Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

[pc1]

From Vines book the last paragraph in the Riggs chapter-
When asked to volunteer his All-Time-First Ten, Riggs replied, "I'd put Kramer, one; Budge, two; Vines (a nod), three; Tilden, four; Gonzalez, five; Perry, six; Laver, seven; Segura, eight; Sedgman, nine..." The he paused. "Ten is tough---probably Rosewall. He's been winning major tournaments for over twenty years." Then a pause...followed by a smile. "But I agree with you, I was better than Rosewall. Better serve. Better balance off both sides...his forehand was always a little suspect."

Seems odd to me that Riggs would reassess his evaluation so much especially considering most of the guys in front peaked before Rosewall anyway. Commies and ex-players say a lot of stuff to hype the game. Wilander once said Djokovic was playing the best clay court tennis of all time (back in 2015 at the French) - he went on to lose to Wawrinka in 4 in the final. There's all sorts of examples of this. I wouldn't take 'in the moment' comments or statements at face value.

Alexander most recently called Federer the GOAT as well

And I didn't insult you. As far as no single point of yours ever being debunked - just lol - I guess we can trust you on that because you're so objective right?

Often players say things to promote the game but don't really mean it. I know one all time great who has praised another all time great but in reality he doesn't believe that the great player is that terrific and another player in his mind is truly the GOAT.

Yup. I've discussed this before. My conclusion: Laver is not as good as many say he is, or Rosewall is better than Laver rates him.

Gary,

Laver was truly awesome and his record was super but he is of course not the god-like presence that some say he was. However he has performed some superhuman type feats in his career. The Open Grand Slam, the 200 plus tournament wins and seemingly the ability at times to hit winners out of nowhere. I used to watch him go on some of his hot streaks and think to myself that it can't be as easy to hit the lines as he's making seem to be. Ashe used this description of Laver when he was on a hot streak from his book "Arthur Ashe-Portrait in Motion"-Still, no one can ever feel secure against Rocket. People talk about me being a streaky player, but there is no one who can blow any hotter than Rocket. In 1968 in the finals of the Pacific Southwest, Rosewall beat him 7-5 in the first set and then didn't win another game--love and love, a double bagel. When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and ten he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. No one can stop him.

So Gary, while Laver may not be what some say he was he was pretty great. Here's Rosewall's description of Laver's game from "Play Tennis with Rosewall"--When he is playing confidently I cannot think of a more destructive tennis machine than Rod Laver. He is one of the toughest players you could ever have the misfortune to meet. He hits the ball hard, moves like lightning and has no weaknesses--so how do you beat him? To be honest you do not, unless a chink appears in his armour. It used to be his forehand volley but that's no weakness now. Occasionally it is his service which still let's him down at times. However in the last five or six years his service has improved out of sight. He is hitting even harder now than he used to and the wicked spin that he can command and the disguise he can achieve--particularly when running flat out to make his shot, makes him a really hazardous opponent to face.

Now ranking Rosewall number six is pretty awesome by the way with greats like Gonzalez, Laver, Tilden, Federer, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Lacoste, Cochet, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Newcombe, Sedgman, Segura, Riggs, Trabert around. Tilden's record for example is almost ridiculous in its numbers and he played for decades defeating greats from Lacoste, Brookes, Johnston, Budge, Perry, Vines, Ted Schroeder in the 1940s, Nusslein etc. He even played Pancho Gonzalez and in one match only lost to Gonzalez 7-5 10-8 according to Tennis Base. This was in 1951 when Tilden would be 58! I could see Rosewall ranked high and I could see Rosewall out the top ten as I could with many of these players. For example Laver, Tilden, Federer, Gonzalez, Budge, Kramer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Cochet, Perry have all been called the GOAT. So you know they have impressed people with their play and their record. Many of these players can be reasonably said to be ahead of Rosewall and at the same time many of them can be reasonably said to be behind Rosewall

I can agree, this often occurs though.
With the passage of time, history can not "carry on all", it cancels the importance of others. How many musicians or actors or NBA players or other artists have been deleted. Have the myths really been much higher than the canceled ones?

IMHO the difference between the probable GOAT (assuming the right parameters ...) with the twenty-fifth is little likely, or anyway between the 5th excluded from Mount Rushmore (Federer, Tilden, Laver, Gonzalez) and the twenty-fifth the distance is probably laughable.

Another excellent post.

