Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by granddog29, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    436
    Gary, nobody is talking of "more entertaining" or "looks better". The whole tennis audience was shocked when Thiem has loosed such "in fact won" match. Delpo himself confessed he has been ill and in bad shape and his hits were not running as he wanted. Please see also the unforced errors of Thiem since 5-3 in the 3rd. It's obvious you haven't seen the match.
     
  2. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Just ask someone else about the context. If you don't understand the conversation. Don't make comments.

    No one said you argued against Federer, that is something you just wrote on your own.

    Why do you even post or look here? There is an easy solution. Don't look. I see constant complaining from you about GOAT threads but you seem compelled to complain about them. Why is that? Do you realize that the conversation was not about GOATs to begin with at all? It never was.

    @Xavier G and @NatF please explain it to him because I can't.
     
  3. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    4,373

    Speaking of context, I understand that Gary's recent posts might come off a certain way, but let me assure you that he merely has a wry sense of humour and doesn't take this stuff too seriously. I'm certain he meant no offense. I'm not one to intervene in these situations but I'll do so here because I think you two are among the most genial posters on these forums. Would hate to see an argument start over small potatos.
     
    Limpinhitter, Dan Lobb and pc1 like this.
  4. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    I saw the match. Thiem choked. Choking is part of not playing well.

    So in the end DelPo played better. Not for a couple sets, but for the whole match.

    I'm not talking about a match like Thiem vs DelPo re "looks better" or "more entertaining".
     
  5. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    Well, my sense of humor just went out the window.

    I don't take well to orders. The thread is named "What's your top 10 of all time (men)", and I have every right in the world to say that there is no logical way to pick just 10.

    And I'll continue making that point in any way I wish, as often as I wish. :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
    Dan Lobb and TheFifthSet like this.
  6. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    I will continue to make comments as I wish, where I wish. Unless you have some kind of massive power here I don't know about.
    There are now 77 pages about personal top 10 lists. If you are making a top 10 list, all time, and seriously considering it, I have the right to make the point, as many times as I wish, that this is futile, and also to push back against people that state that one or two people are obviously better than everyone else.
    Just the other day you asked for links from Krosero to validate points he made very carefully over months, posts that you skimmed and did not fully comprehend. The idea that I don't read posts carefully is truly the pot calling the kettle black.

    My disagreement with you was rather mild. There was no bad language, nothing totally out of line. Pretty light stuff for this forum. So if I have not completely understood you POV, maybe you can understand how some of the rest of us have felt, many times, when you have been as thick as a brick yourself.

    You seem to think you are a saint.

    You are not.

    Get over yourself.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  7. Incognito

    Incognito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,302
    Great thread Guys! I trust you more than tennis channel. Where's the new list?:)
     
  8. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Do you not understand sarcasm?

    Competition much higher? :D Segura was about 40 years old and Hoad had injury issues, Laver didn't arrive until 1963 and was a rookie for about half the year. Gimeno was a few years from his best. Funny how you mention not yet peak Laver and Gimeno but talk down Nadal. Agassi was also a prominent feature for a couple of years. Federer's competition was clearly superior.

    In Federer's era there were deep top 20's and hundreds of pro's due to the open era. It's simply incomparable with the early 60's. I would say 2006 was the weakest year of Federer's peak but it's weakness is overrated, it was certainly stronger than 1962 regardless.

    I've always maintained a sole number one placing can be given, I've not said that other players can't have arguments to same sole placing. The ATP ranking system is the best we've had but it doesn't totally align with my own thinking. I won't attack anyone who sides with the ranking...
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017 at 12:06 AM
  9. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,184
    Location:
    U.S
    its an absolutely massive joke to think competition in 62-63 was better than that in 05-06, given Laver was not there in 62 in the pro circuit and came in and had to adjust in 63, Gonzales was semi-retired, Hoad was clearly past his best with injury issues , Segura was ~40.
    Only Ivan69 who is clueless as well as biased against Federer can think/say that.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  10. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Nadal also won Madrid Indoors in 2005, in 2006 he won Dubai over Federer and made the SF of the YEC. Making a Wimbledon final is also something Nadal has not done in 6+ years.

