buscemi - Similar to the Stan Smith point raised to me above, some degree of short-sightedness may be attributable to me for these early 70s greats. It appeared in part that Smith, Ashe, Kodes, Nastase and Newcomb all lacked the consistency of the Edberg's, Becker's etc. But likely that has something to do with innovations in the tour, in travel, and the general lack of cohesion existent in the tennis tours of that time. I can totally get behind ranking Newcombe higher than I have him, and ahead of Wilander.
Top 100 Male Tennis Players of All Time
- Thread starter SamSpade
- Start date
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
I find it tough to have Wilander above Becker even with the one slam ahead. As you said, Becker was a beast on carpet (no.2 all times resonates with me for peak level, in terms of accomplishments it is him, Mac, Lendl and Pete on the top spots) whereas Mats didn’t have much to offer here.
On top, Becker has the best DC record of all times with 38-3, one can quibble maybe with Borg’s 37-3 being equally good, considering that all his three losses came at age 16, but as @NonP has correctly pointed out in a recent conv, Boris won more matches on surfaces less favourable for him as compared to the Swede, so I have no issues having him as the sole leader by a hair.
Regarding weeks at No.1: Mats only has 20 himself and given that Boris should clearly have been No.1 in 89 (ranking system was still flawed), I think the difference is negligible.
Given that unlike today, DC and YEC were the most important tourneys after slams, I can’t see how we can argue Mats > Boris.
On top, back when they played, Wimbledon was still viewed as slightly higher than the other slams age Boris is top 5 here with three titles while Mats never reached a semi. Becker also leads the H2H 7-3, kudos to Mats for winning Miami 1988 though (not only was it 128 men draw but also best of five in all rounds). All in all though it is not enough for me to have Mats > Boris.
I agree he did underachieve (I actually started a thread on that some years back https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/did-becker-underperform-at-slams.600668/). He had fenomenal records against the big guns but many losses against lesser players.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Yes, when Wilander won 3 of 4 in '88 I thought it was a pretty deal at the time, but still I think there are valid reasons(some of which you mentioned) for putting Becker above him. Just gonna address clay - I think its a bit unfair to knock Becker down a peg for not winning a clay title. IMO he's better on clay than Sampras(who won 2 titles). Becker made semis at RG three times, and made Monte Carlo final three times(being extremely competitive in all 3). I think he may be better on clay than Edberg as well(honestly I think he would have beaten Chang in 89 had he made the final, but I digress). And Becker was better on clay than Mats was on grass imo(yeah I know Australia...but it was so different. And they were paying some players(well at least Mac) just to show up in '83. It was just so far behind Wimbledon in those days, it's weird to consider them both equal as "grass" majors. Mats' Wimbledon record is not great, not even one SF for an all time great in an era when that event towered over all others)
Also re #1 ranking - the year end Masters(part of Grand Prix) were not counted in the ATP rankings in '88 or '89, so I don't think the issues were resolved. Who knows what weeks at #1 or 2 all these players would have with 1990's best of 14 method. Also, who knows if Edberg would be #1 in 1990 with todays ranking(can you imagine what this board would be like if someone ended #1 with 2 first round losses in majors)
Being #1 and being the best player aren't always the same thing. I think most media and players of that time considered Becker the "best' player a lot more than 12 weeks. Doubt Edberg felt like #1 after losing to Becker in 1990 Stockholm(statistically one of the biggest beatdowns between 1 and 2 ranked players in Open era - match was even less close than score). Becker had more wins over #1 ranked players than anyone until Nadal.
And re players comments - Edberg said after winning 85 AO "of course it's not on the level of the 3 majors, but it's still a great event to win" I'm paraphrasing, but he did say something along those lines. Circa 1985, Becker's W win got worldwide headlines, Edberg's Kooyang win did not). But Edberg's 70 weeks at #1 are significant, have no issues with him being above Becker.
Also, someone else asked this - where is Wawrinka on your list? I can't believe that was an intentional omission.
Last edited:
That 1949 world pro championship tour was a beat-down for Kramer over Gonzales, but Kramer was not ranked No. 1 pro for that 1949 year in the official rankings.
The reason being that Kramer failed to defend his U.S. Pro title at Forest Hills, which went to Riggs. Kramer won Wembley in Britain, but failed to show in the U.S.
There was no Philadelphia tournament in 1949, which would be an important tournament in 1950-52.
The 1949 U.S. Pro Clay Court was played in Florida at St. Augustine with Kovacs beating Segura in the semifinal 10-8, 6-4. 6-2 and van Horn in a five set final at 6-3 in the fifth. Kovacs also won the Canadian Pro Clay court in Quebec City with a close final win over van Horn. Kramer did not play in those events.
In 1950 things were similar, with Kramer winning the rest of his Gonzales series and looking good against Segura in the fall world championship.
But Kramer was not ranked No. 1 pro because he failed to win a big tournament, losing the Philadelphia final to Gonzales in three straight sets, and losing a marathon five set semifinal to Segura at Cleveland in the U.S. Pro., held on clay that year. Kramer did not play at Wembley that year.
Likewise in 1951, Kramer won at Philadelphia, which would be his last important tournament win, but Kramer withdrew at Forest Hills which was won by Segura, and Kramer refused to play the other U.S. Pro that year at Cleveland, won by Kovacs.
The official pro rankings gave no credit for the 2-man series because it was only two men, they needed a tournament format to make any meaningful rankings.
