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

[krosero]

I don't have the full list for any of these players, but I know that when you include invitationals and such the numbers go down. That's pretty clear. For instance, if I take all your matches in the OE for guys like Mac and Connors and compare them with all matches counted by the ATP, your list will be lower in match% and game%. It's pretty clear why that is - fewer rounds.

I don't actually have full career records for guys like Mac, Connors and Lendl. Tennis Base might. The career records I have -- and even these are not 100% complete, more like 99% -- are for three players, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver.

I have not seen a full record of all the non-sanctioned matches that Connors and Lendl played. Their non-sanctioned titles have been counted, and that work was done some years ago, but that was relatively simple compared to the task of getting all the activity in all rounds of these events. For example finding Lendl's non-sanctioned titles is one thing, but finding every non-sanctioned event that he played, including the ones he lost, and documenting every match in which he participated (including perhaps elusive third-place matches), is something else together.

But Tennis Base might have, by now, a reasonably complete record of all that, I'll have to look through their data.

But I'm also very iffy about the importance of those invitationals. If they paid a lot of money AND had a huge amount of press, then I would tend to think they were important. However, today we know that guys get matches that are more or less expos. There may be a lot of money involved, but does anyone take them seriously?

The difference to me is that in the 50s and 60s there may not have been huge crowds at almost any given event, and we more or less have to take them into consideration.

I'm not sure if their importance diminished quickly, nor do I know at what point we could consider them no longer important. I'm guess that over time they were more or less phased out so far as importance is concerned.

That's a really complex question. We've had threads on the topic before, and all we can ever agree on is that there are no black-and-white rules. What we can say with certainty is that exos today count for virtually nothing whereas the non-sanctioned activity of greats like Lendl and Connors was for big money and for real titles, albeit non-sanctioned titles. But within that non-sanctioned activity there was a range of importance (just as there is with sanctioned activity!). Some events were huge while others seemed to be regarded more as real exos.

In the amateur game there were matches that were understood to be exos, and understood clearly to be less important. I've kept track of such matches but I have not included them in win/loss totals (and I believe that Andrew did not count pure exos either, in his great career records for Laver and Rosewall). On the old pro tour, it was an entirely different story, and all historians have always counted every single match played. For the old pro tour you just have to throw out the rule book. There were matches that were more important than others, obviously, but it's not possible to make a category of meaningless "exos" because nothing was so clearly defined in the old pro tour environment; so we count everything.

The only surprise there is that the non-majors are not a bit lower, but then again we might not expect very young players to be marshaling their strength and energy for majors, much more likely and common for aging players, I think.

I'm sure that's a factor as well.

 

[krosero]

I'll be interested in those results. So far I think we are seeing that in the OE it is normal for top players to have better stats in majors than outside of them. It appears that the same idea is true of the pro-era.

Rosewall's numbers below, following the same process used for Laver and Gonzalez (4 GS majors, 3 pro majors), but using my own numbers.


Amateur years:

All matches: 382-82 (82.33%)
Majors: 79-15 (84.04%)


Open Era:

All matches: 580-202 (74.17%)
Majors: 92-19 (82.88%)


Old Pro Tour:

All matches: 422-155 (73.14%) (tournaments only; no one-night stands)
Pro Majors: 75-15 (83.33%) [31-3 French, 31-7 Wembley, 13-5 US]


So again, the amateur data shows a very small difference. In the OE, Rosewall's win percentage was almost 9 points higher in majors than in all matches. On the old pro tour, a full 10 points higher.

 

[Gary Duane]

Rosewall's numbers below, following the same process used for Laver and Gonzalez (4 GS majors, 3 pro majors), but using my own numbers.


Amateur years:

All matches: 382-82 (82.33%)
Majors: 79-15 (84.04%)


Open Era:

All matches: 580-202 (74.17%)
Majors: 92-19 (82.88%)


Old Pro Tour:

All matches: 422-155 (73.14%) (tournaments only; no one-night stands)
Pro Majors: 75-15 (83.33%) [31-3 French, 31-7 Wembley, 13-5 US]


So again, the amateur data shows a very small difference. In the OE, Rosewall's win percentage was almost 9 points higher in majors than in all matches. On the old pro tour, a full 10 points higher.