    He was in the start of his prime in those years. Flashes of brilliance on HC and clearly prime everywhere else.


    Gonzalez was actually fully retired in those years :D
     
    pc1 likes this.
  11. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,184
    Location:
    U.S
    yeah, I meant with respect to his career :D
     
  12. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    In other words you have no idea what we were discussing.

    I know I'm not a saint but who is? You seem to really enjoy it when you mention GOAT threads are awful. It seems to be every third post. What insight.

    Hate to tell you but you were the one who started talking about GOATs and insulting people.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017 at 12:28 AM
  13. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I understand. It's not worth it. I agree. No more of this.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017 at 12:25 AM
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    The point was not about Laver, but about Rosewall, some posters claimed above that Rosewall could decline the 1961 world pro championship series against Gonzales and still be number one based on tournament play.
    BUT that would give Gonzales the big money tour for 1962 against potentially Laver or Emerson.

    See the point now? The world pro championship was important. I am not convinced that Rosewall was offered a contract for 1961.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017 at 12:34 AM
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    I think that you missed the thread of our conversation above, which was about why would Rosewall decline the 1961 tour, assuming that he did that.
    I was pointing out that it would be a mistake to decline the 1961 tour, as the winner would potentially get the big money tour against the new rookie pro in 1962.
    So that would make no sense. Getting voted number one for 1961 on the basis of private rankings, as the posters suggested Rosewall could do, would not help get that big money opportunity.

    Is that clearer?
     
  16. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    The double standards by some here are crazy man.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  17. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,184
    Location:
    U.S
    Federer won 11 out of 15 tournaments entered in 2005
    12 out of 17 tournaments entered in 2006
    total of 23/32 (71.85%)

    Excluding Pro Tours :
    Rosewall won 8 of 11 tournaments entered in 62
    won 6 out of 15 tournaments entered in 63

    total of 14/26 (53.84%)
    This is with the benefit of 3 or 4 matches in the majority of the tournaments in contrast to Federer who had to play 5/6/7 matches to win his tournaments.

    @BobbyOne : Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not even close.

    including pro tours
    Rosewall is 10/13 in 62
    10/19 in 63

    so total 20/32 (62.5%)
    somewhat closer if you include tours.

    ** Kramer Cup is not included as its a team tournament -- but just for info, Rosewall won all of his 6 matches in that in 62-63.

    Not for a direct comparison, but just so people know :
    in 62, Rosewall was 55-8 in W/L
    in 63, he was 95-31 in W/L

    all stats from TennisBase
     
    NatF likes this.
  18. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    Dan, I have no opinion about Rosewall possibly declining any tour in 1961. That is simply outside my knowledge, so I'm stepping aside on that issue.

    But yes, that makes things clearer.

    Thank you.
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Well you're sort of right. He did play one match in 1963.
     
    NatF likes this.
  20. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    I have no opinion about who was #1 in '61. The whole year is very confusing to me because apparently Rosewall did not play much in the first half of the year and took "several long vacations". I believe I've seen several of you bat this whole thing around. Supposedly Gonzalez retired towards the end of Oct. And that's more or less a Wiki source, which I don't like using.

    I'm sure you and Bobby will differ totally on this year.

    I'm confused about how Gonzalez would have gotten a big money tour in '62 when apparently he was not playing. I assumed this was more in the war between him and Kramer.

    Sorry to be dense. Are you saying that if Kramer had been able to sign Laver before his GS year, in 62, Gonzalez would have played more in '62?

    I find this whole area hopelessly confusing and muddy. I'm much more comfortable talking about Laver vs Rosewall.
     
  21. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    What I wrote:

    That's a pretty mild "insult".

    I dare say a few people who have read some of the flame wars in this forum about who is the GOAT might not think what I said is totally unwarranted and might even find my comment humorous. ;)
     
  22. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    You know something. You're right.
     