 

[Limpinhitter]

King > Riggs > Rosewall?

Interesting! Never thought of that possibility.

 

[pc1]

I suspect that Riggs might have offered a slightly different list if, say, Laver or Gonzalez had asked him the same question.

That (nod) says it all - "I got you man"

It's clear that Riggs ranked Kramer number one.

 

[pc1]

King > Riggs > Rosewall?

Interesting! Never thought of that possibility.

Hey, I wrote that on this forum first. (Well at least the King>Riggs part) I take due credit.

 

[pc1]

Interesting! Never thought of that possibility.

So I think we can agree now that Billie Jean King is the GOAT of all tennis players.

 

[thrust]

I don’t have a problem with that. Top 5? Not a chance, IMO!

According to Tennisbase and Slasher, Ken is #3. Sorry! Rosewall nearly won as many important titles ages 33-37 as Vines did for his whole career. Too bad Rod could not beat a 37 year old in those two WCT finals. To rate: Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Vines or Segura above Ken, is absurd! In slam finals, Rosewall leads Laver 7-5. Ken had winning H-H against: Segura, Hoad, Sedgman and just about everyone except; Laver, Gonzalez and Connors. Achievements trump style of play, see career record of Tommy Haas.

 

[pc1]

According to Tennisbase and Slasher, Ken is #3. Sorry! Rosewall nearly won as many important titles ages 33-37 as Vines did for his whole career. Too bad Rod could not beat a 37 year old in those two WCT finals. To rate: Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Vines or Segura above Ken, is absurd! In slam finals, Rosewall leads Laver 7-5. Ken had winning H-H against: Segura, Hoad, Sedgman and just about everyone except; Laver, Gonzalez and Connors. Achievements trump style of play, see career record of Tommy Haas.

You leave out that Vines won many World Championship Tours and was World Champion for many years. Vines can be reasonably argued ahead of Rosewall. I'm not saying he is but it is not unreasonable. Please check your facts.

Vines won majors (if you include Pro Majors) on grass, clay and hard court.

I once did a quick calculation and I found Vines, if you included the Pro Majors had the second highest winning percentage in majors next to Borg. That to me is awesome.

 

[NoMercy]

Often players say things to promote the game but don't really mean it. I know one all time great who has praised another all time great but in reality he doesn't believe that the great player is that terrific and another player in his mind is truly the GOAT.


Gary,

Laver was truly awesome and his record was super but he is of course not the god-like presence that some say he was. However he has performed some superhuman type feats in his career. The Open Grand Slam, the 200 plus tournament wins and seemingly the ability at times to hit winners out of nowhere. I used to watch him go on some of his hot streaks and think to myself that it can't be as easy to hit the lines as he's making seem to be. Ashe used this description of Laver when he was on a hot streak from his book "Arthur Ashe-Portrait in Motion"-Still, no one can ever feel secure against Rocket. People talk about me being a streaky player, but there is no one who can blow any hotter than Rocket. In 1968 in the finals of the Pacific Southwest, Rosewall beat him 7-5 in the first set and then didn't win another game--love and love, a double bagel. When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and ten he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. No one can stop him.

So Gary, while Laver may not be what some say he was he was pretty great. Here's Rosewall's description of Laver's game from "Play Tennis with Rosewall"--When he is playing confidently I cannot think of a more destructive tennis machine than Rod Laver. He is one of the toughest players you could ever have the misfortune to meet. He hits the ball hard, moves like lightning and has no weaknesses--so how do you beat him? To be honest you do not, unless a chink appears in his armour. It used to be his forehand volley but that's no weakness now. Occasionally it is his service which still let's him down at times. However in the last five or six years his service has improved out of sight. He is hitting even harder now than he used to and the wicked spin that he can command and the disguise he can achieve--particularly when running flat out to make his shot, makes him a really hazardous opponent to face.

Now ranking Rosewall number six is pretty awesome by the way with greats like Gonzalez, Laver, Tilden, Federer, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Lacoste, Cochet, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Newcombe, Sedgman, Segura, Riggs, Trabert around. Tilden's record for example is almost ridiculous in its numbers and he played for decades defeating greats from Lacoste, Brookes, Johnston, Budge, Perry, Vines, Ted Schroeder in the 1940s, Nusslein etc. He even played Pancho Gonzalez and in one match only lost to Gonzalez 7-5 10-8 according to Tennis Base. This was in 1951 when Tilden would be 58! I could see Rosewall ranked high and I could see Rosewall out the top ten as I could with many of these players. For example Laver, Tilden, Federer, Gonzalez, Budge, Kramer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Cochet, Perry have all been called the GOAT. So you know they have impressed people with their play and their record. Many of these players can be reasonably said to be ahead of Rosewall and at the same time many of them can be reasonably said to be behind Rosewall



Another excellent post.

