Which decade had the toughest overall competition for men

Which decade had the most overall competition amongst the men


  • Total voters
    135

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The pro tour in the 60s seems to be mainly made up the aging remnants of the great 50's pro tour plus some less talented players filling the gaps. The 50's pro ranks seem much more impressive to me.

I wouldn't quite put it that way since Gonzalez was still pretty much in his prime in the early 1960's in winning another tour in 1960 by an awesome score o 49 to 8! He defeated Rosewall by a score of 15 to 4 on that tour!

Gonzalez won a second oddly set up tour in 1961 over Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo and Buchholz and MacKay by a total score of 33 to 14 in a round robin portion. Gimeno was second with a record of 27 to 20. Hoad was third at 24-23, Mackay was 22-25, Olmedo was 18-29 and Buchholz last at 16-31.

There was a playoff (with Sedgman subbing) with Gonzalez winning with a record of 21-7 over Gimeno who was 7-21. Sedgman subbed for Hoad (I believe) and defeated MacKay for third place. So Gonzalez was World Champion against in both 1960 and 1961.

Gonzalez retired in 1962 and returned in 1964.

However adding Laver in 1963 in the Pro Ranks wasn't exactly bad. It was strong but imo not as strong as the 1950's.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
1980s was probably the decade with the toughest competition.

If we follow Lendl's career we can see that: he had to start off facing Borg, prime Mac and a resurgent Connors. Not long after that, Wilander came on to the scene and remained a strong contender for the rest of the decade.

Then in the latter half of the decade, Becker and Edberg began to win big tournaments, and emerging US stars such as Agassi and Chang made their first moves. Also in the second half of the decade, Miloslav Mecir carved out a career which made him arguably the best male player never to win a slam.

And I haven't mentioned Kriek, Noah, Cash, Gomez, Leconte, Zivojinovic, Jarryd, Sundstrom, etc.

Also strong were the 1950s. The pro tour was very strong in that decade, but there were also good guys who remained amateurs like Seixas, Patty, Fraser and Pietrangeli.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I wouldn't quite put it that way since Gonzalez was still pretty much in his prime in the early 1960's in winning another tour in 1960 by an awesome score o 49 to 8! He defeated Rosewall by a score of 15 to 4 on that tour!

Gonzalez won a second oddly set up tour in 1961 over Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo and Buchholz and MacKay by a total score of 33 to 14 in a round robin portion. Gimeno was second with a record of 27 to 20. Hoad was third at 24-23, Mackay was 22-25, Olmedo was 18-29 and Buchholz last at 16-31.

There was a playoff (with Sedgman subbing) with Gonzalez winning with a record of 21-7 over Gimeno who was 7-21. Sedgman subbed for Hoad (I believe) and defeated MacKay for third place. So Gonzalez was World Champion against in both 1960 and 1961.

Gonzalez retired in 1962 and returned in 1964.

However adding Laver in 1963 in the Pro Ranks wasn't exactly bad. It was strong but imo not as strong as the 1950's.

Gonzales was semi retired for parts of the 60's and in decline for the others. He was still strong though. He was virtually a non factor from 1959 to 1964 in the majors with a few exceptions like 1961.

Obviously Laver improved the strength but the depth was lacking compared to the 50's. I stand by my comments that it was weaker up till the Open Era.
 
The 80's was loaded with competition and so were the 70's. By 1980, you had Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Kriek, Pecci, Noah, Tanner, Mayer, Clerc, Amritraj, Teltscher, Solomon, Gottfried, Dibbs, Higueras and other tough players around the top 10-20. The top 20-30 was loaded and among them, you had some tough players that could specialize on grass courts, gearing up for Wimbledon (Victor Amaya for example) and also other clay court wizards who would work to peak for the French Open (Clerc, Higueras, Solomon, and Dibbs to name a few).
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Gonzales was semi retired for parts of the 60's and in decline for the others. He was still strong though. He was virtually a non factor from 1959 to 1964 in the majors with a few exceptions like 1961.

Obviously Laver improved the strength but the depth was lacking compared to the 50's. I stand by my comments that it was weaker up till the Open Era.

I agree that the 1950's were stronger than the 1960's in the pros. Incidentally since Gonzalez dominated the much of the 1950's it also an indication of how great Pancho Gonzalez was. It also shows Jack Kramer's great strength.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree that the 1950's were stronger than the 1960's in the pros. Incidentally since Gonzalez dominated the much of the 1950's it also an indication of how great Pancho Gonzalez was. It also shows Jack Kramer's great strength.

Yes Pancho was great. Arguably the best of the Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales trio.
 

urban

Legend
I see the pro tour in 1957-1959 as one of the best alltime competition with 6-8 really strong contenders (like the time around 1970 and the late 80s). However the pro tour in the early 50s was imo considerably weaker. In years like 1951 or 1952 the pros had great problems to establish a solid tour altogether, with Kramer very selective in his appearances (outside the mano a mano series), Gonzalez vagabonding in and out, Riggs going out to be a promoter, and Sedgman or Trabert still being amateurs.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Yes Pancho was great. Arguably the best of the Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales trio.