The years with 4-man world pro championship tours with the top players involved, namely 1942 and 1954, gave a better ranking result.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Wilander is kind of hard for me but I generally settle on having him behind all of Becker, Edberg, and Newcombe. His peak level play is defintiely the lowest of those (except on clay of course). IMO he reminds me of Sanchez Vicario in the sense that both overachieved relative to their actual ability through determination and taking advantage of nearly all their opportunities/delivering when it mattered. That said the one thing that gives him consideration for me vs those others is winning multiple slams on each surface. Even though he did nothing at Wimbledon, he did win those 2 Australians on grass, and vs some pretty good opponents too. And many of the objective stats like time at #1 he is well behind Edberg and Newcombe. Not behind Becker, but Becker's time at #1 is unfairly low, and one of those examples of the sometimes questionable computer rankings IMO. His moderate lack of longevity (not to be too harsh on him as he was still a bonafide top player for 7 years straight) and lack of success at the YEC are also marks against him in comparision to those other 3. To his credit in addition to winning multiple slams on each surface, his 1988 is almost for sure the best year any of those guys had. So a couple big points in his favor, plus technically 1 more major than Becker or Edberg, but still not enough to rank him over any of them IMO.
On another note it is pretty amazing he has the same number of French Opens as Lendl, when I think nearly everyone at the time considered Lendl the clearly superior clay courter. Another example how Wilander was great at maxing his talents and abilities, even with his early sort of retirement (not even really as he was only away a year entirely).
On another note it is pretty amazing he has the same number of French Opens as Lendl, when I think nearly everyone at the time considered Lendl the clearly superior clay courter. Another example how Wilander was great at maxing his talents and abilities, even with his early sort of retirement (not even really as he was only away a year entirely).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Also Wilander over Perry? Really? Perry won 8 Slams vs 7 for Wilander, won all 4 unlike Wilander and also had a 3 Slam year in 1934!!!
Also, feel you've been unfair to Murray by excluding him for 2016 Y/E no.1 (which he won in reality). I don't object to Djokovic sharing it with him as he won 1 more Slam (and beat Murray at both) but Murray won 9 titles that season vs 7 for Djokovic. Each won 6 big titles and each beat the other in 2 of them but Murray had to overcome a deficit of more than 9,000 ranking points half way through the season to overcome Djokovic and beat him for the Y/E no. 1 ranking in the title match. That should have been taken into consideration IMO.
Last edited:
In a subjective ranking, you expect unusual things to appear.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
If the likes of Enqvist and Nalbandian can make the list, Wawrinka's 3 Slams surely deserve inclusion. Don't know if this was an oversight by the OP but, if not, can't agree with excluding him.
martinezoensclay - well honestly, I'm sold. You along with Moose Malloy and BorgtheGreat have collectively made some great points. I do think I would revise my list to look something more like Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander in that order for those four. I'm not in this forum going to revise that original list, simply as I never intended to create such a back n forth demand - however for future iterations (and there are always future iterations) I will certainly be bearing many of these points in mind!
Mainad,
Sir, you may well be right. I have come down considerably on Perry over the years - but that is mostly in contrast to Budge and Vines. As with many of the cases mentioned above about Becker, Edberg, Newcombe - Perry may too have a great case to be ranked ahead of Wilander.
Funny, I think this list has led me to being perceived as the biggest Wilander-mark around - which I'm actually assuredly not! But it isn't Nadal, or Sampras or Laver or any of the more top-line placements that I think generated such robust discussion!
Mainad,
No disrespect to Murray intended. I do have a few years where my own judgment differs from the computer rankings. 2016 is one such case, based mostly on 2 > 1. This logic follows in 1989 where I take Becker over Lendl and 1978 where I take Borg over Connors. Most all of these cases are close though.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
While we agree there is an overemphasis on majors these Wawrinka with his 3 majors clearly has to rank over both, especialy Enqvist.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
He should also rank above Rios, Ferrer and Goran. Arguably even Safin but this is debatable.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Sampras even won three titles on clay Kitzbühel 92, Rom 94 and Atlanta 98. Pete vs Boris on clay is tough, Boris with the better RG record and as you said, he made 5 M1000 finals. Had he played some minor clay tournaments just to win an elusive title he could have. Pete however has his 95 DC heroics and destroyed Boris in their only clay meeting at Rome 94. All in all I would slightly lean to him over Boris.
Agree that Becker on clay > Mats on grass.
NatF
Bionic Poster
How dare you.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Well I said arguably
. I know Safin is ahead in everything else but one more slam cannot be discussed away especially not as such low numbers like 3 vs 2.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I would put even Roddick over Wawrinka, as contentious as that may beWell I said arguably
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Well there is a big thread on that one and I definitely disagree here. Two slam difference is too much to overcome.I would put even Roddick over Wawrinka, as contentious as that may be
NatF
Bionic Poster
That's fair enough.
Yes during the frequent Connors-Lendl debates, it has always been clear to me that Connors was superior at the majors, and that Lendl was superior away from the majors. So who is greater out of the 2 depends on how much of a weighting is given to the various tournaments.
Connors’ major record is undoubtedly better IMO; with 2 Wimbledon titles compared to 0 in an era / eras when it was unquestionably more important than the other majors, 5 US Open titles compared to 3 (the tournament that both players individually valued the most), a major title on clay at Forest Hills in 1976 destroying Vilas in the semis only facing 1 break point and then beating Borg in the final (who had recently won his 3rd consecutive US pro title in Boston) while Lendl never won a set in a major final on grass etc. Plus Connors was clearly more impacted by the reduced importance of certain majors and slam counting than Lendl was, and won their 3 matches at majors from 1982-1984 when they were both in their primes. Connors’ 1974 Australian Open title was lightweight, but Lendl did get lucky in Melbourne in 1990 with Edberg’s injury. Connors winning major finals on clay vs. Borg, grass vs. McEnroe and hard courts vs. Lendl (twice) stands out.