Very solid post.
Maybe I rank Rosewall a little too high (5 to 7) because I have always loved him and probably I’m a little biased towards him, but I rate very , very high what he was able to do in his last years.

 

[pc1]

Very solid post.
Maybe I rank Rosewall a little too high (5 to 7) because I have always loved him and probably I’m a little biased towards him, but I rate very , very high what he was able to do in his last years.

I love Rosewall also but what is truly important is to get correct information. I think it's clear that your top four in Federer, Laver, Tilden and Gonzalez are ahead of him. Some argue Tilden played a weak field but I've also read experts at the time calling it a stronger field than in later years. Still let's say it was a weak field. Can anyone have done as well as Tilden considering how rarely he lost?

Anyway if you put those players ahead of Rosewall the best he can do is number five. Then you have Borg, Kramer, Vines, Perry, Budge, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Sedgman, Hoad, Riggs, Newcombe. So in order for Rosewall to be sixth on your list, he has to be better than all but one of these greats.

What do you think?

 

[Limpinhitter]

I can agree, this often occurs though.
With the passage of time, history can not "carry on all", it cancels the importance of others. How many musicians or actors or NBA players or other artists have been deleted. Have the myths really been much higher than the canceled ones?

IMHO the difference between the probable GOAT (assuming the right parameters ...) with the twenty-fifth is little likely, or anyway between the 5th excluded from Mount Rushmore (Federer, Tilden, Laver, Gonzalez) and the twenty-fifth the distance is probably laughable.

If I understand your comment correctly, I’ve been saying the same thing for a long time. The difference in level of play between the GOAT and the 25th ATG is not that much.

Having said that, having seen Laver on one of his tears (as described by Ashe and Rosewall), I am still convinced that no one has played quite like that, before or since.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Often players say things to promote the game but don't really mean it. I know one all time great who has praised another all time great but in reality he doesn't believe that the great player is that terrific and another player in his mind is truly the GOAT.


Gary,

Laver was truly awesome and his record was super but he is of course not the god-like presence that some say he was. However he has performed some superhuman type feats in his career. The Open Grand Slam, the 200 plus tournament wins and seemingly the ability at times to hit winners out of nowhere. I used to watch him go on some of his hot streaks and think to myself that it can't be as easy to hit the lines as he's making seem to be. Ashe used this description of Laver when he was on a hot streak from his book "Arthur Ashe-Portrait in Motion"-Still, no one can ever feel secure against Rocket. People talk about me being a streaky player, but there is no one who can blow any hotter than Rocket. In 1968 in the finals of the Pacific Southwest, Rosewall beat him 7-5 in the first set and then didn't win another game--love and love, a double bagel. When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and ten he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. No one can stop him.

So Gary, while Laver may not be what some say he was he was pretty great. Here's Rosewall's description of Laver's game from "Play Tennis with Rosewall"--When he is playing confidently I cannot think of a more destructive tennis machine than Rod Laver. He is one of the toughest players you could ever have the misfortune to meet. He hits the ball hard, moves like lightning and has no weaknesses--so how do you beat him? To be honest you do not, unless a chink appears in his armour. It used to be his forehand volley but that's no weakness now. Occasionally it is his service which still let's him down at times. However in the last five or six years his service has improved out of sight. He is hitting even harder now than he used to and the wicked spin that he can command and the disguise he can achieve--particularly when running flat out to make his shot, makes him a really hazardous opponent to face.

Now ranking Rosewall number six is pretty awesome by the way with greats like Gonzalez, Laver, Tilden, Federer, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Lacoste, Cochet, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Newcombe, Sedgman, Segura, Riggs, Trabert around. Tilden's record for example is almost ridiculous in its numbers and he played for decades defeating greats from Lacoste, Brookes, Johnston, Budge, Perry, Vines, Ted Schroeder in the 1940s, Nusslein etc. He even played Pancho Gonzalez and in one match only lost to Gonzalez 7-5 10-8 according to Tennis Base. This was in 1951 when Tilden would be 58! I could see Rosewall ranked high and I could see Rosewall out the top ten as I could with many of these players. For example Laver, Tilden, Federer, Gonzalez, Budge, Kramer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Cochet, Perry have all been called the GOAT. So you know they have impressed people with their play and their record. Many of these players can be reasonably said to be ahead of Rosewall and at the same time many of them can be reasonably said to be behind Rosewall



Another excellent post.