    Waspsting likes this.
  23. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    Well, it happens maybe twice a day, like a stopped watch. ;)

    I'm sure my communication skills are not exactly at a high point at the moment. The current situation post Irma is vexing. We were extremely lucky, not even losing power, and we have no serious damage. I'm grateful.

    But no TV, primary Internet connection does not work at all. Lights out in streets, garbage uncollected from last week, no groceries in stores, could not teach yesterday because the phone was out completely - can't call students - and even trying to walk was not relaxing because of debris everywhere.

    With so many serious problems happening, I just want to knock heads together when I see anyone arguing over something that is not really serious.

    Turns out missing the final of the USO was one of the most minor things imaginable over the last week. ;)
     
    Waspsting, Dan Lobb, krosero and 2 others like this.
  24. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Thanks for the stats. It looks obvious that 1962 was Rosewall's highest level.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  25. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Thanks for the stats. It looks obvious that 1962 was Rosewall's highest level.
     
  26. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,179
    it´s good to hear that you and your family are all right. we get lots of tv pictures of what happened, but they don´t tell the whole story obviously
     
    BobbyOne, Dan Lobb, krosero and 3 others like this.
  27. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I was trying to text friends of mine in that area and thank goodness they were lucky enough not to have any damage.
     
    Dan Lobb and treblings like this.
  28. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    768
    Good...
     
  29. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    It's possible 1963 could have been as good but he could have been worn out by the long series with Laver and others in tournament play. Still I would tend to go with 1962.
     
    NatF likes this.
  30. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    14,557
    What huge gap? You don't know how big the gap is from that list?
     
  31. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    14,557
    As has been explained to you on many occasions, in years like 1955, Gonzalez competed against the best players. Players like Trabert did not. I do think Trabert was one of the best players. But, he didn't compete among them in that year.

    Accordingly, Trabert's 1955 is comparable to Hoad's 1956, not Gonzalez' 1955.
     
    BobbyOne, pc1 and NatF like this.
  32. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Potentially. Competition got stronger in 1963 though as well, Hoad got in shape again and Laver was transitioning into The Rocket.

    For me 1963 looks a little like Federer's 2007, still dominant in the biggest events where it matters the most but more losses creeping in at the smaller events e.g. lacking the superhuman intensity and concentration of the year before to sweep everyone in every event.
     
    Gary Duane, krosero and pc1 like this.
  33. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Yes I would think you're right.
     
  34. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Bobby Riggs thought that if Trabert kept in shape and stayed in the tennis fully motivated that he could have been number one. He did have all the strokes but apparently he was a little slower than some. He was one of the few players that had a topspin backhand and forehand. In fact he has mentioned that it was easier to hit a topspin backhand than a slice backhand.


    http://commerce.wazeedigital.com/li...do?assetId=clip_8859792&keywords=tony,trabert
     
    NatF likes this.
  35. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    I know, Laver vs. Rosewall is a more definable discussion. This discussion about the 1961 tour and its importance involves some "what if's".

    We know that Kramer attempted to sign Laver at the 1961 Wimbledon, presumably for the 1962 tour, but the interesting "what if" question here is, against whom did Kramer plan to match Laver on the projected 1962 pro tour?
    I am saying that it would have to be Gonzales, as reigning world pro champion from the 1961 tour, unless Gonzales refused to sign on for 1962.
    I strongly believe that Gonzales would have signed on for a projected 1962 tour against Laver, if Kramer had been able to get Laver's signature.
    Gonzales had "retired" on previous occasions, in 1958, 1959, 1960, as well as 1961, but Kramer could always talk him into signing on for another big money tour.

    But it would make no sense for Rosewall to reject a contract offer for the 1961 tour, which some posters here are adamant that he did.
    The ramifications of Rosewall rejecting a contract for 1961 would have extended into the 1962 tour, and with Rosewall having an extra mouth to feed at home, it is doubtful that he would want to reduce his future earnings.
     