Away from the majors, Lendl was clearly the greater Davis Cup player (with big heroics in 1980 plus a straight sets win against McEnroe at Flushing Meadows in 1981), and the greater indoor player. Connors and him both had an excellent record in hard court and har-tru events in the US, indoor events in the US, Europe, Sydney and Tokyo, and Queen’s on grass. But on top of that Lendl also won all of the biggest clay court events in Europe as well (Rome, Monte-Carlo, Hamburg and Barcelona twice apiece), which is big dividing line there. Plus Lendl also won more high quality, unsanctioned invitational events than Connors did, notably Antwerp with the biggest prize money in tennis, 5 times.
And as I said in a previous post, I think that Mac’s major record, with dominance and legendary status at Wimbledon vs. 0 titles and 0 sets won in finals there, an additional US Open title, and more stand out victories over legends in their primes en-route to his major titles than Lendl etc., was also better than Lendl’s (considering the era(s) that they both played in). Mac also has a clear advantage in terms of Davis Cup records, and probably a very small advantage in terms of indoor records IMO (though that is extremely close). Lendl’s overall body of work outside the majors and Davis Cup is clearly superior though.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Good analysis, Gizo. I come to a different conclusion, but your angle on it is going to make me think again.
I cannot agree, for two reasons. The first is the old saw (but true) that injuries are part of the game. The second is that we don't know Lendl "did get lucky." He was leading in the match. Lendl no doubt would have preferred a completed victory, which he may well have achieved. l
Drob is no McEnroe fan. But pretty Fu----- - A right you are. You understate the case, which is the sole basis for ranking Mac above Lendl and Connors IMO. That Brat is a main contender Davis Cup G.O.A.T. When evaluating McEnroe, we all need to remember this.
I cannot agree, for two reasons. The first is the old saw (but true) that injuries are part of the game. The second is that we don't know Lendl "did get lucky." He was leading in the match. Lendl no doubt would have preferred a completed victory, which he may well have achieved. l
Drob is no McEnroe fan. But pretty Fu----- - A right you are. You understate the case, which is the sole basis for ranking Mac above Lendl and Connors IMO. That Brat is a main contender Davis Cup G.O.A.T. When evaluating McEnroe, we all need to remember this.
Drob
Hall of Fame
In a way, Boris won an Elite clay tournament. The World Team Cup gave big prize money but was also closely watch by tennis fans by most of the participating countries (much less so in USA), and was certainly a big deal for German press and fans. Boris was the "individual champion" of 1989 competition, going 4-0 in singles and winning his doubles match to lead Germany to the championship. And Boris was 8-1 in DC matches on clay. Come to think of it, Becker-Stich won the Olympics on clay.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Perry won 10 Slams. You forget his two U.S. Pro. He also deserves a "Major" for leading GB to the DC on a 12-1 singles record in 1933, including vanquishing Vines in the Inter-Zone and Cochet in the CR at Roland Garros, and then going 6-0 in subsequent CRs 1934-36. For his career, Perry was approx. 35-5 in DC singles, one of the best records in history. Wilander was quite a creditable DC competitor, but nothing close to merit a "Major" distinction. Perry 11 Majors is my count.
The SamSpade list is a work-in-progress he told us. So keep it rolling, everyone.
Drob
Hall of Fame
14-5, I think, per thetennisbase.com. The PTA may have a couple additional matches. I think given his big 1952 victories - Wembley and two at Philadelphia Pro RR - a top tourney at the time - Gonzalez showed who had the advantage by then. Between 1951-54, while Jack still in his prime or late prime, the tally is 8-4. But I agree that his thrashing of Gonzalez is quite the achievement, notwithstanding some of us, myself included, try to use excuses (and Kramer provided excuses as well in The Game). It is as you say something like doing that to a raw Roger Federer. What Federer did you have in mind - 2001, 2002 or 2003? With the exception of headline tours that were not really World Championship tours (meaning 1935 and '36; '41 and possibly '61), the 1950 is the third or fourth most one-sided WCS. There is 1931 Tilden-Kozeluh, 1948 Kramer-Riggs, and possibly 1932 Tilden-Nusslein being more one-sided. After Kramer-Gonzalez, the next most one-sided is probably Gonzalez-Trabert. Lots of differences those two match-ups. No excuses for Tony. He was 25, six years on the amateur tour, lots of Davis Cup experience, college grad . . . but with all that, he was probably not as good a player at his peak as the green boy of 20 who Kramer whipped in 1950. They are both great achievements, but Kramer's might be the greater. Strictly in tennis terms.
But the way they set up Gonzalez, or lured him in because Jack was desperate for someone to fight and beat - that, you might say, diminishes slightly the tennis triumph. I include Big Jake himself in "they".
Drob
Hall of Fame
First, your list is cool and especially the pithy summations of each player.
You gave a pretty good defense for your choice of Kramer, based on this dominance. Kramer was No. 1 from 1947 (as amateur) to 1951 - five years. That is his period of dominance. A period when he won two amateur majors, two pro majors and three WCS. He is not No. 1 in 1952, unless you take the extreme version of the boxing analogy, i.e. he was not beaten in a WCS. I don't believe you have him as No. 1 for 1953. So five years at No. 1 and arguably again in 1953 would be six, according to me. You give him 1947-52
But you have Laver 7th. You give Laver six years at No. 1. I agree, and might add 1971. It could also be argued it goes 1964-71. Laver has ≥ the years at No. 1 as Kramer, against better (deeper) competition in the Pro years and just plain better in 1968-70 ('71). Laver has a ton of silver - 23 majors is my total, but at least 20. Versus nine for Kramer. Between 1966-69, Laver won 11 of 14 Slams (six Pro; 5 Open). That is some kind of dominance.