This is the description of Laver’s game, by an ATG, as I know it. BTW, I think Laver lost that first set against Rosewall 6-4.

 

[pc1]

Most tennis fans know nothing about World Championship Tours, which were merely a bunch of one night stands. You will not see anything about them in most tennis records books. I don't doubt Vines greatness, but he seemed to have been rather inconsistent and did not last very long. Whatever, his era should not be compared to the Pancho, Rod, Ken era or any other later eras.

So not knowing about the World Championship Tours means you eliminate them?? They weren't a bunch of one night stands but they were for the World Championship. The World Champiosnhip Tours imo were far more important than any of the Pro Majors. Pancho Gonzalez for example had as his top priority winning the World Championship Tour.

Does any major make you the number one player? No. However winning the World Championship Tour does. Therefore what do you think is more important?

 

[NoMercy]

I love Rosewall also but what is truly important is to get correct information. I think it's clear that your top four in Federer, Laver, Tilden and Gonzalez are ahead of him. Some argue Tilden played a weak field but I've also read experts at the time calling it a stronger field than in later years. Still let's say it was a weak field. Can anyone have done as well as Tilden considering how rarely he lost?

Anyway if you put those players ahead of Rosewall the best he can do is number five. Then you have Borg, Kramer, Vines, Perry, Budge, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Sedgman, Hoad, Riggs, Newcombe. So in order for Rosewall to be sixth on your list, he has to be better than all but one of these greats.

What do you think?

I don’t have a 1,2,3,4,5,....10 list.

Anyway, in chronological order.

1. Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Federer
2. Budge, Rosewall, Nadal
3. Kramer, Borg, Sampras, Djokovic

 

[pc1]

This is the description of Laver’s game, by an ATG, as I know it. BTW, I think Laver won that first set against Rosewall 6-4.

You mean Rosewall won the first set 6-4. I think you'll right.

 

[pc1]

I don’t have a 1,2,3,4,5,....10 list.

Anyway, in chronological order.

1. Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Federer
2. Budge, Rosewall, Nadal
3. Kramer, Borg, Sampras, Djokovic

Reasonable although I would put Kramer higher because he was World Champion for longer than Budge and was more dominant than Budge in the pros considering the World Championship Tours.

 

[Limpinhitter]

According to Tennisbase and Slasher, Ken is #3. Sorry! Rosewall nearly won as many important titles ages 33-37 as Vines did for his whole career. Too bad Rod could not beat a 37 year old in those two WCT finals. To rate: Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Vines or Segura above Ken, is absurd! In slam finals, Rosewall leads Laver 7-5. Ken had winning H-H against: Segura, Hoad, Sedgman and just about everyone except; Laver, Gonzalez and Connors. Achievements trump style of play, see career record of Tommy Haas.

Rosewall was #3 of his own era behind Gonzalez and Laver. There were probably several players before and certainly several players since who were/are greater than Rosewall.

Style of play, as you put it, is irrelevant and looks like a lame attempt to employ a red herring or mischaracterize the fact that certain players, past and present, played at a higher level than Rosewall.

 

[Limpinhitter]

You mean Rosewall won the first set 6-4. I think you'll right.

Yes. Sorry. I fixed it.

 

[pc1]

It wasn't a major, 17/20 top 20 players skipped it. I don't care whether it's traditional or not, it carried virtually no weight in 1972 so how can we call it a major in 2018?

It's so hypocritical that we have people swearing blind that the 1967 French Pro is worth more than the 1968 edition (despite an inferior field) because it was one of the top events of the year in 1967 and in 1968 it wasn't, yet when discussing the AO in 1972 they argue the reverse! For the 1972 AO it has some intrinsic value as a slam and therefore is a major despite the fact it most certainly wasn't one of the top events of the year. It's ridiculous.

I guess if the AO holds it's value as a major so much better than the French Pro it really shows just how important the Pro Majors were right?

