Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Oh, you think playing doubles is a so easy job. Wrong.
Nothing is ever truly easy in this life, even deficating after eating twenty burgers for lunch...
Look the point is that the competition in doubles is nowhere nearly as big as in singles, since most talented players preffer singles over doubles, since this is how they get worldwide recognition and fame! (Nobody is ever dreaming of winning Wimbledon in doubles instead of singles!) LOL Just look at all these mugs playing doubles these days! This totally proves my point...
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Nothing is ever truly easy in this life, even deficating after eating twenty burgers for lunch...
Look the point is that the competition in doubles is nowhere nearly as big as in singles, since most talented players preffer singles over doubles, since this is how they get worldwide recognition and fame! (Nobody is ever dreaming of winning Wimbledon in doubles instead of singles!) LOL Just look at all these mugs playing doubles these days! This totally proves my point...
You were talking about grass titles. These are also grass titles.
Re the recognition and fame be aware that Bryan brothers are worldwide recognized and famous. Herbert/Mahut also made great success in doubles. You can read what they think about their titles and if they dream about winning another slam.
We have a big competition in doubles - Kubot/Melo, Cabal/Farah, Soares/Murray. You should watch doubles to see what is about.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Alright then...why the hell they don't gather crowds then?! LOL Why the hell i see nobody talking about them, but people talking about Federer, Nadal and even next gen kids like Tsitsipas more? The more BS arguments you throw - the more you prove my point...the only true recognizeable pair are Bryan Brothers LOL (And even THAT is thanks to them being americans and the media trying to hype them up a little more than others!) But even their fame pales in comarison with what singles players get!
Federer and Mike Bryan are more or less on the same level apparently.
18/20 Slams and over 100 titles.
You didn’t know that?!
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Alright then...why the hell they don't gather crowds then?! LOL Why the hell i see nobody talking about them, but people talking about Federer, Nadal and even next gen kids like Tsitsipas more? The more BS arguments you throw - the more you prove my point...the only true recognizeable pair are Bryan Brothers LOL (And even THAT is thanks to them being americans and the media trying to hype them up a little more than others!) But even their fame pales in comarison with what singles players get!
Who told you they don't gather crowds if you don't watch doubles?
Who lied to you that nobody talks about when you don't read?
Please, be welcome
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-peers-downed-in-hard-fought-men-s-open-doubles-final-20190127-p50tzd.html
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Oh dude you got me...you really do! Apparently you got that Ivan dude as well...
You should have a more professional attitude towards the doubles. You should count them at the very same level at the singles.
No matter if the prize moneys are way different, it doesn’t matter!
No matter if back in the 50s/60s, the prize money share for the singles was 4/5 and the doubles one was 1/5.
Who cares! They value the same!
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall's doubles numbers are not good, except when he had Hoad to carry the duo.

Hoad could win without Rosewall as a doubles partner....but not the other way around, not so for Ken, who relied heavily on Hoad to set up the put-aways

for him. Hoad carried him to those doubles titles.

The numbers make it clear. Six of Rosewall's nine majors in doubles were won with Hoad, the three without Hoad were after Hoad was retired and not

available, all the pro majors in doubles won with Hoad.

This is just a laugh, as usual.

It should be treated as light humour.

Of course, they represent a great achievement by Hoad....no laughs, please.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Mike Bryan, 18 Slams, 121 titles, $16,000,000 prize money.
Roger Federer, 20 Slams, 101 titles, $123,000,000 prize money.
Equivalent value....
Ouch that prize money difference...

This sort of statistical deceptive counting sadly happens a lot, like when posters in the general section count masters together with slams to suggest Djokovic is right next to Federer in terms of greatness - albeit this is even worse.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
You can be a great doubles player if you have a great doubles partner....it is not an individual achievement.

Including Rosewall's doubles results is just an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse the issues, not a good thing for anyone to do.

It is a sign of weakness.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Rosewall's doubles numbers are not good, except when he had Hoad to carry the duo.

Hoad could win without Rosewall as a doubles partner....but not the other way around, not so for Ken, who relied heavily on Hoad to set up the put-aways

for him. Hoad carried him to those doubles titles.

The numbers make it clear. Six of Rosewall's nine majors in doubles were won with Hoad, the three without Hoad were after Hoad was retired and not

available, all the pro majors in doubles won with Hoad.

This is just a laugh, as usual.

It should be treated as light humour.