Interesting:

Your open era match% is marginally higher than my figure from the ATP:
73.57%

But it's close.

I have the same number for major matches, of course.

The overall takeaway for me is that the idea that Rosewall was a big match player seems supported by data.

My big questions remains: why was this difference almost non-existent for Connors and JMac? What was different about their balance of matches? Lendl is the other who looks very weak. Borg has a bit margin, true also for the other ATGs of the OE...

 

[krosero]

Interesting:

Your open era match% is marginally higher than my figure from the ATP:
73.57%

But it's close.

I have the same number for major matches, of course.

The overall takeaway for me is that the idea that Rosewall was a big match player seems supported by data.

My big questions remains: why was this difference almost non-existent for Connors and JMac? What was different about their balance of matches? Lendl is the other who looks very weak. Borg has a bit margin, true also for the other ATGs of the OE...

Agreed about Rosewall, and I believe that some others for which you've found the same thing include Sampras and Borg?

With Connors and Mac, you said their percentages in majors were not very different from their overall percentages. But they still fit within the larger pattern. What I mean is, you and I have found players whose match percentage in majors is as much as 10% higher than in all matches, but we haven't found any who are doing 10% worse in majors. Nothing like that. Connors and Mac are on the low end here and even with them, their majors numbers are still about equal with their overall numbers. So the general pattern seems established: we're finding at least among alltime greats (not ordinary players, whom we have not even looked at), that their match percentage in majors is greater than or equal to their percentages outside of majors. Rarely is it lower -- and never is it very much lower, among those greats we've looked at.

Within that pattern, there's a range, with players like Borg winning up to 10% more often in majors than in non-majors, and players like Mac/Connors/Lendl showing little to no difference. A range is to be expected in any pattern so that in itself is not surprising. But why exactly the particular players fall where they do in the range is probably a cause of multiple factors.

And of course the non-sanctioned activity is not included yet for the greats of the 70s and 80s, so we would have to see what that activity does to those players' figures for non-majors.

In a way we're not yet comparing on a level field, because Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver's numbers have everything counted, including small-draw tournaments that are bringing down their non-major percentages. (The only thing I haven't included for those greats is their tour matches, which I've removed because such matches would really bring down their numbers). We're not yet including all small-draw activity for the greats of the 70s and 80s.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yep. Gonzales was a fierce competitor.

I am sure that Ken was grateful to Hoad for making it unnecessary for Ken to play against Gonzales. Hoad did a huge favour to Rosewall.
I give Gonzales an even chance to put Ken out in that 1967 Wimbledon semi.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, I admire your detailed research.

I found a little error: You twice have Tilden as 1926 winner of the South Atlantic tournament.

 

[BobbyOne]

Carlo, I admire your detailed research.

I found a little error: You twice have Tilden as 1926 winner of the South Atlantic tournament.

Here my 1950 Wimbledon seedings.

1 Kramer
2 Segura
3 Gonzalez
4 Kovacs
5 Riggs
6 Budge
7 Sedgman
8 Talbert
9 Drobny
10 Sturgess
11 Patty
12 Mulloy
13 Larsen
14 Bromwich
15 Van Horn
16 Pails

Thus 8 pros and 8 amateurs.

 

[pc1]

Here my 1950 Wimbledon seedings.

1 Kramer
2 Segura
3 Gonzalez
4 Kovacs
5 Riggs
6 Budge
7 Sedgman
8 Talbert
9 Drobny
10 Sturgess
11 Patty
12 Mulloy
13 Larsen
14 Bromwich
15 Van Horn
16 Pails

Thus 8 pros and 8 amateurs.

I see you're enjoying this Bobby! Why did you try the 1956 season? That was arguably Gonzalez's Best season in the pros but also Lew Hoad's three major season. It would be interesting in that players like Sedge, Segura and I think Talbert would do well in the seedings.

I would also be curious about a 1949 French Open. I think at that point Kramer was arguably the best clay-court player in the world but players like Riggs, Parker and perhaps Segura would be up there too. I don't think Segura was the player he would be in a couple of years.

 

[pc1]

I am sure that Ken was grateful to Hoad for making it unnecessary for Ken to play against Gonzales. Hoad did a huge favour to Rosewall.
I give Gonzales an even chance to put Ken out in that 1967 Wimbledon semi.