The cognitive dissonance of some people on here is just unreal. Funnier still they call themselves and each other true experts.

I'm been meaning to reply to this super post but forgot to.

Let's use some common sense here. Let's say the 1968 French Pro were being played. It's played at Roland Garros, the site of the French Championhips and played on red clay. That I think would help with the prestige of the 1968 French Pro. The 1967 French Pro was played on wood at Stade Coubertin. Not as impressive as Roland Garros.

The 1968 French Pro field was clearly by far superior to the 1967 French. John Newcombe, who didn't play the 1967 French Pro defeated Rosewall in five sets to reach the final. This upset wouldn't have happened in 1967 and this shows the extra strength of the field in 1968. Plus to 1968 French Pro.

Does anyone really thing that a pro would have the mindset not to care as much that they don't count the 1968 French Pro as a "Pro Major"? I don't think Laver or Rosewall or Newcombe would think, "Hey, the 1968 French Pro is no longer a major so I won't try as hard!" That would be inane thinking. If anything they would realize how tough the tournament was and try harder.

I wonder what the respective price money was. I would guess the 1968 French Pro had the greater purse.

So to my thought process it's a no brainer that the 1968 French Pro is a greater achievement than the 1967 French Pro.

 

[NoMercy]

Reasonable although I would put Kramer higher because he was World Champion for longer than Budge and was more dominant than Budge in the pros considering the World Championship Tours.

Yeah.
Budge and Kramer have the war variable in thei resume.
I rate very high Budge 1939 season.
Facing an opponent very used to indoor game and with perfect game for that playing situation, Budge won pretty easily, coming from the amateur game.
He clinched the series at 20-15, last games were just exhibitions, as the first prize money was awarded as a flat amount, not according to the gates.
Then they moved outdoors (the favorable situation for Budge) and he destroyed Vines 15-5.
In between he demolished Perry too

Kramer did the same, but his game was perfect for the indoor game and he understood very early how his game could have been even deadlier in the indoors courts.
Riggs game was not the top game for the indoor environment.

 

[pc1]

Yeah.
Budge and Kramer have the war variable in thei resume.
I rate very high Budge 1939 season.
Facing an opponent very used to indoor game and with perfect game for that playing situation, Budge won pretty easily, coming from the amateur game.
He clinched the series at 20-15, last games were just exhibitions, as the first prize money was awarded as a flat amount, not according to the gates.
Then they moved outdoors (the favorable situation for Budge) and he destroyed Vines 15-5.
In between he demolished Perry too

Kramer did the same, but his game was perfect for the indoor game and he understood very early how his game could have been even deadlier in the indoors courts.
Riggs game was not the top game for the indoor environment.

Still people like Segura and Riggs have mentioned that Kramer became awesome on clay also. I rank Kramer higher as it seems that most who faced both do. I think Krosero only has Budge (over the hill but not that much over the hill at the beginning) beating Kramer only once in the Pros. Kramer didn't have a weakness and I understand that Kramer's sidespin approach to the forehand was very tough for Budge to handle. The defeats of Riggs, Segura and Gonzalez in such one sided manners were great achievements.

 

[NoMercy]

Still people like Segura and Riggs have mentioned that Kramer became awesome on clay also. I rank Kramer higher as it seems that most who faced both do. I think Krosero only has Budge (over the hill but not that much over the hill at the beginning) beating Kramer only once in the Pros. Kramer didn't have a weakness and I understand that Kramer's sidespin approach to the forehand was very tough for Budge to handle. The defeats of Riggs, Segura and Gonzalez in such one sided manners were great achievements.

Budge pre war and Budge post war are two different players.
The injury he suffered in the army changed a lot his game.

 

[pc1]

Budge pre war and Budge post war are two different players.
The injury he suffered in the army changed a lot his game.

Yes. I agree. It hurt him on the serve and the overhead.

Budge was one of those players that the old tennis history books used to rank with Tilden. He wasn't as unbeatable as Tilden but many were in awe of him. He was a super player and underrated today.

I do feel however that Riggs may have given him problems no matter what. Riggs give Budge difficulties on the 1942 World Championship Tour. Riggs later improved immensely on his serve, volley and overall game. I have a feel Riggs sort of carried Budge a bit on the 1946 Tour so the box office would be higher considering Riggs jumped off to a 12-2 lead. I think Riggs slaughtered Budge in one US Pro final with the loss of around five games in three sets. Riggs had to be holding serve well and the injury I don't think hurt Budge on the return. VInes felt Riggs at his best had a superior serve to Budge at his best because of the variety. Riggs was able to ace Budge in some matches with some decent totals.