Of course, they represent a great achievement by Hoad....no laughs, please.
Oh, Lobb, you are so sweet when writing manipulatively without having info.

Let's see Rosewall's stats in doubles without Hoad as a partner:
Rosewall has 648 out of 1012 wins (64%) WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.
Rosewall has 79 out of 121 titles (65%) WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.

Rosewall has 41 big titles WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.
Rosewall has 10 majors WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.

Now let's see Hoad's stats with and without Rosewall:
Hoad has 45 titles in 103 tournaments played (44%) WITH Rosewall as a partner.
Hoad has 17 titles in 121 tournaments played (14%) WITHOUT Rosewall as a partner.

Hoad has 15 majors out of 24 played (63%) WITH Rosewall as a partner.
Hoad has 5 majors out of 23 played (22%) WITHOUT Rosewall as a partner.

When the stats speak Lobb should be silent. Don't ridicule yourself and start learning before writing. Definitely you need it.:oops:
Huge laughs, please!:-D
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It's just part of his career. We should respect that.
There was a thread in this section on how to rate doubles achievements, some interesting thoughts in there IMO. I think it would be better to rate Rosewall's singles and doubles career separately - I see his doubles career reflected in how we evaluate him as a player e.g. those quick reactions, great volleys etc...are underlined by how successful he was at doubles. I don't like to conflate distinct events with each other, I don't find it honest.

Obviously it's not on the same scale but Lleyton Hewitt won a doubles major, but I wouldn't call him a three time major winner and I LOVE Hewitt.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall won two Wimbledon doubles titles with Hoad, so he can claim to be a Wimbledon champion, but it should be specified as a doubles

championship....and certainly not combined with singles titles.

Gonzales won the Wimbledon doubles twice, in 1949 and 1967.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I feel like there needs to be some intellectual honesty here. Gone are the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ we're now not only conflating amateur, pro and open majors but including doubles titles at those levels too...
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I feel like there needs to be some intellectual honesty here. Gone at the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ we're now not only conflating amateur, pro and open majors but including doubles titles at those levels too...
Ivan and intellectual honestly in the same context? You are dreaming
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
There was a thread in this section on how to rate doubles achievements, some interesting thoughts in there IMO. I think it would be better to rate Rosewall's singles and doubles career separately - I see his doubles career reflected in how we evaluate him as a player e.g. those quick reactions, great volleys etc...are underlined by how successful he was at doubles. I don't like to conflate distinct events with each other, I don't find it honest.

Obviously it's not on the same scale but Lleyton Hewitt won a doubles major, but I wouldn't call him a three time major winner and I LOVE Hewitt.
The last theme and discussion here is the performance of the players on an specific surface. Performance means the whole activities of the players.
Of course different types of analyses are possible - separate, combined, by different indicators.
Why shouldn't I be impressed that for instance Mac next to his 103 singles titles has another 78 doubles titles. This is amazing, this is a huge achievement. Though I don't like Mac as a player and person. But these achievements show the enormous efforts, time and energy which the players spent in playing singles and doubles in a tournament. You have to play on slams in the best case 14 matches in 14 days. Or sometimes 2 matches a day. This should be highly respected and evaluated.
I like Hewitt too and I am sure he is proud with all his slams.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I feel like there needs to be some intellectual honesty here. Gone are the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ we're now not only conflating amateur, pro and open majors but including doubles titles at those levels too...
Ivan and intellectual honestly in the same context? You are dreaming
Fortunately those days are not gone. Fortunately the world knows Kenny with 23. Intellectual honesty would be when some fans admit some facts they don't like to admit. In the name of the tennis history. In the name of the objectivity.
http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/sport/display/110890-ken-rosewall
http://dailydsports.com/ken-rosewall/
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514d7a41444f31457a6333566d54/share_p.html
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Write me an example please.
Like a source that says something like “Player Y won XX tournaments this year”.
Then I will do the same.
Prejudiced people don't need more info. They remain still prejudiced. They may see a lot of stats or facts and they still ignore them. Typical.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Fortunately those days are not gone. Fortunately the world knows Kenny with 23. Intellectual honesty would be when some fans admit some facts they don't like to admit. In the name of the tennis history. In the name of the objectivity.
http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/sport/display/110890-ken-rosewall
http://dailydsports.com/ken-rosewall/
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514d7a41444f31457a6333566d54/share_p.html
We can post countless links regarding Connors winning 109 tournaments or Laver winning 200.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/sports/tennis/laver-cup-tennis-chicago.amp.html