You have Budge 10th. You give Budge a whole bunch of years at No. 1, some which I would not because of the war. Budge could be considered a "lineal champion" 1937-42, or six years. After 1942, the war really gets in the way. 1940-42 is weird because the only tennis is in the USA, although it is pretty high quality. Budge was off his game in 1941, it appears, although it was not a very active year. 1942 was reasonably active and he was clearly back at the top, if he had ever dropped in the first place. This guy beat EVERYBODY. By my count, Don Budge won 9 straight Major tournaments (six amateur, three Pro) between 1937 and 1940. That is to say won every Major tournament in which he competed. That equals what Tilden did 1920-25. In addition he won the 1939 WCS and his 8-0 in Davis Cup singles for cup-winning USA in 1937 = Major. That is 11 Majors in four seasons, and 11 for 11. Nobody has ever done that. Let's see, did Kramer do that? This is an earnest question, not rhetorical. I have to think about this. Between 1947 and 1952, for which you have him No. 1, and counting the World Pro Championship Series, he was 2 for 2 in 1947; 2 for 2 in 1948; 1 for 1 in 1949 (Wembley); 1 for 2 in 1950 (beats Gorgo, loses at US Pro SF to Segura); 1 for 2 in 1951 (beats Segura, loses at US Pro [injury withdrawal]); 0 for 1 in 1952 (loses Wembley final). As dominant player, Kramer went 4 for 7 at Slams and 4 for 4 at WCS. Not bad.
I don't know what to call the Grand Slam now, because players, the press and "television" commentators use "grand slam" to mean an individual Slam. But we know Budge won THE Grand Slam in 1938. How can he not be world No. 1 for 1938? Especially when he goes on to beat Vines a few months later?
All-in-all, and this very much goes for Bill Tilden also, your dominance notion should yield a list where Kramer may be close, but is behind Laver, Tilden and Budge. Their achievements exceed Kramer's. Their won-loss records are more impressive. By your own count, Tilden has more years at No. 1 and Budge and Laver are = Kramer in that metric.
And then there is something call . . . well, it has lots of names, but let's just call it "clay".
Folks think Sampras has a clay-court problem? Try Kramer. Hey, Pete won the Italian Open and beat Russia in Moscow. And, importantly, Pete played on clay. He competed.
Jack Kramer? Not so much. In 1946-47 he steers well clear of Roland Garros. He admits this years later. He says he was afraid a loss at RG could hurt his chances of a big Pro contract. He won't even compete at the U.S. Clay Court championships. His only respectable clay title of his career comes at River Oaks in 1947. As a Pro it is mostly more of the same. he plays a couple of short tours on clay. When he does finally venture to a big clay tournament he loses in the semifinals (the 1950 US Pro happened to be played on clay). In 1952, he loses on indoor clay at a Paris tournament. On the other hand, Budge has a bucketful of clay titles, including the French International Championships and French Pro Champs (both at RG, where Kramer never dared), one of his two U.S. Pro; 9-0 in DC singles on clay; and various other titles and accomplishments.
As for Tilden and Laver, they are both in the top 10 on clay without doubt. Tilden has the most titles on clay of any player. six or seven times U.S. Clay Court champ. Clay Slams at World Hard Court Championships and the French Pro. Heartbreaking defeat at 1927 French International final (or was it?). Laver has two RG; two Foro Italico, the 1971 tournament amounting to the real clay-court World Championship for that season; two Hamburg; countless other titles, some prestigious, like British Hard Court Champs, River Oaks, Trofeo Facis, 1968 French Pro at Roland Garros (non-Slam) and it goes on.
Is 96-27 vs. 20-year old Richard Gonzalez enough to make up for what Kramer lacks?
I think there is a good argument for Kramer in the top 10 all-time. I don't put him that high (about 13th or 14th I think), but there is justification.
And there is some "authority" out there that sort of agrees with you.
The tennis commentator Steve Flink in 2012 ranked Kramer 4th all-time. That would be 5th, probably 6th now, behind Novak and Rafa. Still, awfully high. Flink lauds Kramer for being "overwhelmingly efficient." "No one could come close to touching him."
Ellsworth Vines in 1978 wrote about the 10 best players younger than himself and Perry. He ranked Budge first and Kramer second. "It was Kramer's serve that made the difference . . . His ability to 'spot' it wherever he wanted it with no apparent effort was astounding. For depth, pace, and bounce there has never been anything like it . . . There have been better volleyers, but you can count them on your fingers . . . But Kramer was fortunate he didn't face Budge in his prime; for to beat Budge a player had to get to the net in the first place."
Extrapolating, we might guess that Vines today, if he remained of the same views, would have Kramer as high as 5th greatest all-time. I would guess that besides Budge, there would be Tilden, Djokovic and Federer above Kramer for sure.
Sidney Wood, the 1931 Wimbledon champ, published a book in 2011 (posthumous, I think) in which he ranked Kramer second all-time. Unfortunately, Wood does not say much about Kramer.
Again, we have to guess a Wood list today has Kramer below Djokovic and Federer - but who knows. Still, the point is similar to the examples above.
An ATG who contemplated the question put Kramer in a position to be as high as 5th all-time today; a very good player who followed the game all his life put Kramer in a position to be 4th today; a prominent journalist probably ranks Kramer 6th.
Interesting.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Certain good points. A few I don't agree with. Before reading this brief apologia, I would not have Smith in top-50 since 1919. But I will reevaluate. It is possible that I have a slight bias against Stan because of the illegitimacy of the 1972 Wimbledon tournament (not Smith's fault) and the stupidity of the 1970 WTF format, where there was no final between Smith and Laver and we know who would have won. I question whether he is generally recognized as 1971 No. 1.
However, he won the 1973 WCT Finals, the biggest tournament of that year. In 1972, he won USO, the second biggest tournament of the year, after the WCT Finals. He played a good final at '71 Wimbledon. He was a Davis Cup stalwart, primarily in doubles, but he had his heroic moment in singles in 1972. Other players respected him a lot as a player (and person).
