Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    The point I was making is it really doesn't matter that Borg won more overall titles when many of them were likely only 250/500 equivalent at the most. I think it's tournaments at Masters level and above that really count.
     
  2. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    23,511
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Convenient :D

    I'm not so fussed with masters and above. I've seen 250 and 500 series with better draws than masters series. Borg beat a lot of top 10 players in his day across many tournaments.
     
  3. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Hmm, I know you've got a lot of respect for Borg's career but I think you might be scraping the barrel a bit here mate. ;)
     
  4. metsman

    metsman Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,669
    Djokovic2011 is clueless about the mid 2000's and you're talking to him about the 70's? o_O
     
  5. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    23,511
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I wasn't just talking about Borg but generally.
     
  6. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Which is all the more shocking to me. It sounds like you're saying that a player with 80 titles which includes only 20 at M1000 level and above is greater than a player with 60 titles overall which includes 40 tier 1. I'm sorry but I could never agree with that.
     
  7. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    23,511
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Who says it's only 20 a M1000 level and above? Do you know the draws of the tournaments he was winning? The numbers of top 10 opponents he beat in each one?

    You're exposing yourself in your attempts to evaluate Borg by today's modern standards.

    I appreciate tournaments wins of all sizes depending who's in the draw and the level of play. Hewitt went through Gonzales, Johansson, Schuettler, Henman and Ferrero to win Rottadam in 2004. The match with Ferrero especially was top quality, draw wise to me that's no worse than say 2012 Toronto with Tomic, Querrey, Haas, Tipsarevic and Gasquet. I don't see why one should count as a big win and the other should be irrelevant.
     
  8. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    20,745
    Location:
    U.S
    These are the titles that Borg won that are definitely M1000 level or above :

    6 RGs
    5 Wimbys
    2 YECs
    1 WCT

    He won 15 of the Grand Prix Series tournaments , that were precursors to the Masters series.

    bringing the total upto at least 29

    The fact that you think Borg would have only 6 titles at M1000 level when you know he had 6 RGs, 5 Wimbys, 2 YECs, 1 WCT just shows the combination of your ignorance/critical thinking .

    ---
     
  9. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    I'm not exposing myself in any attempt, I simply think Djokovic is the greater player. And if we all analyzed the draw of every tournament an ATG's ever won we wouldn't have time for anything else in life. Far easier to just look at the level of the titles each player won and go off that.
     
  10. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    What makes you assume I was thinking of Borg when I made that example?
     
  11. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    20,745
    Location:
    U.S
    Look at Dubai 2008 where Roddick beat Djokovic and Nadal.
     
    NatF likes this.
  12. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    20,745
    Location:
    U.S
    because the conversation was about Borg ?
     
  13. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    You assumed wrong abmk.
     
  14. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    20,745
    Location:
    U.S
    its also far easier when you've hardly watched any matches of borg, if any ..isn't it ?
     
  15. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    23,511
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    But in the 70's it's not simple to just look at the level of the titles, that sort of thing wasn't clearly established. I'm not suggesting looking at every draw but if you have an awareness of this sort of thing it helps when evaluating. I have no issues with you thinking Djokovic is greater, I just want accuracy and fairness when looking at what Borg accomplished.
     
    krosero likes this.
  16. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    It's just waaaaaaaay easier abmk. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
     
  17. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    20,745
    Location:
    U.S
    [​IMG]
     
  18. abmk

    abmk Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    20,745
    Location:
    U.S
    well, apparently so did NatF.
    Maybe you were not clear enough.
     
  19. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    765
    I do actually think the quality of Masters1000 won by Djokovic comfortably beats the quality of Borg's equivalent titles in the 70's/80's. The fact is they were not compulsory then. Between 1978 and 1981 you could probably count on one hand the number of regular tournaments that featured all 3 of Borg, Connors and McEnroe. A lot of the best ones were more like Masters750. It is unfair on Borg to make these comparisons, just as it is unfair on Djokovic to give Borg an extra haul of slams because he didn't play the Australian and retired early.