Dan, while I think Gonzalez had a better chance to win than Hoad I don't think it would be even chance. But he would be very dangerous with the huge serve.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, while I think Gonzalez had a better chance to win than Hoad I don't think it would be even chance. But he would be very dangerous with the huge serve.

I think that at Wimbledon in 1967, considering the location, Gonzales would have an even chance against Ken in a best-of-three set match, which was the format there.
In five sets, I give the edge to Ken, but since this was three, Gonzales' game was better on this surface.

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall's numbers below, following the same process used for Laver and Gonzalez (4 GS majors, 3 pro majors), but using my own numbers.


Amateur years:

All matches: 382-82 (82.33%)
Majors: 79-15 (84.04%)


Open Era:

All matches: 580-202 (74.17%)
Majors: 92-19 (82.88%)


Old Pro Tour:

All matches: 422-155 (73.14%) (tournaments only; no one-night stands)
Pro Majors: 75-15 (83.33%) [31-3 French, 31-7 Wembley, 13-5 US]


So again, the amateur data shows a very small difference. In the OE, Rosewall's win percentage was almost 9 points higher in majors than in all matches. On the old pro tour, a full 10 points higher.

krosero: Rosewall - A man for all (big) seasons...

 

[pc1]

I think that at Wimbledon in 1967, considering the location, Gonzales would have an even chance against Ken in a best-of-three set match, which was the format there.
In five sets, I give the edge to Ken, but since this was three, Gonzales' game was better on this surface.

I can live with that considering how tough Gonzalez was. I'd still favor Rosewall.

 

[BobbyOne]

hb

Here my 1950 Wimbledon seedings.

1 Kramer
2 Segura
3 Gonzalez
4 Kovacs
5 Riggs
6 Budge
7 Sedgman
8 Talbert
9 Drobny
10 Sturgess
11 Patty
12 Mulloy
13 Larsen
14 Bromwich
15 Van Horn
16 Pails

Thus 8 pros and 8 amateurs.

pc1, Here my 1956 open Wimbledon seedings:

1 Gonzalez
2 Sedgman
3 Segura
4 Trabert (holder)
5 Hoad
6 Rosewall
7 S. Davidson
8 Patty
9 Drobny
10 Hartwig
11 Richardson
13 Nielsen
14 Seixas
15 Kramer
16 Pails or McGregor.

Thus 7 pros and 9 amateurs.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I can live with that considering how tough Gonzalez was. I'd still favor Rosewall.

Rosewall, according to our Austrian contributor, was injured and not playing well in that 1967 Wimbledon tournament, while Gonzales looked in top condition.

 

[pc1]

hb


pc1, Here my 1956 open Wimbledon seedings:

1 Gonzalez
2 Sedgman
3 Segura
4 Trabert (holder)
5 Hoad
6 Rosewall
7 S. Davidson
8 Patty
9 Drobny
10 Hartwig
11 Richardson
13 Nielsen
14 Seixas
15 Kramer
16 Pails or McGregor.

Thus 7 pros and 9 amateurs.

I can see that as very reasonable. I would also seed Trabert fourth that year ahead of Hoad and Rosewall. I agree AT LEAST with the first six seeds. I may agree with more but I haven't researched it properly.

 

[pc1]

Rosewall, according to our Austrian contributor, was injured and not playing well in that 1967 Wimbledon tournament, while Gonzales looked in top condition.

Good point. If there was an injury, perhaps Gonzalez would be favored.

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall, according to our Austrian contributor, was injured and not playing well in that 1967 Wimbledon tournament, while Gonzales looked in top condition.

Dan, I'm surprised but glad that you now accept my quoting of Barrett's report about Rosewall's injury at the 1967 Wimbledon...

 

[BobbyOne]

Dan, I'm surprised but glad that you now accept my quoting of Barrett's report about Rosewall's injury at the 1967 Wimbledon...

pc1, Thanks for your "likes" and the agreement regarding the 1956 list (the top six players).

Here my 1930 Wimbledon list.

1 Cochet
2 Tilden
3 Borotra
4 K. Kozeluh
5 Richards
6 Doeg
7 Lott
8 Austin
9 Najuch
10 A. Burke
11 de Morpurgo
12 Ramillon
13 Plaa
14 Moon
15 Kinsey
16 Hunter or Shields

Thus 6 pros and 10 amateurs.