10-15 vs. Ashe; 11-10 vs. Nastase; 4-14 vs. Connors; 7-10 vs. Laver; 5-10 vs. Newk; 5-5 vs. Emmo; 2-6 vs. Okker; 2-6 vs. Roche; 5-2 vs. Gimeno; 2-5 vs. Borg; 3-4 vs. Rosewall
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Interesting as all sources I read stated 11-5. Anywho, the H2H from those times are not always reliable, even the 96-27 trashing of their tour is sometimes listed as 94-29.
I would have a Federer of 2003 in mind not yet prime but already very good. Beating 2003 Fed 96-27 would be a monumental achievement nonetheless.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
Great work. I'd have Nadal and Agassi a bit higher.
Trabert actually did pretty well in 1956. Trabert himself pointed out that it was a big hurdle for the rookie pros to get used to that funny portable canvas surface which the pros used on their world championship tours, it would slide when a player ran and suddenly stopped, causing leg injuries to several rookie pros, including Gonzales, Hoad. and Laver.
On surfaces where Trabert was familiar with the surface, namely outdoor matches, Trabert actually led Gonzales 16-11 on the year 1956. That included an 11-5 edge on clay against Gonzales that year.
The official rankings in the early fifties and late forties would ignore those world championship tours and focus on tournament play, and that is where Kramer was not at his best. Kramer was only ranked number one for 1948. Kramer failed to defend his U.S. Pro Championship at Forest Hills in 1949 and that cost him the number one ranking for that year.
Drob
Hall of Fame
A. that is a B.S. excuse. Happened to EVERYBODY. Vines, Perry, Budge, Sedgman and Hoad all adjusted wonderfully well.
B. Your stats are a bit off. .
Trabert did do much better outside the WCS and saves his ATG creds. w 5-set victory over Gonzalez at RG.
Outside the WCS the 1956 results are:
Trabert 4-3 on South America Tour (mostly clay)
Gonzalez 3-1 on European Tour (may include clay)
Tie 2-2 on South Africa Tour (may include clay)
Trabert 5-3 at tournaments and other - other being a 4-man tourney and a one-off match in Australia, both of which Trabert won.
That totals Trabert 12-11
1957 - Gonzalez 4-0 (tournaments only, no other matches)
1958 - Gonzalez 8-3, being 7-2 at tournaments and 1-1 when Gorgo substituted in on the European Tour.
And so on.
Source: The Professional Tennis Archive, 2d ed.
And you are off about the clay. The results are Trabert 9-7.
Source on surfaces: thetennisbase.com
And I find it curious that at that European Tour of 1956, which was a four-man tour, Gonzalez, the winner, played 28 matches, but only four against Tony. So he split his other 24 matches between Sedgman and Hartwig. Passing strange. And I wonder whose idea that was.
RS
Bionic Poster
A chink in Pancho's resume. Some people talk like he had none
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
No, they did not adjust well, Gonzales, Sedgman, Hoad and Laver all had injury trouble with that funny canvas surface. The rookie pros needed a season of adjustment to that portable surface to get used to it.
Even Kramer took some time to adjust to that crazy canvas court in 1948, but he managed to become a master of it going forward.
Trabert vs. Gonzales for 1956 on outdoor surfaces, 16-11 for Trabert (1-1 on grass, 4–5 on cement, and 11–5 on clay), a strong showing for Trabert on his familiar surfaces. Your sources are incomplete.
In 1957 and 1958, Trabert was not playing a lot of matches, may have been a bit rusty.
Trabert was good in 1959, winning at Roland Garros.
Kramer failed to win a major clay tournament, apart from the U.S. Clay.
Kramer was runner-up at Roland Garros to Segura in 1952, defeating Gonzales but losing the decider to Segura.
The U.S. Pro Clay Court was dominated by Kovacs, Segura, and Riggs during Kramer's time as a pro.
Sampras destroyed Becker in their Rome final.
Edberg had 72 weeks at #1, Becker about 12
Edberg had 2 YE at #1, Becker-0 according to official rankings not theoretical rankings.
Becker though, did have a significant H-H advantage over Edberg.
IMO, Edberg's time at #1 trumps whatever advantages Boris had over Stefan.
RS
Bionic Poster
That 10th "all time" spot or if you will 10th to15th seems to have a lot of candidates. I see Kramer there sometimes but less.
As much as I liked Pete, Nadal should be ranked above him. IMO, Kramer is ranked too high, and I believe in separating players from the open and pre-open eras.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Becker trumps him in both DC and YEC/WCT/GSC which were the most important events after slam back when the two played. Rankings were still flawed back then. And while 72 vs 12 is big, Boris’ advantages still overweigh for me.
I agree that injuries are part of the game, but I think there's a big dividing line in saying that Lendl got lucky at Melbourne in 1990 (as I would do), and in saying that his win was somehow hollow, underserved, has an 'asterisk' etc. (which I definititely wouldn't do).
I do think that any scenario where a player faces an opponent (especially an elite opponent like Edberg), that is already hindered by a noticeable injury before they even walk on to the court for the warm-up, is at least fortuitous.
Edberg was in stunning form during his SF demolition of Wilander, hitting nearly 40 winners at the net during 3 short sets (a contender for the most flawless performance of his career up to tht point), but sadly suffered that abdominal injury during his final service game.
And Lendl did still have his troubles vs. an injured Edberg in the final, nearly falling 2 sets to love behind. I thought it was a shame that what would have been intriguing and pretty evenly poised final (the players split their 4 matches in 1989 and had 3 wins apiece from their previous 6 matches), was ultimately ruined by Edberg's injury.
Of course on that note, Connors definitely benefitted from Borg's painful thumb injury during the 1978 US Open final. Newcombe very much subscribed to the 'if you play you're healthy' mantra, but readily acknowledged the impact of that injury. Similarly to Melbourne in 1990, after Borg's destruction of Connors in the Wimbledon final, and the fact that Connors was already loving the switch from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows and was hell-bent on revenge, it could have been an intruging final, but Borg's injury eliminated any possibility of that.