    For what it's worth I would rank Borg ahead of Djokovic all time.
     
  20. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,598
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    It's hard to discuss some of this with Borg because at his best he towered over the opposition in 1977, 1978 and 1979 especially but I believe his peak level was in 1978 and 1979. I remember looking at his won-lost against the top ten at that point and it was some obscene winning percentage. Borg was started to really dominate Connors at that point especially starting in 1978. I felt Connors only had a shot when Borg was hurt.

    Some of the old WCT tournaments had Borg regularly playing guys like Ashe, Laver and others. Then he would participate in other tournaments and face great players like Okker, Orantes, Nastase. If you equalized for equipment Borg could play with anyone that ever lived.
     
  21. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    28,286
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Out of interest, how much more do you think Djokovic has to achieve to be ranked above Borg?
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Yes, with his lie Limpinhitter tried to show that I'm a village idiot. That's mean, I would say. Even more mean is the fact that this arrogant poster never apologized for his lie even though I have asked him to do rather often and that he never was ready to correct that lie and not his many errors in his Laver thread.
     
    krosero likes this.
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Mr. Lobb, An exception from my intention not to answer your absurd posts anymore (at least for a longer while) as your new post is even more absurd and wrong than usually. Note, Mr. Lobb: krosero did NOT give any opinion of his when he posted all those many quotings and rankings recently! He just wrote and quoted. That's NOT an opinion as your and your few colleagues' opinion is that Laver was acknowledged No.1 in 1964. He did PROVE that Rosewall was No.1 in 1964 and early 1965 (even though I don't agree with those official rankings regarding 1965). And, most of all, krosero even found the PROOF (sic!) that the "Buchholz" tour was really the officially "Pro World Championships", see that newspaper quoting from August, 25, 1964!!

    It's now the right time for you and your 2 or 3 friends to accept facts of tennis history and to apologize for your stubborness in ignoring and distorting the crystal clear Buchholz article and krosero's and my statements!!

    You are free to believe that Hoad was the GOAT and that Gimeno was No.55 and Rosewall No.67, but that's another story, a matter of opinions.

    Laver's dominance over Rosewall in best-of-five matches is not very telling. Firstly, Laver's edge is not huge and secondly you and your friend, Limpinhitter, forget that Rosewall was born in 1934 and Laver in 1938...
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
    treblings likes this.
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    NatF; Thanks for the link. I concede (with some joy) that you yet once critisized Limpinhitter's behaviour. Thank you. It honours you.
     
    treblings likes this.
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    abmk, In your discussion with Limpinhitter I'm on your side because you have the better arguments (if Limpinhitter has arguments at all). I say this even though generally I rank Laver ahead of Federer. But your debate went about open era where Laver's feats seem to be a bit exaggerated by some posters even though they still were of course great.

    It's really difficult to discuss with Limpin as he is seldom ready to listen to other posters' arguments and to correct his own wrong ones.
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Limpin, You "forget" again that Rosewall was four years older than Laver. Nevertheless: Muscles reached 17 open era major SFs, Laver reached 11 to 13 major SFs. I counted GS tournaments, WCT Finals, Masters; Dunlop 1970, TCC 1971.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    krosero, Thanks for the quotings. It now might be more clear that the old pro majors in open era should not considered true majors. And it might be more clear that the 1971 TCC was not a huge major and never as important as the GS tournaments and the WCT Finals.
     
  28. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,598
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Interesting info Krosero. However just because McCauley may have hinted that the Pro Tour may have lost their importance because of Open Tennis doesn't take away from the fact that the fields at the US Pro, the French Pro and Wembley were perhaps stronger than ever in 1968. Aren't we trying to figure out the strength of certain players by analyzing their results in playing tennis? Don't we do that by looking at the strength of the field? So despite everything some may write doesn't the 1968 French Pro, US Pro and Wembley have extremely strong fields? I would think the field was clearly deeper with players like Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ralston now around.