I guess we should accept also these numbers as the correct ones, right?
109 and 200
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
And they did not show what you were asking for, a combined singles/doubles total....nobody does that.
It’s even possible to find things like “Player Y won XX grand slams between singles, doubles and mixed doubles” but for sure they were not combining win/loss of all the competitions together. But I would love Ivan posts some sources.....
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I feel like there needs to be some intellectual honesty here. Gone are the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ we're now not only conflating amateur, pro and open majors but including doubles titles at those levels too...
So let’s see first “source”....
http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/sport/display/110890-ken-rosewall
And let’s see Wikipedia page...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall

They actually copy and paste the exact text of Wikipedia... they didn’t even take the time to write it a little different... too much work!
Funny is that they ask for money :D

Let’s see second “source”...
http://dailydsports.com/ken-rosewall/
Apart the various mistakes, we can see that who wrote the article says Kenny won 133 tournaments. It’s of course wrong, but guess where it comes from?! :D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall
Oh, and of course the part “He won a record 23 major titles, including eight Grand Slam singles titles and, before the Open Era, a record 15 Pro Slam championships.” is taken directly from wiki, but this time they changed a couple of words...

Iván is so funny
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Doubles should be part of consideration of a player's career (also depends on era/context), but combining singles titles with doubles. :-D:-D:-D
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
He posted some links of articles written using Wikipedia. These are the level of sources Ivan uses. Nothing new.
Calm down! You are still not relaxed and not following the conversation.
NatF said: "Gone are the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ ...". It seems that the world has NOT forgotten this and will not forget it. The fact that NoMercy and Dan Lobb (what a perfect tennis pair) don't like this is not my problem. I am not using Wiki, I just responded to NatF what the people (not me) think about that matter. Is their info from Wiki I don't know. You can ask them. Fortunately the world would not accept the weird methods of NM about the selective counting of titles.
No more response from me on this matter which is crystal clear.
Again calm down and breathe deep! And please send congrats to the new RED champions. They deserve it.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
We can post countless links regarding Connors winning 109 tournaments or Laver winning 200.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/sports/tennis/laver-cup-tennis-chicago.amp.html

I guess we should accept also these numbers as the correct ones, right?
109 and 200
Ha. Interesting. Just months ago you said that next to Rosewall's amateur slams you don't count also Laver's because all they were "scrappy".
Please tell me then how many titles do you count for Laver. What about the other non-slam titles as an amateur? They were maybe ultra-challengers in your view and maybe not subject of counting too.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
It seems to me that Ivan was not able to answer your question, and ducked it....
It seems to me that you didn't start reading the history. The time goes by.
Lesson 1
Rosewall has 648 out of 1012 wins (64%) WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.
Rosewall has 79 out of 121 titles (65%) WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.

Rosewall has 41 big titles WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.
Rosewall has 10 majors WITHOUT Hoad as a partner.

Lesson 2
Hoad has 45 titles in 103 tournaments played (44%) WITH Rosewall as a partner.
Hoad has 17 titles in 121 tournaments played (14%) WITHOUT Rosewall as a partner.

Hoad has 15 majors out of 24 played (63%) WITH Rosewall as a partner.
Hoad has 5 majors out of 23 played (22%) WITHOUT Rosewall as a partner.

The lessons are for now free of charge.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Calm down! You are still not relaxed and not following the conversation.
NatF said: "Gone are the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ ...". It seems that the world has NOT forgotten this and will not forget it. The fact that NoMercy and Dan Lobb (what a perfect tennis pair) don't like this is not my problem. I am not using Wiki, I just responded to NatF what the people (not me) think about that matter. Is their info from Wiki I don't know. You can ask them. Fortunately the world would not accept the weird methods of NM about the selective counting of titles.
No more response from me on this matter which is crystal clear.
Again calm down and breathe deep! And please send congrats to the new RED champions. They deserve it.
I am very calm, as said various times.
What the world (or part of it) maybe knows can be wrong. I just posted the example, with Laver having supposedly won 200 titles, when he won more. Even in the Laver Cup Trophy there are just 200 lines, as per 200 titles.
And from where they took that number?
Wikipedia.
Or for example the wiki page of the similar M1000. The value of those Rosewall’s 23 is the same as the value of these Wikipedia pages.
 
Top