His Davis Cup legendary status is of course huge, but I think there are other reasons for being able to rank him ahead of either Connors or Lendl or both:
- The fact that he was the only one of the trio to dominate what was clearly the most important major at the time Wimbledon, and therefore the only one of them to dominate both of the two majors that all of them clearly cared about and valued the most. The fact that he has legendary status at each of Wimbledon, the US Open and the Davis Cup separately, is a very big deal IMO.
- His insane indoor record, when indoor tennis was hugely important - all 3 players were outstanding under a roof, but he clearly topped Connors there, and I would say that he edged out Lendl though it is very close, and there are also strong arguments to rank them as equally good indoors, to rank Lendl as slightly ahead etc.
- The fact that his 1984 season is widely regarded more highly than any season than Connors and Lendl ever had (of course they also both had hugely impressive seasons).
- His doubles success.
Of course as I said previously, there are also strong arguments to rank either or both of them ahead of him. I just reject the notion that he is a long way behind either of them, and that there are no possible arguments to rank him ahead.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
More B.S.
Look, Dan, if you are going to make factual assertions make sure they have some basis in fact, rather than wildly inaccurate. I mean it gets to a point that you are essentially telling lies. To what end, gosh knows.
"In 1957 and 1958, Trabert was not playing a lot of matches, may have been a bit rusty."
1957: 46 matches, 23-23. That number of matches was more than Johnston ever played; would be a heavy year for Lacoste, and even for Cochet; is equal to the number Kramer played as amateur in 1946-47 and number Sampras played in 1999, in a nearly complete season, from early Feb. to end of Nov.; and in the same range as Budge's storied 1938, Rosewall's 1961, etc. Enough to keep the rust off. Record vs Gonzalez: 1-5, or 2-5 (I believe I already counted one late-year/ New Year Australian exhibition in the 1956 tally). (No clay).
1958: Trabert played 190 matches! 89-101 match record. Record vs. Gonzalez: 3-9 (no clay). ". . . 1958 was not playing a lot of matches."
1959: Trabert played 115 matches. 61-54 match record. He won the French Pro in nice fashion. So, yes, he was "good". You know, of his entire Pro career, Trabert won only two tournaments of eight or more competitors - the two French Pro. Lucky man. Record vs. Gonzalez: 1-4 (1-1 on clay)
1960: 14-29 match record. He is only 29 years you know. Must be the rust
, I guess at 43 matches. Record vs. Gonzalez: 0-2 (no clay).1961: 42-25 match record. Record vs. Gonzalez: 1-2 (0-1 on clay)
1962: 17-26. He is 31 going on 32. This is the end of his career. Gonzalez retired for now.
Kramer clay titles:
Amateur - Dixie (1942); Beverley Hills (1946); University of Miami (1947); River Oaks (1947). He did not win the US Clay Court. Rarely competed. Of these four, only River Oaks has any creds as a clay tournament.
Pro - Zero as far as I know.
Maybe a small thing, but 1952 had no RG and no French Pro. It was the Paris Indoor Pro and only a four-man event.
Gonzalez never "ducked". Others might have ducked Gonzalez at certain times (Trabert?; Kramer?). He might pick and choose as anybody might, but he was always ready to play the toughest competition. Same at 40-plus years at the start of the Open era. He did not play a lot, but he played tournaments where he had to face the very best. Nothing exceptional in this. Most of the greats don't duck. Sedgman was often a "part-time" player, but he came to play in the Big Tournaments. Off the top of my head I can't think of any really great player "ducking". Rios "ducked" Sampras in 1998 YEC probably. But Rios is borderline "great" at most. Nadal might have been accused of ducking but I think that is a stupid notion. I know Kramer ducked the French International two years running. I know that Ken Rosewall must have had some suspicion that Kramer ducked Gonzalez in the years after the 1950 WCS. See Peter Rowley with Ken Rosewall, Ken Rosewall, Twenty Years at the Top, New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976, p. 21.
What makes you think that 46 matches is a lot for a pro? That is far from reality, Hoad probably played over 400 matches from mid-1957 through 1959, and that was not unusual for the touring pros. And in 1957 Trabert played only half a dozen matches against Gonzales? Again, that is small.
More B.S.
Look, Dan, if you are going to make factual assertions make sure they have some basis in fact, rather than wildly inaccurate. I mean it gets to a point that you are essentially telling lies. To what end, gosh knows.
"In 1957 and 1958, Trabert was not playing a lot of matches, may have been a bit rusty."
1957: 46 matches, 23-23. That number of matches was more than Johnston ever played; would be a heavy year for Lacoste, and even for Cochet; is equal to the number Kramer played as amateur in 1946-47 and number Sampras played in 1999, in a nearly complete season, from early Feb. to end of Nov.; and in the same range as Budge's storied 1938, Rosewall's 1961, etc. Enough to keep the rust off. Record vs Gonzalez: 1-5, or 2-5 (I believe I already counted one late-year/ New Year Australian exhibition in the 1956 tally). (No clay).
1958: Trabert played 190 matches! 89-101 match record. Record vs. Gonzalez: 3-9 (no clay). ". . . 1958 was not playing a lot of matches."
1959: Trabert played 115 matches. 61-54 match record. He won the French Pro in nice fashion. So, yes, he was "good". You know, of his entire Pro career, Trabert won only two tournaments of eight or more competitors - the two French Pro. Lucky man. Record vs. Gonzalez: 1-4 (1-1 on clay)
1960: 14-29 match record. He is only 29 years you know. Must be the rust
1961: 42-25 match record. Record vs. Gonzalez: 1-2 (0-1 on clay)
1962: 17-26. He is 31 going on 32. This is the end of his career. Gonzalez retired for now.