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    PC1, you do realize that the clip you posted of "Davis Cup 1954" was actually of the 1953 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert, which Hoad won?
    Trabert would win their encounter in the 1954 Davis Cup the following year in Sydney.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  37. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,235
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    No I didn't notice because I was more interested in having people see Trabert's strokes. It was very nice to see both Hoad and Rosewall in available videos. I only wish I could see Trabert against Gonzalez.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  38. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    Interesting, there appears to be nothing whatsoever surviving of Trabert/Gonzales.
     
  39. thrust

    thrust Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    909
    Probably the most accurate, fair and balanced post on this forum lately. Can't we just accept the fact that: Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, not in any particular order, were the Big Three on the pro tour between 57-67 and that Federer, Nadal Djokovic are the Big Three from 03-17? These six players are among the very greatest players of all time, so to diminish one to promote another's accomplishments, is juvenile and unfair. I have tried to be fair and impartial despite standing up for Rosewall more than others. The reason for this was that I always felt that Ken has not been given the praise he deserved, especially by the so called TV experts on tennis channel and ESPN.
     
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    I think to be absolutely fair and reasonable it is necessary to acknowledge that the history of the pro troupe of Kramer in the late fifties and early sixties was dominated by commercial requirements, which explains why Hoad was invited year after year to play the pro championship tour against Gonzales, which brought Hoad's box office power into play to benefit all of the pros.

    Rosewall's relative lack of box office strength also explains in part the relegation of Rosewall to the back burner in those pro championships, as Kramer manoeuvred to keep his main attractions on the championship tour.

    There was more involved than simply tennis skill.
     
    Gary Duane likes this.
  41. thrust

    thrust Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    909
    True! I suppose Ken was sort of the Wilander or Lendl of his era. Bot Matts and Ivan accomplished as much as: Boris, Mac, Jimmy and Edberg did, but because of either their game style or personality were usually not given the credit or popularity they deserved. In the end, much has to do with show biz.
     
    Ivan69, krosero, BobbyOne and 2 others like this.
  42. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    That's a good analogy, but two things:

    1. Ken was 29 by the end of '63, Fed only 26 in the middle of 2007.
    2. Perhaps it would be better to use a blend of 2007 and 2008 for Fed to compare.
     
  43. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    28,520
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Federer in 2008 was crap though :D Level dropped like a stone at the beginning of the year due to his bout of mono. He had confidence issues for much of it due to the loss in form and to cap it off the guy's back was injured at the end of the year.

    Rosewall's career had a different trajectory to Federer's, his peak probably began in 1960 when he was 26 - Federer's started when he was 22.
     
  44. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,184
    Location:
    U.S
    yeah, something like this.
     
  45. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    That's what I meant by "shiny object". :)
    Yes, but: this "crap" Fed fell all the way to #2, with two slam finals and another slam win at the USO. That's a pretty amazing "crap" year!
    I don't think we can compare, because all the amateurs had two level careers, one the level the reached as amateurs, the other as pros. The assumption now seems to be that they were all stronger later in their careers, much like right now, but I just don't believe that with the training, nutrition and physio of that time (WHAT physio!!!) it is logical that players remained so dominant so late in their careers. I think peaks were sort of artificially extended because ultra hungry pros were unleashed against obviously inferior amateurs in '68.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,607
    NatF, Hoad was in shape also in 1962. See his result against Rosewall at Wembley.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,607
    Mr. Lobb, Rosewall's wife got a child in early 1961. You forgot it.
     
  48. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,114
    Dan, this has already gone too far and you keep repeating this claim even more frequently the more you are corrected about it. Already, some months ago, we told you that Ken was invited to participate in the '61 World Series; and when you insisted that McCauley was wrong about this, PC1 stepped in too and said to you that Bobby (with McCauley) was right about this and that Ken was invited. McCauley said that Rosewall chose not to participate in the tour in order to be with his family and he wrote that Olmedo was his replacement. That is documented even in very basic sources like newspapers.com, where you can see all throughout December 1960 Kramer is reported as preparing a new tour featuring Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, and three new amateurs: Gimeno, MacKay and Buchholz. Six men, for a six-man series. Rosewall's name appeared in all these reports even into late December, even as far as appearing in an advertisement for one of the early stands. His withdrawal must have been very deep into the process, and yet here you are demanding to see proof of a contract.