EDIT: correct is 7 pros and 9 amateurs.

I'm a bit proud that Jean Borotra once (in 1975) gave me his autograph at Wimbledon. He played in the senior's doubles competition at age 77.

 

[BobbyOne]

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.





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, Great explanations of the difference between the early and the late 1950s regarding strong fields, also regarding Trabert's and Riggs' disadvantages.

 

[BobbyOne]

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/Jaroslav_Drobný#Palmar.C3.A8s_en_simple_.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, I have counted even more tournament wins because I included the wins of the Czech event during WWII.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, Interesting that you say Laver was favoured by the fact that he would have been able to win the Pro Grand Slam in every of his pro years before open era. Rosewall had that chances only in five of his eleven pro years.

I believe that the old World Series Championships are overrated because sometimes the clear pro king, Gonzalez, met the rookie pro who was unexperienced, and generally the winner of the big tour could lose many matches and still win while in the big pro tournaments (elimination events) the winner was not allowed to lose any match (in RRs mostly only one match). Also, as you said, several strong players could not participate.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, Very convincing explanations. It's a shame that Phoenix1983 does not accept at least a few of your points.

I think that Rosewall could also have chances in an open 1964 Wimbledon. He lost to Laver in four sets at the US Pro but was handicapped by a food poisoning.

I rank Sedgman higher than you for 1961 even though Frank did not play that much. But he had the edge in the world series over MacKay and beat him also in the US Pro. Maybe my 7th place is too high though.

Good that you quote Lew Hoad regarding a "rusty" Rosewall in end-1962/early 1963. Dan Lobb uses to claim that Rosewall prepared significantly for his series against Laver.

 

[BobbyOne]

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.

Carlo, Again excellent argumentation. I'm sorry I had to delete a short part of your original post due to the 10 000 letter rule.

But I disagree that Rosewall was clearly second player in 1964. It's true he trailed clearly in hth against Laver but he won two of the four big events (you once valued the Johannesburg challenge match as a big one (and justified) and he won the long tournament tour for the world pro championships edging out the Rocket by about 8 points (we still don't know the exact point standing).

You might not have read what krosero last year has found and posted about that deciding tour (described by Buchholz in World Tennis, January, 1965) and the long and tiring debates about that tour.

Rosewall won one more big tournament than Laver won. Furthermore, as told, Rosewall was unlucky at the US Pro. Without that food poisoning he might have given Laver a great fight.

Muscles was also unlucky at Wembley when a few net-cords played a deciding role in that great final. I'm convinced we can say that Laver and Rosewall were even in their final, similary to the 1972 Dallas final when Laver was even with Rosewall.

I believe that Rosewall would have had good chances in an open 1964 Wimbledon.

In my rankings I give Laver and Rosewall a tied No.1 place.

In the 1967 Wimbledon pro tournament Rosewall reached the final and lost to Laver in three sets losing the third one 10:12. John Barrett (a great Laver admirer) reported that Muscles was handicapped in the final by a shoulder injury which affected his service and forehand.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, In 1952 at Berlin Gonzalez beat Segura and Budge, the latter in the final, on clay. Maybe you know that already.

 

[BobbyOne]

IV) About William Tilden




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, Thanks for this compilation.

I still am not sure if Tilden beat Nüsslein in their 1933 tour because Hans ("Hanne") Nüsslein once said that he won their 1933 series.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, Let me disagree a bit. The Aussies under the command of Harry Hopman used to practice hard. Hoad, Laver, Emerson were strong athlets. Even small Kenny was always in top-form.

But I agree with the general line of your argumentation about the different conditions over the decades.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, Even though I agree on the long run I would like to say that Nadal is the only current player whose playing arm is as voluminous as Hoad's.

Emerson and Borg were about as fast as any modern player.

Jesse Owen's records lastened for decades even though he uses old equipment and surfaces.

 

[tom williams]

tom, Yes, a strong performance of Lew's against still strong Gonzalez. But the correct score was 3-6, 11-9, 8-6.