 

[NoMercy]

Yes. I agree. It hurt him on the serve and the overhead.

Budge was one of those players that the old tennis history books used to rank with Tilden. He wasn't as unbeatable as Tilden but many were in awe of him. He was a super player and underrated today.

I do feel however that Riggs may have given him problems no matter what. Riggs give Budge difficulties on the 1942 World Championship Tour. Riggs later improved immensely on his serve, volley and overall game. I have a feel Riggs sort of carried Budge a bit on the 1946 Tour so the box office would be higher considering Riggs jumped off to a 12-2 lead. I think Riggs slaughtered Budge in one US Pro final with the loss of around five games in three sets. Riggs had to be holding serve well and the injury I don't think hurt Budge on the return. VInes felt Riggs at his best had a superior serve to Budge at his best because of the variety. Riggs was able to ace Budge in some matches with some decent totals.

Riggs is reported to lob Budge in every possible occasion, to use that post war weakness.
Riggs was a smart guy

In 1942 WS the H2H was 16-8 (and one draw), but Budge lost last three matches when he had already clinched the series.
Anyway, I would not put too much hype on it because Riggs was a rookie.
That’s why Budge’s and Kramer’s rookie seasons are so big.

 

[pc1]

Riggs is reported to lob Budge in every possible occasion, to use that post war weakness.
Riggs was a smart guy

In 1942 WS the H2H was 16-8 (and one draw), but Budge lost last three matches when he had already clinched the series.
Anyway, I would not put too much hype on it because Riggs was a rookie.
That’s why Budge’s and Kramer’s rookie seasons are so big.

Apparently Budge used to hit overheads down the middle instead of placing them. When Budge was at full strength Riggs said it didn't matter which is odd to me since any pace overhead down the middle, unless it's slammed over the opponent's head is possibly returnable but I suppose the pace was greater. However Riggs as we know is or was considered by many the great lobber of all time. The lobs used to wear Budge down.

I've seen many videos of Riggs' playing and I must say that he was as some say, a natural. He had very smooth and elegant strokes.

I understand his touch was great as well as having excellent control of all his strokes. I heard he could serve blindfolded and get the serve in every time. Some ATP pros now would love to be able to do that.

 

[Limpinhitter]

As a matter of fact does somebody know what methods of extrapolations Rod has made to assess Budge's game 20-25 years ago. He should be not a professor but the new Einstein. Remarkable.

Little known is that while Laver was crushing the amateur tennis world in the early 60's, he was secretly earning his Phd in quantum physics at MIT. So, I would suspect that he employed some aspect of string theory and relativity to determine his pre and post OE GOAT list.

 

[thrust]

Rosewall was #3 of his own era behind Gonzalez and Laver. There were probably several players before and certainly several players since who were/are greater than Rosewall.

Style of play, as you put it, is irrelevant and looks like a lame attempt to employ a red herring or mischaracterize the fact that certain players, past and present, played at a higher level than Rosewall.

If so many played at a higher level than Rosewall, then why did most not win nearly as many important tournaments than he did? From a list I saw here recently Rosewall had 1 less important or major wins than Federer and more than ANY other player.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Clearly not a GOAT contender.
But just below.
5 to 7, in no order.

That's very generous, but, not irrational.

 

[Limpinhitter]

If so many played at a higher level than Rosewall, then why did most not win nearly as many important tournaments than he did? From a list I saw here recently Rosewall had 1 less important or major wins than Federer and more than ANY other player.

They have. You and others have a distorted view of what an important tournament and major tournament is.

 

[pc1]

If so many played at a higher level than Rosewall, then why did most not win nearly as many important tournaments than he did? From a list I saw here recently Rosewall had 1 less important or major wins than Federer and more than ANY other player.

It depends on the definition of important tournaments. For example Ivan Lendl. Lendl won 8 Open Majors. Lendl won 2 WCT Championships. Lendl won 5 Year End Masters. Lendl won 22 Masters 1000 tournaments. That's 37.

Let's add Lendl winning over 150 tournaments and the years he was number one. That's pretty good.

If we argue for those numbers I suppose Lendl is a GOAT candidate too. I don't think he is but he does look good.