Kramer clay titles:
Amateur - Dixie (1942); Beverley Hills (1946); University of Miami (1947); River Oaks (1947). He did not win the US Clay Court. Rarely competed. Of these four, only River Oaks has any creds as a clay tournament.
Pro - Zero as far as I know.
Maybe a small thing, but 1952 had no RG and no French Pro. It was the Paris Indoor Pro and only a four-man event.
Gonzalez never "ducked". Others might have ducked Gonzalez at certain times (Trabert?; Kramer?). He might pick and choose as anybody might, but he was always ready to play the toughest competition. Same at 40-plus years at the start of the Open era. He did not play a lot, but he played tournaments where he had to face the very best. Nothing exceptional in this. Most of the greats don't duck. Sedgman was often a "part-time" player, but he came to play in the Big Tournaments. Off the top of my head I can't think of any really great player "ducking". Rios "ducked" Sampras in 1998 YEC probably. But Rios is borderline "great" at most. Nadal might have been accused of ducking but I think that is a stupid notion. I know Kramer ducked the French International two years running. I know that Ken Rosewall must have had some suspicion that Kramer ducked Gonzalez in the years after the 1950 WCS. See Peter Rowley with Ken Rosewall, Ken Rosewall, Twenty Years at the Top, New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976, p. 21.
For 1958, many of Trabert's matches were in a preliminary tour with Segura, 34-31, or that is 65 best-of-three sets matches which was not counted towards any standings. Not the top drawer series, and Trabert only had 5 matches against Gonzales? Again a small number. I am not sure where you get 190 matches for 1958 for Trabert. Certainly not in the major series.
Yes, of course there was a pro tournament at Roland Garros in 1952, won by Segura over Kramer, Kramer won his match over Gonzales., I regard that tournament as a major pro event. I am surprised that you have never heard of the 1952 Roland Garros Pro, where have you been? That issue was resolved a long time ago.
Michel Lejard (June 27, 1952). "Kramer le métronome, Budge l'inoubliable et les deux Pancho: Segura et Gonzales !". L'Equipe (in French). p. 6.
"Pour la première fois dans son histoire le stade Roland-Garros présentera un Tournoi de tennis professionel, aujourd'hui, demain et dimanche. Les quatres joueurs qui s'affronteront sur le central ne sont autres que Jack Kramer, Donald Budge et les deux Pancho : Segura et Gonzales."
The term "duck" is commonly used to indicate an unexplained skip of a major tennis championship. If you like the term "skip" then that is fine with me.
But the main point stands, that Kramer and Gonzales skipped some major tournaments which carried with them world championships and No. 1 pro rankings. Missing those events requires some explanation.
Here they are again, to refresh your acquaintance.
1) Kramer inexplicably failed to defend his U.S. Pro Championship at Forest Hills in 1949 which was won by Riggs and gave the No. 1 pro ranking to Riggs for 1949.
Kramer also inexplicably skipped the 1951 Cleveland U.S. Pro which also conferred a pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, which was Kovacs.
2) Gonzales inexplicably skipped the 1950 Cleveland U.S. Pro which conferred the pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, Segura.
Gonzales inexplicably skipped the 1951 Cleveland U.S. Pro which conferred a pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, Kovacs.
Gonzales inexplicably skipped the December 1959 Kooyong event which offered a world championship title and a $10,000 prize to the winner, the biggest money prize ever to that point. Gonzales claimed that he wanted to spend Christmas with his girlfriend. Perhaps Gonzales was a sentimentalist at heart.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Interesting. Federer July 2003 or Federer November 2003? Serious question. Makes a difference. Season-end 2003 Federer is set to take over the world.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thank you Dan. These dates and players line up w what thetennisbase.com call the Paris Pro Indoor.
I think the PTA may also identify it as Roland Garros.
It is meaningful that it was played at the Porte d'Auteuil. It is a plume for Segura. But it is no Pro major. No four-man tournament can be a major. Under the circumstances, though, it is not some 4-man to be practically ignored, as are most such. It is some kind of notable accomplishment in Segura's career. It boosts slight his clay standing.
Interesting the L'Equipe reporter was ignorant of the rich history of RG hosting the French Pro pre-War. The article state that this will be the first time in history that RG hosts the professional players.
Not "a lot" but enough. Similar numbers of matches, sometimes fewer sometimes more, were enough for Johnston, Lacoste, Cochet, Budge and Kramer in the competitive amateur circuit, for Nusslein ('36-'38) Budge ('40), Kramer ('49), Sedgman ('58), Rosewall ('61), Gonzalez ('65) in the Pros, Borg ('81), Becker ('96) Sampras ('99), Agassi ('03)
190 Matches Trabert played in 1958 (one hundred ninety). 89-101. (Maybe he was rusty).
Injuries they may have sustained. It was trial by fire and the rookies got the big money. But the difference is they rebounded quickly and sharply: Vines took Tilden; Perry played Vines to an effective draw; Budge took Vines; Riggs played Budge pretty decent 1942; Kramer clobbered Riggs; Sedgman came close to beating Kramer; Rosewall acquitted himself surprisingly well against Gorgo; Hoad scared the living sh-- out of Gorgo. Trabert, who had more amateur experience and was more mature than any of them except Perry, Trabert lost his trousers . . . he was out there in the arena spotlight in his altogether. Heck, rookie Andres did better than Tony.
1) The 1952 Roland Garros Pro featured the top three pros, although the absence of such fine clay courters as Kovacs (possibly the best pro clay court player),Riggs and Van Horn is regrettable.
However the venue of Roland Garros itself is enough to lift the event into the major pro status, the pros rarely played at a major venue and so any event at these places was a special occasion.
