the holder at No.1 but not always. F.e. in 1964 they gave Emerson, not McKinley the top place. Santana did not do much after his Wimbledon win, both in 1966 and early 1967, Emerson and Newcombe did.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Limpin, Here my 1967 Wimbledon seeds:

1 Laver
2 Rosewall
3 Gonzalez
4 Gimeno
5 Emerson
6 Stolle
7 Newcombe
8 Santana
9 Buchholz
10 Ralston
11 Hoad
12 Roche
13 Ashe
14 Graebner
15 Bungert
16 Drysdale

Thus 8 pros and 8 amateurs.

pc1, Thanks for the Buchholz news. Did not know it.

Think you overrate Okker who "exploded" only in 1968. Also Ashe.
 

ARFED

Professional
However, there do not appear to be more ELITE tennis players at the top than in past eras.
In fact, I would say that there were more elite players during the fifties and sixties than at the present time.
You really have to look at the top players themselves, rather than arguing around the point with population numbers. That avoids the key issue.

Dan all your are giving me is a subjective point of view. "There do not appear to be more elite players", is a weak argument at best. I am talking about facts over here. We can go back and forward for all eternity discussing who was an elite player or who isn`t, but the only thing that we know for sure is that dominating a larger field, usually will translate into a higher level. This is third grade, primmary school stuff. Should be self evident to you. If you cannot concede that, then there is no point in arguing over this
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
pc1, Thanks for the Buchholz news. Did not know it.

Think you overrate Okker who "exploded" only in 1968. Also Ashe.
Buchholz did say that to me in 2017 about Rosewall so you know it's current.

Okker and Ashe had very good amateur years in 1967. I took into account that both had great games for grass. Ashe was in the finals of the Australian in 1966 and 1967 losing to Emerson both times. Ashe only entered three majors out of eight possible yet reached the finals in two of the three.

I believe Ashe's tournament schedule was probably affected by his involvement in the US Military from 1966 to 1968. Despite that he won at least 10 tournaments in 1966 and 1967. They were both among the top few amateurs.

The more I think about it the more I believe Hoad should NOT be seeded. He was hurt, old and I don't believe he would be competitive. Here's a quote from "Golden Boy"--This was 1967, by now Lew was semi-retired and had to nurse himself through tournaments he did play, frequently fighting severe back pain as much as his opponent.

I may do a revised list.

You know that you are allowed to quote me by the way.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
1967 Open Wimbledon hypothetical seedings
This almost almost retroactive seeding in hindsight.

1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. John Newcombe (I think Kramer put money on Newk to win the amateur Wimbledon in 1967.)
4. Roy Emerson
5. Arthur Ashe (Ashe didn't play Wimbledon that and only played the Australian among the four majors. Ashe reached the final losing to Emerson. Great grass game. Ashe had a bigger serve in those days and we do know he won the first US Open in 1968.)
6. Andres Gimeno
7. Pancho Gonzalez (took into account he was in his late thirties and may not handle best of five for many rounds well. As his peak he could be top seed. I may seed 1956 Gonzalez top seed.)
8. Tony Roche
9. Tom Okker
10. Butch Buchholz
11. Dennis Ralston (number 10 and 11 are close and could be switched)
12. Manuel Santana
13. Fred Stolle
14. Lew Hoad (He had a lot of injuries and frankly I'm not sure if he should be seeded. I believe he had not won a tournament in many years by 1967! He clearly would be one of the top seeds at his peak.)
15. Drysdale
16. Graebner

I'm revising the above list. I'm replacing Lew Hoad with Ken Fletcher.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
It's tough to pick between Ralston and Buchholz at that point. I went with Butch mainly because I felt he faced the best pros in Laver and Rosewall. @BobbyOne may be happy to know that Butch felt that Rosewall was his toughest opponent to face by the way.

Roche had a heck of a year in 1967 in winning 14 tournaments by the way. He should be one of the top seeds among the amateurs. Considering that it was on grass and Roche had the game for grass I believe he was a threat to any player.

(Just a quick reminder we are taking very different routes with our seedings. I am trying to predict what Wimbledon themselves would have done in June 1967)

Roche was seeded 4th in 1967:

1. Santana 2. Emerson 3. Newcombe 4. Roche 5. Drysdale 6. Fletcher


The issue for me was Ashe. At the Australian Championships he was seeded above Newcombe and outperformed him at that event. However, he did reach the final the year before in Oz which probably influenced the seeding so I was happy to put Newk above Ashe.

As far as Roche is concerned I think I focused too much on his 1968 seeding, with Tony seeded only 15th and Ashe 13th. I cannot rememeber the results of early 68 but I don't understand why Roche was seeded so low. So I think I would now agree with Bobby and put Roche above Ashe. I may put Roche above Davies and Anderson too.