    And despite what Laver wrote about the Tennis Champions Classic, isn't his victory in that tournament impressive? Laver was imo just discussing fan interest not whether it was a tough tournament or not. I will quote the Fireside Book of Tennis here on Laver's final match in 1971 Tennis Champions Classic..

    And so came #13 for Rod. The final match to complete the impossible and it was Okker, who had led him two sets to love the first time, Okker the victim of some of the greatest tennis Laver ever displayed in their second test, Okker who would make this last desperate stand.

    "I do not like to lose," Laver said. "I can't understand anyone who is a good loser. If you go into a match with the idea that if you lose, you will be a good loser, you are going to be a loser."

    Okker walked onto the court, and like Don Quixote tilted his lance and charged. The first set was a bristling one, with the young Dutchman standing up to serves, the lobs, the drops, the dinks, the impossible retrieves--and losing the set in sudden death. And then the tide was inexorable. For Laver, the golden dream was about to become a reality, and he was not to be denied that reality.


    The applause began to grow at the end of the second set. Applause in a special way--applause as a salute to what the fans saw happening as game after game dropped into Laver's column, bring him to the ultimate victory. When it was over, applause and awe surrounded Laver as he accepted the final check.


    The date was March 19 in Madison Square Garden, and the score was 7-5 6-2 6-1, Laver's earnings stoo at $160,000.

    "At the very outset," Laver said, "I totally agreed with everyone that it was virtually impossible for any one player to go through this Classic undefeated. I have just done that--and I do not believe it either."

    A little side note here, the final score actually was 6-5 6-2 6-1, not what they wrote in the article of 7-5 in the first set.

    It is very clear that what Laver did in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was considered a stunning achievement. Certainly by doing the virtual impossible here Laver shows how strong his level of play was as a tennis player.

    The 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was undoubtedly one of the strongest tournaments of all time and Laver won it. It says a lot for Laver just as winning the Year End Championships unbeaten says a lot for players like Federer and Djokovic.

    How many people know of the 1967 Wimbledon Pro? I'd would think that most tennis fans have no clue of what it was and yet it had a strong eight man field with Laver winning the tournament. It was considered a very important tournament despite being relatively unknown. Yet it only took three rounds to win the tournament with the first two rounds I believe best of three. I'd venture to say the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic had a much stronger field (and all matches were best of five) as did the 1968 French Pro or 1968 US Pro. Why shouldn't people consider them to be huge tournaments?

    The WCT finals had eight people playing with a three round tournament. Is that nearly as tough as winning the Year End Championship unbeaten? So why is that considered important by someone but the Tennis Championship Classic isn't? If the Tennis Champions Classic wasn't big, why did so many big time players like Rosewall, Ashe, Laver, Okker, Emerson, Newcombe, Roche, Ralston, Taylor decide to play in it?

    What about the 1969 Howard Hughes? Wasn't that a very big tournament with a strong field at the time? Does it show how strong Pancho Gonzalez was in 1969 when he won it by defeating Rosewall, Newcombe, Stan Smith and Ashe in that tournament at the old age of around 41. I would venture to say the field in the 1969 Howard Hughes was stronger than most if not all Pro Majors.
    http://www.tennisarchives.com/voorloopfiche.php?wedstrijdvoorloopid=7697

    Whether the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was prestigious or not I don't think anyone can argue logically that it was not a super strong field. To win the tournament unbeaten in 13 matches against such a super field is extraordinary.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2016
    Limpinhitter, Phoenix1983 and PDJ like this.
  29. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,671
    Krosero, could you please give the exact quote of McCauley, where he stated, that the pro champs had lost their value with the year 1968. I cannot find it. I only can find very exact descriptions of the US pro and French pro that year as very prestigious tournaments, where the NTL and WCT pros met. Bud Collins also ranks all US pro Championships pre and post 1968 as equal. One note to 1964. I recently read the foreword of John Barrett in Rosewalls own new book Muscles of 2012. There he gives Rosewall some years at the pro top until 1963, but explicitely not 1964. Barrett was the Editor of the World of Tennis yearbooks, and a longtime friend of Rosewall, who collaborated on a book with him and at Slazengers. And he wrote it in Rosewalls own book.
     
    Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  30. PDJ

    PDJ Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,973
    That's harsh!
    There are many interesting posts here and some good cases made amongst the repetition, but I think it just goes to show that it's near impossible to pick who is the GOAT given so many variables.Isn't enough that said player was one of the VERY best EVER?

    Personally I value consistency and the deportment of a Champion over other players with similar achievements. But then I would....
     
  31. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Borg also won 0 us open , I know some will say bad crowd but that is part of applying yourself, saying Borg won 14 majors( 6 RG , 2tour final, 1 wct, 5 Wimbledon) , Borg had 5 majors to play even ignoringAO , and Djokovic 12, ignoring 5 tour finals victory, is completely wrong.
    In my ranking I have already put borg> Novak but difference is not big and one more slam will close the deal.
    Another thing I am pretty sure that his most of the non atp titles came less than 8 or ten player draw.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2016
  32. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    23,511
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    In Borg's defence McEnroe and Connors are two of the greatest USO players of all times, no one had harder competition at the USO than Borg IMO. The difference between counting Borg's tour finals and not counting Djokovic's is that in Borg days they were the de facto 4th major over the AO, whereas Djokovic does have 4 classic majors to compete in.

    I've tend to put Djokovic over Borg recently but I may have convinced myself otherwise :D
     
    PDJ and Navdeep Srivastava like this.
  33. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Borg has two tour finals so 5 majors and if you count AO then 6, if Vilas and Orantes can win, then there should be no reason for Borg, none of them were dominating like Sampras and Fed on grass or Rafa on clay.
    Borg just lost some key points see 80 final.
     
  34. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    23,511
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I wouldn't count the AO. I'm not sure on which was greater in stature the tour finals or the WCT. It does seem stretching it to count both though you're right. Fair points about Vilas and Orantes.
     
  35. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Well till 78 or 79 RG was the fifth one, Wimbledon, Us open, Tour finals and wct finals were the four most important majors . It was around 80 that RG became 4 th important over wct .
    This is my problem, if abmk or metman want to say that AO was not important, then four important major count should not have RG also and if you are taking fifth major in form of RG then count Novak tour finals also.
     
  36. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    My ten best player
    Pancho
    Laver
    Federer
    Sampras
    Rosewall
    Rafa
    Borg
    Djokovic
    Connors
    Lendl
    I have not included players like Tilden, Budge etc as I don't know enough about them.
     
    NatF and pc1 like this.
  37. BlueB

    BlueB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    There is no way that Borg can be placed higher then Djokovic, Nole has surpassed all of Borg's stats.
    Also, no one can be placed between Sampras and Nadal. There is debate who should be on top, but whichever way you put it the separation is too close for another player to sneak in. As the matter of fact, it's pretty much the Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic cluster (in no particular order). We have to place Rosewall completely above them, or below all of them.
    Agassi should always be in conversation with Connors and Lendl.
    Pancho/Laver/Fed situation is also tricky...

    Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
     
  38. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Regarding Agassi , he won very few tour finals and was less dominant, Connors didn't play AO and RG in his prime but still won 8 slam and 4tour finals, Lendl also has 7 tour finals and was dominant for 4 years.
    I rate Rosewall on what he achieved, winning 6 majors after turning 32 is big one .

    Now Borg vs Novak is a controversial case and you can make case for anyone but I just always give Borg little more marks for achieving ao much at the young age of 24.
     
  39. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,177
    Pancho should be ranked below Laver and Federer.
     
  40. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    I love how Pancho dominated tennis , use to beat players( good one ) even at the age of 40, whether it was laver or Connors
    His biggest priority was pro tour and he kept on winning, he was so much dominant that whole new rule was created to stop him from winning.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  41. metsman

    metsman Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,669
    Taking Wimby, USO, WTF, WCT as 4 majors is bs, Borg played both in 1 year like one time when he was in his prime. 4 majors should be the 3 minus AO and then really treat the WTF and WCT as one. FO may not have been as highly regarded, but unlike the AO the field was still good, Borg still faced quality clay courters unlike the AO where top players rarely played.