 

[pc1]

Pancho was 6 years older.
At 32 years old Pancho was still better than Rosewall (25 and half). Not good.
At 26/27 Laver was already better than Rosewall (30/31). Not good.

Edit : second one is not bad for itself, it’s bad compared to the first one

My thought process also.

Don't forget that Rosewall was a seasoned pro in 1960 also so no excuse about being a new pro.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Very solid post.
Maybe I rank Rosewall a little too high (5 to 7) because I have always loved him and probably I’m a little biased towards him, but I rate very , very high what he was able to do in his last years.

I agree that Rosewall's level of play in his late 30's was remarkable. But, that doesn't change his peak level of play compared to his contemporaries, Gonzalez and Laver, nor those ATG's who came before and after him.

 

[pc1]

"Today, many more tennis fans are aware of the pro tour majors . . . ." Really? From what source did they gain this knowledge? Tennis Channel? Tennis Magazine? Tennis Base? TW? Do yourself, and the board, a favor. Read more, write less.

I don't see them discussing Pro Majors on ESPN or tennis magazines.

 

[NoMercy]

My thought process also.

Don't forget that Rosewall was a seasoned pro in 1960 also so no excuse about being a new pro.

Yes. To cement his status among Gonzales and Laver, Rosewall should have won that WS.
25 years old, 4th season in the pros, you have to beat an almost 32 years old, not at his peak anymore, in a long Tour. Where being over30 is not an advantage at all.
Also, Pancho humiliated Rosewall in the stops in Australia, winning all of them in Rosewall home country, on grass and clay, where Rosewall should have had a edge.
No excuses here.

 

[NoMercy]

I agree that Rosewall's level of play in his late 30's was remarkable. But, that doesn't change his peak level of play compared to his contemporaries, Gonzalez and Laver, nor those ATG's who came before and after him.

What he has done in those 16 months 1971-1972 and the two slam finals of 1974 is why I rank him so high.

 

[pc1]

That's irrelevant IMO. Whether these things are discussed much or at all in the wider tennis sphere should have no barring on how we treat those achievements on here if we know better. Evidently thrust doesn't know better...

Good point. You're right. If I had a trillion dollars and no one knew it, well it still doesn't take away from the fact I had a trillion dollars.

 

[pc1]

Yes. To cement his status among Gonzales and Laver, Rosewall should have won that WS.
25 years old, 4th season in the pros, you have to beat an almost 32 years old, not at his peak anymore, in a long Tour. Where being over30 is not an advantage at all.
Also, Pancho humiliated Rosewall in the stops in Australia, winning all of them in Rosewall home country, on grass and clay, where Rosewall should have had a edge.
No excuses here.

The 1960 World Series gave me great problems which I used to discuss whether Rosewall had GOAT status with another member of this forum. Since I liked this member of the forum I did want to be able to objectively say Rosewall could be the GOAT but to be defeated by a 32 year old Gonzalez so badly on tour was very bothersome to the argument that Rosewall could be the GOAT. I also found it disturbing that Rosewall was never number one while Gonzalez was around before his first retirement. The conclusion I drew therefore was simple and to my mind obviously, Gonzalez was simply the superior player.

 

[NatF]

What he has done in those 16 months 1971-1972 and the two slam finals of 1974 is why I rank him so high.

Indeed, I think there's something to be said for being such a consistent top 5 player for as long a Rosewall was - evidently he won a lot of matches and titles as well. I can't see him higher than 5 personally but I'd rate him a lot higher than most do I think.

 

[Limpinhitter]

What he has done in those 16 months 1971-1972 and the two slam finals of 1974 is why I rank him so high.

I understood that already. You didn’t address my premise.

 

[NoMercy]

The 1960 World Series gave me great problems which I used to discuss whether Rosewall had GOAT status with another member of this forum. Since I liked this member of the forum I did want to be able to objectively say Rosewall could be the GOAT but to be defeated by a 32 year old Gonzalez so badly on tour was very bothersome to the argument that Rosewall could be the GOAT. I also found it disturbing that Rosewall was never number one while Gonzalez was around before his first retirement. The conclusion I drew therefore was simple and to my mind obviously, Gonzalez was simply the superior player.

I think the same.