So my re-jigged bottom 5 would read:

12. Roche 13. Davies 14. Anderson 15. Ashe 16. Drysdale


Higher up the issue of Gonzalez and Hoad is interesting. Again, in 1968 they seeded Hoad number 7 and Gonzalez number 8. I wonder how much the Wimbledon Pro influenced them? This took place after Wimbledon 67 so maybe Hoad would not have been seeded so high in an Open Wimbledon that year.

I myself would not have seeded Hoad in the top 10, and maybe I would have seeded Gonzalez and the other pro's a bit lower (except the top 2), but as I said I am trying to figure out what Wimbledon themselves would have done and I think they had a slight bias towards the pro's a year later (I myself would have seeded Newcombe 3rd in 1968 for example).
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
(Just a quick reminder we are taking very different routes with our seedings. I am trying to predict what Wimbledon themselves would have done in June 1967)

Roche was seeded 4th in 1967:

1. Santana 2. Emerson 3. Newcombe 4. Roche 5. Drysdale 6. Fletcher


The issue for me was Ashe. At the Australian Championships he was seeded above Newcombe and outperformed him at that event. However, he did reach the final the year before in Oz which probably influenced the seeding so I was happy to put Newk above Ashe.

As far as Roche is concerned I think I focused too much on his 1968 seeding, with Tony seeded only 15th and Ashe 13th. I cannot rememeber the results of early 68 but I don't understand why Roche was seeded so low. So I think I would now agree with Bobby and put Roche above Ashe. I may put Roche above Davies and Anderson too.

So my re-jigged bottom 5 would read:

12. Roche 13. Davies 14. Anderson 15. Ashe 16. Drysdale


Higher up the issue of Gonzalez and Hoad is interesting. Again, in 1968 they seeded Hoad number 7 and Gonzalez number 8. I wonder how much the Wimbledon Pro influenced them? This took place after Wimbledon 67 so maybe Hoad would not have been seeded so high in an Open Wimbledon that year.

I myself would not have seeded Hoad in the top 10, and maybe I would have seeded Gonzalez and the other pro's a bit lower (except the top 2), but as I said I am trying to figure out what Wimbledon themselves would have done and I think they had a slight bias towards the pro's a year later (I myself would have seeded Newcombe 3rd in 1968 for example).

Yes I understand.

By the way nothing wrong with putting Roche over Ashe.

Could you possibly do a list on how you would seed a 1967 Open Wimbledon? I think the top two are no brainers but after that there is some debate.

Incidentally as far as a pure mechanical serve and volley game is concerned, I've never seen a player superior to John Newcombe when he was healthy and in shape which often wasn't the case. He had a huge accurate first serve. He had a second serve some have called the greatest ever. He, according to Vic Braden got in closer on the first volley to the net than anyone until Edberg. He had a super penetrating volley with a great overhead.

Bear in mind of course I've never seen Jack Kramer at his best. Braden thought Kramer was the best player ever.

I think the main reason for the seeding of Hoad was just the magic of the Hoad name at that point. If the seeding committee looked at it logically perhaps he would be seeded lower or not seeded at all.
 
Last edited:
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Yes I understand.

By the way nothing wrong with putting Roche over Ashe.

Could you possibly do a list on how you would seed a 1967 Open Wimbledon? I think the top two are no brainers but after that there is some debate.

Incidentally as far as a pure mechanical serve and volley game is concerned, I've never seen a player superior to John Newcombe when he was healthy and in shape which often wasn't the case. He had a huge accurate first serve. He had a second serve some have called the greatest ever. He, according to Vic Braden got in closer on the first volley to the net than anyone until Edberg. He had a super penetrating volley with a great overhead.

Bear in mind of course I've never seen Jack Kramer at his best. Braden thought Kramer was the best player ever.

Ok, I would have seeded them:

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Emerson
4. Gimeno
5. Santana
6. Gonzalez
7. Stolle
8. Newcombe
9. Ralston
10. Buchholz
11. Roche
12. Ashe
13. Hoad
14. Anderson
15. Davies
16. Drysdale

Hmmm, this is not too different to my other list!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan all your are giving me is a subjective point of view. "There do not appear to be more elite players", is a weak argument at best. I am talking about facts over here. We can go back and forward for all eternity discussing who was an elite player or who isn`t, but the only thing that we know for sure is that dominating a larger field, usually will translate into a higher level. This is third grade, primmary school stuff. Should be self evident to you. If you cannot concede that, then there is no point in arguing over this
No, this not MY opinion, but the opinion of the only genuine experts, the players themselves.
You seem to have trouble accepting the fact that some eras contain more elite tennis athletes than other eras, although common sense would dictate otherwise.
Dominating a larger field does translate into a higher winning percentage, for obvious reasons.
Winning percentage tells us nothing about the pre-open era when every match for a pro was a tough match. That is common sense.
 