    I think 14 majors is a fair representation for Borg, but with his surface adaptability he is clearly above the other 14 major winners Nadal and Sampras imo.
     
  42. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,278
    Once again, pc1 proves to be a voice of reason among the TW gaggle of nattering nabobs.

    Excellent reasoning, pc1. And, Laver's extraordinary performance and dominance over the very best (going undefeated in 13 straight matches), at the TCC is one reason that I think he has a claim to the #1 ranking of 1971. Laver was still playing at the highest level in the game, and continued to play at the highest level, although not as consistently, for several more years. What I don't think was widely known at the time were the injuries that Laver was struggling with. In my view, even with his injuries, there was no one in the game better than Laver, when on his game, until Connors in 1974. And, had Laver hypothetically been healthy throughout his career, I am confident that Connors' record would have been somewhat diminished from what it is.
     
  43. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Again its not about me or you , I am just counting what was 4 most important one that time, player skipped RG for wct tour , no subjective thoughts by me, hell even Borg skipped it and Evert also. The only reason field was better in compare to AO because , France was in Europe, easily accessible, but field in tour finals and Wct tour was better than RG.
    Have you seen the seeding of 77 in RG , 3 or 4 important player are missing. .
    Why four important major for Sampras and Novak but 5for borg, he never won 14 with four , if you include wct then 12 and if you include normal tour final then 13.( I am taking RG as third important which was not the case , player selected wct over RG including Borg)
    I will say take 5 most important major for every player including tour final.
     
  44. metsman

    metsman Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,669
    yes but for Borg that is impossible as most years he didn't play WCT AND WTF, therefore to count 5 for him would be unfair. Borg should also get bonus points for dealing with such massive surface discrepancies and also doing it with a play style that was 30 years ahead of its time. To me he is behind only Federer in the open era.

    Also Borg never skipped the French for WCT, he skipped the french once for WTT, Connors did it many times. I think you have that mixed up. 77 French field was a joke but Borg skipped it anyways for WTT so it doesn't matter. FO rest of the years was usually pretty good and Borg won it so dominantly that it doesn't matter anyways. So if anything that's a major he probably would have won...like Sampras skipping Wimby or Djokovic skipping AO in the middle of their primes

    Here's how i look at it. Borg reached his prime in 76. Starting 76, he played Wimby/RG/USO/YEC/WCT on average 4 times every single year. It makes no sense to count 5 majors then for him and count 5 for Djokovic or Sampras because they actually played all 5 pretty much every year of their primes (Borg only played all 5 once in his prime but also skipped RG and only played 3 another year of his prime)
     
    Navdeep Srivastava likes this.
  45. Navdeep Srivastava

    Navdeep Srivastava Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Fair enough , but I am just saying RG was not the fourth most important one do you agree or not .
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    urban, It's funny, just the World of Tennis yearbooks usually had Rosewall as No. 1 from 1960 till 1964 (for at least ten years; I dont have all issues).

    By the way, Barrett is a Laver man. But he once wrote to me that he ranks Rosewall behind Laver only by a hair's breadth.

    Bud Collins took the championship rolls of the pro majors from Joe's book after I had plead to do so.
    The Rosewall book has some errors, by the way.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2016
  47. metsman

    metsman Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,669
    I don't know about that...I think to certain players it definitely was...maybe not to Connors/mac.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    NatF, I forgot to apologize for my error.
     
    NatF likes this.
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Navdeep, Yes, but one of the new rules, the three-bounce rule, used at the 1960 world tour, was organized wrongly and was a mess and did even favour Gonzalez as I have written months ago.
     
    Navdeep Srivastava likes this.
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Limpin, Laver cannot have a claim for 1971 No.1 because he failed in the events where it really mattered: AO, Wimbledon and WCT Finals. All of them were much more important than the TCC.
     

Share This Page