    You should be doing this research yourself, for one because it is not particularly difficult, and secondly because there is no justification at all for doubting McCauley about this -- as we told you in our last exchange about it. So if you personally want to know more about the damn episode then you should put in the work to study it; I am not going to be running to place the evidence in front of you while you sit back and just say "give me proof, give me proof, give me proof."

    If you're not going to do the work then just use some common sense. You see that list of 6 players I gave you? Rosewall was replaced by Olmedo, as McCauley says. Now, you really think that Kramer chose to sign up Alex Olmedo instead of Ken Rosewall? Olmedo had finished nearly dead last in the 1960 Series, and yet you're thinking that Jack said to Rosewall, "Sorry, Ken, I don't want you in the Series this year, I'm going to invite Olmedo instead"? McCauley says that Rosewall at this moment was arguably the number one pro tennis player in the world, and you're actually proposing that Kramer decided to sign up all these other men and told Rosewall to stuff it? You think Rosewall, who had just won Wembley and French Pro with victories over Hoad and Olmedo -- could not find work as a pro tennis player in '61, until they kindly let him come along for the European circuit later in the year?

    You keep talking up the Series but it hasn't occurred to you at all how badly this would reflect on the Series, as an event, if it was the type of event in which players at the very, very top were not even allowed to participate.
     
    Ivan69, BobbyOne, Gary Duane and 2 others like this.
  49. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,142
    Krosero, it looks like we are not privy to the conversations surrounding the formation of that 1961 tour....I pointed out that it would be a very important series impacting on the following year, 1962,, which Kramer projected as a Laver involvement, assuming Laver would agree.

    When Laver did not sign, there was NO series for 1962...presumably there could have been a Rosewall/Gimeno series, but no, nothing.

    It would seem that without a Laver/Gonzales. series, nothing.

    There are more questions than answers at this point.
     
  50. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,630
    This was my point.

    In order for Rosewall to become popular with the press and with fans he needed to be part of a dynamic rivalry. I don't personally think that Borg had one iota more charisma, charm or good looks than Rosewall, but quite obviously the world does not see it that way. Borg became a rock star, and this happened before McEnroe got big. JMac just made it more so - fire and ice. I suppose he was a mystery, the unflappable quiet man that no one got near, at least at that time.

    To make a modern analogy - imagine if Simon, with the same game, had become competitive and had amassed a huge number of slams. Would the world have warmed to him? Or would Djokovic ever have been a huge draw on the old pro circuit? Or Wilander? Or Lendl?

    When I say that Kramer was all about money, maybe that is unfairly critical. There was no way the pro tour was going to survive with someone leading it with that kind of business acumen.

    I'm only saying that his first consideration was not just the highest level of play. That play had to be entertaining. It had to draw crowds. It had to make money to continue.

    Laver's attraction was obvious, also Gonzalez's. I think it's clear why Hoad was popular. He was a good-looking, strong man with an aggressive "big game", and he had tremendous charisma.

    I don't think Rosewall was ever fully appreciated, and I think that is true right up to this very moment.

    If there had been a ranking system, if the money for winning tournaments had been linked to the importance of tournaments, most of the back-and-forth discussions, often becoming partisan and ugly, would be eliminated. It would be more like discussing Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. We would fall back on slams won, weeks at #1, H2H, and so on. The metrics would at least be far clearer.

    As you very well know, there was nothing like that in the 50s and 60s. It remains, for the most part, clear as mud.
     
  51. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,179
    Rosewalls absence from the ´61 World Series is hardly a mystery. it´s well documented that he chose to stay at home to be with his pregnant wife.

    i agree totally with the second paragraph of your post. and it applies to all of us i guess. i believe, it has never been so easy to research these things since
    more and more newspaper archives and libraries are online. of course the work still has to be done:)
     
    BobbyOne and krosero like this.

Share This Page