ARFED

Professional
No, this not MY opinion, but the opinion of the only genuine experts, the players themselves.
You seem to have trouble accepting the fact that some eras contain more elite tennis athletes than other eras, although common sense would dictate otherwise.
Dominating a larger field does translate into a higher winning percentage, for obvious reasons.
Winning percentage tells us nothing about the pre-open era when every match for a pro was a tough match. That is common sense.

Who is talking about winning percentage? I only talked about a higher level of play, which is the only logical conclusion. Come on Dan, try to keep up. You haven`t presented any facts, at all. You are only referring to opinions of others, on a court room you would be helpless. I gave you an argumentation, backed up by facts and common sense on why players emerging from and dominating a larger field, are more likely to display a higher level of play. All you got is heresay.

There is no point in continuing this topic. Lets just agree to disagree then
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
(Just a quick reminder we are taking very different routes with our seedings. I am trying to predict what Wimbledon themselves would have done in June 1967)

Roche was seeded 4th in 1967:

1. Santana 2. Emerson 3. Newcombe 4. Roche 5. Drysdale 6. Fletcher


The issue for me was Ashe. At the Australian Championships he was seeded above Newcombe and outperformed him at that event. However, he did reach the final the year before in Oz which probably influenced the seeding so I was happy to put Newk above Ashe.

As far as Roche is concerned I think I focused too much on his 1968 seeding, with Tony seeded only 15th and Ashe 13th. I cannot rememeber the results of early 68 but I don't understand why Roche was seeded so low. So I think I would now agree with Bobby and put Roche above Ashe. I may put Roche above Davies and Anderson too.

So my re-jigged bottom 5 would read:

12. Roche 13. Davies 14. Anderson 15. Ashe 16. Drysdale


Higher up the issue of Gonzalez and Hoad is interesting. Again, in 1968 they seeded Hoad number 7 and Gonzalez number 8. I wonder how much the Wimbledon Pro influenced them? This took place after Wimbledon 67 so maybe Hoad would not have been seeded so high in an Open Wimbledon that year.

I myself would not have seeded Hoad in the top 10, and maybe I would have seeded Gonzalez and the other pro's a bit lower (except the top 2), but as I said I am trying to figure out what Wimbledon themselves would have done and I think they had a slight bias towards the pro's a year later (I myself would have seeded Newcombe 3rd in 1968 for example).

70sHollywood, I must correct you: I have Roche ahead of Ashe.

EDIT: Sorry, I have misread your statement.
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Limpin, Here my 1967 Wimbledon seeds:

1 Laver
2 Rosewall
3 Gonzalez
4 Gimeno
5 Emerson
6 Stolle
7 Newcombe
8 Santana
9 Buchholz
10 Ralston
11 Hoad
12 Roche
13 Ashe
14 Graebner
15 Bungert
16 Drysdale

Thus 8 pros and 8 amateurs.

pc1, I cannot answer you directly.

I must correct you: Okker was not ranked in 1967, Ashe only at No.9.

Please consider that Hoad did very, very well at the 1966 Wembley tournament: He beat Gimeno in straight sets, lost to Rosewall only in five sets (lead 3:0 in the fifth set) and demolished Davies for third place.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
pc1, I cannot answer you directly.

I must correct you: Okker was not ranked in 1967, Ashe only at No.9.

Please consider that Hoad did very, very well at the 1966 Wembley tournament: He beat Gimeno in straight sets, lost to Rosewall only in five sets (lead 3:0 in the fifth set) and demolished Davies for third place.
You can. I PMed the mod to okay it. So you can say to me whatever you want. That's been the case for a while now. Whether you're directly addressing me or not the mods I'm sure know you are discussing things with me and as you know there have been no consequences so don't worry about it.

Third place for Hoad is not that impressive. You have to realize that Wimbledon is best-of-five for seven rounds and Hoad would struggle with pain in every match. Perhaps he might be good for one match, perhaps even two but I don't think he would do that well overall.

I'm seeding on the basis of who I think would have the best chances to do well if there was a 1967 Open Wimbledon not seeding on who I think should have been seeded at that point based on the information then.

Remember I have more information in hindsight then people who did the seeds or the rankings. The rankings in those days to say the least often just a matter of opinion as you well know. Do you really believe that there were that many amateurs better than Arthur Ashe or Okker? And remember I am also taking into account their grass court prowess.

So Bobby, in hindsight, knowing the records AND TALENT of Ashe and Okker and the injuries to Hoad how would you seed the candidates who you think would have the best chances to do well at the 1967 Wimbledon? The list has to be a bit different.
 
Last edited:
Top