 

[NatF]

The 1960 World Series gave me great problems which I used to discuss whether Rosewall had GOAT status with another member of this forum. Since I liked this member of the forum I did want to be able to objectively say Rosewall could be the GOAT but to be defeated by a 32 year old Gonzalez so badly on tour was very bothersome to the argument that Rosewall could be the GOAT. I also found it disturbing that Rosewall was never number one while Gonzalez was around before his first retirement. The conclusion I drew therefore was simple and to my mind obviously, Gonzalez was simply the superior player.

Rosewall outlasted Laver at the top of the sport despite being the older guy, so I can see someone formulating an argument that Rosewall > Laver, I don't really see such arguments with regards to Gonzalez.

 

[pc1]

Indeed, I think there's something to be said for being such a consistent top 5 player for as long a Rosewall was - evidently he won a lot of matches and titles as well. I can't see him higher than 5 personally but I'd rate him a lot higher than most do I think.

He was no doubt a great player. I have compared Rosewall to Jose Capablanca at times in chess and that to me is the highest compliment.

 

[NoMercy]

I understood that already. You didn’t address my premise.

Probably I didn’t understand this post.

 

[NatF]

He was no doubt a great player. I have compared Rosewall to Jose Capablanca at times in chess and that to me is the highest compliment.

I have no clue about Chess so I'll take your word for it

 

[Ivan69]

Change mature with not rookie anymore, if you prefer.

Big big difference. You need to know that the matures in sport is different for every player. There is no unified formula for the development.

 

[Ivan69]

I would say that a player being 5 to 7 all time is beyond excellent. I don’t know what is excellent for you. To me excellent is even a lot less than 5-7.

I don't know your estimates. Rosewall is on the top with Laver. This is an excellence.

 

[pc1]

I have no clue about Chess so I'll take your word for it

Jose Capablanca had a pure chess style. Nothing wasted and super efficient. He was a great positional player and almost never made a mistake. His career was from the 1900s to 1930s. He was called the Chess Machine. Even today, under the analysis of the great chess computer programs they say he made the fewest errors according to some programs. He was arguably the GOAT of chess. He probably was the most gifted chess player ever imo.

I think now a better comparison could be Capablanca and Federer for efficiency of style and strength. Very little wasted moves or movements in Federer's case. Very efficient and quick to strike if the opportunity presents itself. Balanced in all areas.

http://www.chesscorner.com/worldchamps/capablanca/capablanca.htm

 

[Dan Lobb]

According to Tennisbase and Slasher, Ken is #3. Sorry! Rosewall nearly won as many important titles ages 33-37 as Vines did for his whole career. Too bad Rod could not beat a 37 year old in those two WCT finals. To rate: Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Vines or Segura above Ken, is absurd! In slam finals, Rosewall leads Laver 7-5. Ken had winning H-H against: Segura, Hoad, Sedgman and just about everyone except; Laver, Gonzalez and Connors. Achievements trump style of play, see career record of Tommy Haas.

Thrust, you are apparently using different criteria to evaluate GOAT.....the players who choose Hoad as all-time greatest are thinking in terms of level of play, not clock-punching records.

 

[NoMercy]

Jose Capablanca had a pure chess style. Nothing wasted and super efficient. He was a great positional player and almost never made a mistake. His career was from the 1900s to 1930s. He was called the Chess Machine. Even today, under the analysis of the great chess computer programs they say he made the fewest errors according to some programs. He was arguably the GOAT of chess. He probably was the most gifted chess player ever imo.

I think now a better comparison could be Capablanca and Federer for efficiency of style and strength. Very little wasted moves or movements in Federer's case. Very efficient and quick to strike if the opportunity presents itself. Balanced in all areas.

And what about Magnus Carlsen?

 

[pc1]

And what about Magnus Carlsen?

Carlsen is a brilliant player but isn't it unbelievable that a player from the early 1900s still is ranked as perhaps the most error free player ever. Anyway my comparison here respectively is in terms of style and in that way Capablanca compares well with Federer and Rosewall.

Carlsen is great no doubt but he grew up in the computer age and in many ways it shows. The story of Capablanca is almost that of a fairy tale. It's amazing what a prodigy he was.
http://www.thecubanhistory.com/2012/01/jose-raul-capablanca-3/

 

[Dan Lobb]

Very solid post.
Maybe I rank Rosewall a little too high (5 to 7) because I have always loved him and probably I’m a little biased towards him, but I rate very , very high what he was able to do in his last years.

I, too, am biased in favour of the Little Cornishman...sentimentality rules.