The 1930 and 1932 French Pro championships at RG had only four players in their fields and it was then a round robin event, so your point is invalid on that score.
The 1956 RG pro field was weaker than the 1952 RG field, even Segura did not play in that 1956 event.
I cannot understand why your sources were defective on this RG tournament. I would get on them and urge them to correct their work.
2) The pros often played over100 matches per year, that was a standard season in most years, unless there was no major draw in the pro ranks.
3) Where were those 1958 Trabert matches? That number looks weird. Trabert played that one tour against Segura of 65 matches, he also played the major tournaments.
4) The rookies usually had trouble with that portable canvas surface, which slipped and jerked the legs. Kramer had trouble adjusting until February in that 1947-48 series, Gonzales rolled his ankle in 1950, Hoad pulled his thigh muscle in 1958, Laver hurt his back in 1963, the last year the surface was used. Sedgman hurt his shoulder, they all had an adjustment period. Vines pulled his side muscles in 1939, the first year of that surface. Trabert did extremely well against Gonzales in 1956 outdoors, 16-11 including all matches.
5) There is no question that Kramer and Gonzales and even Budge in 1939 skipped major US. Pro tournaments which carried world number one rankings.
Budge avoided the 1939 U.S. Pro tournament in L.A., Vines played great at that time and won.
Kramer inexplicably failed to defend his U.S. Pro Championship at Forest Hills in 1949 which was won by Riggs and gave the No. 1 pro ranking to Riggs for 1949.
Kramer also inexplicably skipped the 1951 Cleveland U.S. Pro which also conferred a pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, which was Kovacs.
Gonzales inexplicably skipped the 1950 Cleveland U.S. Pro which conferred the pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, Segura.
Gonzales inexplicably skipped the 1951 Cleveland U.S. Pro which conferred a pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, Kovacs.
Gonzales inexplicably skipped the December 1959 Kooyong event which offered a world championship title and a $10,000 prize to the winner, the biggest money prize ever to that point. Gonzales claimed that he wanted to spend Christmas with his girlfriend. Perhaps Gonzales was a sentimentalist at heart.
Last edited:
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
Incorrect.
The 1952 four man event at Roland Garros. My book does not need correcting. When you have access to tennisbase and when you see them listing it as a Paris indoor tournament you can ask them to change it. In the mean time, do not comment on things you know nothing about (I realise that will render you permanently silent).
My nomination for most ridiculous statement on the forum this year.
This statement indicates you have little knowledge of Trabert's 1958 matches.
You seem keen on repeating these statements about players "inexplicably" missing tournaments which had rankings linked with them. This is because you are over-emphasising the importance of these particular rankings, based on a tiny number of US tournaments. The Los Angeles Times, Ray Bowers and Peter Underwood all ranked Kramer number one from 1948-53 in retrospective rankings and Bob Phillips also ranked Kramer number one in this period in the Birmingham Post-Herald in 1953. Kramer concentrated on playing the annual tours and sometimes did not play in tournaments.
World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia
People can see for themselves a list of the rankings.
1) Trabert played 190 matches in 1958? Where would that be, he played 65 on the world tour and some major tournaments.Incorrect.
The 1952 four man event at Roland Garros. My book does not need correcting. When you have access to tennisbase and when you see them listing it as a Paris indoor tournament you can ask them to change it. In the mean time, do not comment on things you know nothing about (I realise that will render you permanently silent).
My nomination for most ridiculous statement on the forum this year.
This statement indicates you have little knowledge of Trabert's 1958 matches.
You seem keen on repeating these statements about players "inexplicably" missing tournaments which had rankings linked with them. This is because you are over-emphasising the importance of these particular rankings, based on a tiny number of US tournaments. The Los Angeles Times, Ray Bowers and Peter Underwood all ranked Kramer number one from 1948-53 in retrospective rankings and Bob Phillips also ranked Kramer number one in this period in the Birmingham Post-Herald in 1953. Kramer concentrated on playing the annual tours and sometimes did not play in tournaments.
World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
People can see for themselves a list of the rankings.
2) There was indeed a four man round robin at the French Pro in the early thirties, at least 1930 and 1932. You have some other evidence?
3) Now you are jumping way ahead to NON-contemporary NON-rankings from many years after the fact,
Those were not contemporary rankings of any kind, just throwaway statements without support many years later. And not real rankings, just an offhand remark without any attempt at a field ranking.
Why would you think that they constitute contemporary rankings?
Kramer and Gonzales would not be thinking about getting a possible nod from writers many years in advance.
They were concerned with titles and rankings which they were playing for at the time, which means the official USPLTA rankings, the PTPA rankings, the world champion titles, the top tournaments of their own contemporary world, the money list.
Those are the rankings and titles which count in terms of the players at the time. And it would be strange for the top players to not care about an official No. 1 ranking or a world championship title in their playing days.
There is difficulty in explaining non-participation in these events.
Again, it was strange that Budge avoided the 1939 U.S. Pro tournament in L.A., Vines played great at that time and won.
Kramer failed to defend his U.S. Pro Championship at Forest Hills in 1949 which was won by Riggs and gave the USPLTA No. 1 pro ranking to Riggs for 1949.
Kramer skipped the 1951 Cleveland U.S. Pro which also conferred a pro PTPA No. 1 ranking on the winner, which was Kovacs.
Gonzales skipped the 1950 Cleveland U.S. Pro which conferred the USPLTA pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, Segura.
Gonzales skipped the 1951 Cleveland U.S. Pro which conferred a PTPA pro No. 1 ranking on the winner, Kovacs.
Gonzales skipped the December 1959 Kooyong event which offered a world championship title and a $10,000 prize to the winner, the biggest money prize ever to that point. Gonzales claimed that he wanted to spend Christmas with his girlfriend. Perhaps Gonzales was a sentimentalist at heart.
Last edited:
no better place to be one