If my memory serves me well this was the match that sealed the fate of amateur tennis although we could see open tennis coming , David Herman the boss of Wimbledon at the time was at this match and commented after, here we have just seen two old men play better tennis than we saw at Wimbledon a few weeks ago. TW

 

[Limpinhitter]

If my memory serves me well this was the match that sealed the fate of amateur tennis although we could see open tennis coming , David Herman the boss of Wimbledon at the time was at this match and commented after, here we have just seen two old men play better tennis than we saw at Wimbledon a few weeks ago. TW

He had, only then, discovered that the Wimbledon draw did not include the best players?

 

[Drob]

Carlo, I have counted even more tournament wins because I included the wins of the Czech event during WWII.

You know Drobny- McKinley comparison is absurd on its face. Sorry to use strong word, but Bobby you are a keen historia and you have to know better. We I consider Jaroslavsui genetics and superior to any of these, Comparisons you might make are Drobny - Segura; Drobny - Santana; Drobny-Trabert; even Drobny - Panatta

 

[dgold44]

An interview with: ROGER FEDERER
Saturday, August 25, 2012

THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.


Q. Both McEnroe and Agassi said in the World Team Tennis match this July that tennis right now at the top, men’s tennis is the toughest ever. Do you think you four guys are the toughest maybe in history in terms of competing against each other and winning events?



ROGER FEDERER: I’d say no, but I don’t know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don’t know who else. Those guys weren’t good or what? Do you know what I mean?

You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren’t good either? I mean, I don’t know. So for me I think that’s respectful. It’s just different times and definitely more athletic, there’s no doubt about that. But then again we don’t play doubles. We don’t play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it’s more taxing, but we do play less best‑of‑five set tennis than they used to play. You can’t compare really.

but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It’s nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It’s definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It’s very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. There’s no doubt about that.

But then best ever? The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.



http://richtweets.com/2sloc



:wink:

Zero doubt to me

 

[Limpinhitter]

You know Drobny- McKinley comparison is absurd on its face. Sorry to use strong word, but Bobby you are a keen historia and you have to know better. We I consider Jaroslavsui genetics and superior to any of these, Comparisons you might make are Drobny - Segura; Drobny - Santana; Drobny-Trabert; even Drobny - Panatta

What's absurd about it?

 

[BobbyOne]

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.





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.

Carlo, I rank Gimeno slightly higher than Segura for 1962 as maybe also Rosewall did at end-1962 (who excluded Segura from his list).

I would say that Rosewall was as talented as Laver.

 

[BobbyOne]

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



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, I'm not sure if the very best Laver was better than the very best Rosewall. When Rosewall suffered those shellackings (Wembley 1966, Wembley 1968, PSW 1968) he was clearly past his peak. Mostly their encounters were competitive and rather often Rosewall dominated Laver in big events more clearly than Laver dominated him in big finals.

 

[BobbyOne]

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.





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.





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

.

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, We should not forget that the pros of the pre open era time played much more than the current and recent stars. The had a rather demanding schedule.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, I don't think that Drobny was close to Sedgman in 1952. I also believe that Kramer was stronger than Drobny that year.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, I rate the 4 man world series with Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura and Budge as the foremost event as maybe also other experts do.

I rate Wembley as one of the top four events because of its great prestige (Sedgman once told me it was the world pro championship). I generally consider the prestige of a tournament higher than you do.

 

[BobbyOne]

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

Carlo, I rate the 1959 world series higher.

Rosewall: Gonzalez in 1959: 8:4

1960, The three bounce rule might have meant a theoretical disadvantage for Gonzalez but the strange schedule meant a significant advantage for Gonzalez as Pancho did not play more than a few matches under the new rule.

1963, Why do you rank French Pro ahead of US Pro (with Gonzalez)?

1965, I rate US Pro equal or even higher than Wembley because Gonzalez played in the former.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, 1968:I rate Wembley above French Pro and US Pro because of its prestige and its strongest field.

1970: I rank Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe equally.

1971: I rate Dallas higher than Rome.

I rank Smith, Rosewall (Wimbledon SF) and Newcombe equally.

1972: I rate Dallas above PSW

I rank Nastase and Smith equally.

 

[BobbyOne]

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, It's interesting that you came to rather similary conclusions as I have come. I think that Gonzalez and Rosewall would be rather equal in open era major titles and Laver relatively slightly behind (because he had a shorter prime than Pancho and Ken).

Your argumentation about the different careers and time-lines is convincing but I disagree in one important point: I think that the "official" numbers are not completely inaccurate and pure nonsense if you refer to amateur, pro and open era majors. But of course the official numbers of only amateur and open era titles (Laver 11, Rosewall 8) are totally senseless.

 

[BobbyOne]

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.



.

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.





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, We should differ between the contemporary lense and the modern lense, as Gary Duane has suggested, when valuing the achievements of the old players. At least after WWII the (North American) World Tours were widely acknowledged as the No.1 event of the pro calendar (In 1959 there was the curious situation that two big tours were played, the second one being the 14 tournament AMPOL tour won by Hoad). In 1948 US Pro might have been a bit higher in prestige though.

The 1937 and 1938 World Tours were clearly the top pro events because Vines and Perry were the best pros at that time (I write this even though I'm a keen Nüsslein admirer).

The 1960 tour has two negative aspects: The strange new rule and a rather unfair schedule as krosero and I have shown some time ago.

Of course with our modern lense we are able to critisize that those world tours often had only two participants and rather often not even the two best players in the world participating, f.e. Gonzalez' tours against Trabert and Rosewall.. And we can show that the big pro tournaments were also very significant. I use to say that Gonzalez was the king of the long tours, often played on "his" canvas surface, but that he was a bit vulnerable in big tournaments as he lost the 1956 French Pro, the 1957 Wembley and Australian Pro, the 1958 Wembley, French Pro and Australian Pro plus the Masters tournament, the 1961 Wembley and French Pro.

Because of all that I like to give tied No.1 places for (astounding many) years as the fairest solution.

 

[BobbyOne]

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).





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).





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, I still believe that the "official" pro majors were true majors (with the exception of a few US Pro events, especially the 1960 to 1962 editions).

Since a shorter time the Forest Hills ToC is regarded by several experts as a true pro major, probably substituting the US Pro in those years.

I guess you (and others) overrate the value of physical strength. If the physical level would be so high nowadays, then why is Federer so strong at 35 plus.

I think that Gonzalez and Rosewall were so strong when very old because of their extraordinary talent and their economic playing style and not because at their time physical demands were so much less than nowadays.

 

[tom williams]

The Vegh Quartet.

i will agree with you Dan i think if you had them in the draw today with the new equipment they would be the top four , TW

 

[tom williams]

I do not know but i do know this no player in history would like to be playing him in a Wimbledon final, Agree Dan ,TW

 

[hoodjem]

I can live with that considering how tough Gonzalez was. I'd still favor Rosewall.

Gonzales was very tough, but he was also 39 years old then. Moi aussi.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Gonzales was very tough, but he was also 39 years old then. Moi aussi.

Rosewall was supposedly hampered by injury...Gonzales favoured to beat him in 1967 Wimbledon. Good to see PC1 agrees with me.

 

[BobbyOne]

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

Carlo, Good that you show Rosewall's dominance over Laver in big events and especially on fast courts.

Your words toward Phoenix sound sometimes rather harsh but I find them fitting because Phoenix rather often uses even sharper words and even insults to a few posters (krosero, BobbyOne)...

 

[BobbyOne]

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 ?





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.





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.





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.





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, Convincing argumentation. It's a pity Phoenix does not find them convincing at all...

 

[BobbyOne]

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 :



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, I give Rosewall 7 years as No.1 albeit only two as clear No.1 (1962 and 1963). For 1960, 1961, 1964, 1970 and 1971 I give Kenny tied No.1 places. I do believe that's a great feat to be a player in a given year when no other player has outplayed him/her for No.1 spot (other posters said that this is not a great feat; it seems as though these posters want to omit all years where no clear-cut No.1 was, from 1930 to some years in this time.

By the way, I also think that it's a great feat for any player to finish a year as No.2 or 3 (additionally to the years when he/she ruled the game).

 

[BobbyOne]

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 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.





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.





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, I mostly agree. But I think it's debatable if Nadal's best was greater than Federer's on grass. Nadal reached seldom his potential at Wimbledon though.

I think that the pros regarded their pro majors very highly, at least in the 1960s.