NatF, this is not a big deal but I can tell you that the Gonzalez family does prefer the spelling with a "z" at the end. Just fyi.:)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, this is not a big deal but I can tell you that the Gonzalez family does prefer the spelling with a "z" at the end. Just fyi.:)

Uh oh, I'll correct that in future. I hope the Gonzalez's can forgive me for my many months of transgressions :p
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The family does. I couldn't care but they want me to write that.

I'm sorry.....are you telling me that:

a). You are intimate with the Gonzales/Gonzalez family
b). They care enough about the spelling of his surname to ask you to tell posters on an internet forum to write it correctly

Your nose is growing ever longer, pc1. ;-)
 

kiki

Banned
Well it is tough
We had two great blocks one before open and the other afterwards
1930 pros are very much even with 1950
Tilden,Cochet,Perry,Vines,Riggs,Nusslein and finaly Budge is at least as good as Kramer,Gonzo,
Sedgie,Segura,Trabert,Hoad and Rosewall
You add Von Cramm,Crawford and Borotra vs Drobny,Patty and Seixas and it keeps even
 

kiki

Banned
And now post open era blocks
The best 15 in the 80 are Lendl, Mac,Wilander,Becker,Edberg,Connors and Borg followed by Cash,Kriek,Noah,Gomez,Mecir,Jarryd,Leconte and Curren
The top 15 of the former decade are
Borg,Connors,Newcombe,Vilas,Nastase,Rosewall,Smith,Kodes,Ashe,Mc Enroe,Orantes,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner and Laver or Gimeno
Teacher and Edmondson would round it up
Make your pick
I already did mine in a comparative thread called The 80 vs 70.The Golden Era rivalry
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I'm sorry.....are you telling me that:

a). You are intimate with the Gonzales/Gonzalez family
b). They care enough about the spelling of his surname to ask you to tell posters on an internet forum to write it correctly

Your nose is growing ever longer, pc1. ;-)

I know people in the family.
 

Dan L

Professional
I know people in the family.

I have no objection to using the spelling "Gonzalez" for current family members, but the spelling "Gonzales" is appropriate for discussion of the historical character.

Because this is a history forum, and not a personal forum, the latter spelling should be used.

You can't rewrite history!
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I have no objection to using the spelling "Gonzalez" for current family members, but the spelling "Gonzales" is appropriate for discussion of the historical character.

Because this is a history forum, and not a personal forum, the latter spelling should be used.

You can't rewrite history!

Like I said Dan, I don't really care but the z was also used in past historical discussions too.

Look at this video of Gonzalez and notice the spelling on the courts for his name.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pancho+gonzalez+latino+legend

But do what you want. It doesn't matter. Thanks for helping on the Lew Hoad part of the positive debates thread. I appreciate it. You were the only person for the job.
 

Dan L

Professional
Like I said Dan, I don't really care but the z was also used in past historical discussions too.

Look at this video of Gonzalez and notice the spelling on the courts for his name.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pancho+gonzalez+latino+legend

But do what you want. It doesn't matter. Thanks for helping on the Lew Hoad part of the positive debates thread. I appreciate it. You were the only person for the job.

That video was from, what, the seventies?

When he published his autobiography, he used the spelling "Gonzales".

That was about 1959, but, of course, for discussion of his career AFTER he started using "Gonzalez" commercially, it would be appropriate to use "Gonzalez".

But I think that he used the "s" for most of his career.
 

Dan L

Professional
Like I said Dan, I don't really care but the z was also used in past historical discussions too.

Look at this video of Gonzalez and notice the spelling on the courts for his name.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pancho+gonzalez+latino+legend

But do what you want. It doesn't matter. Thanks for helping on the Lew Hoad part of the positive debates thread. I appreciate it. You were the only person for the job.

Yes, my pleasure, I have done a bit of research on Hoad.
 

kiki

Banned
it is curious because the first time I read about him, it amused me he was called Gonzales.

But once you get used to it, you just can´t call him otherwise.

Like I never got used to call Evonne Cawley and Chris LLoyd
 

kiki

Banned
TBH, there is a bit of overrating Pro 50´s and underrating pro´s 30 in the same mold, the 70 vs 80 depends on the age of the posters.

I have not seen 30 or 50 but certainly watched very closely 70 vs 80 and, while the 80 were very exciting, the 70 were the real deal
 

Dan L

Professional
TBH, there is a bit of overrating Pro 50´s and underrating pro´s 30 in the same mold, the 70 vs 80 depends on the age of the posters.

I have not seen 30 or 50 but certainly watched very closely 70 vs 80 and, while the 80 were very exciting, the 70 were the real deal

The strength of the men's pro fields changed drastically from one year to the next, so you really have to consider both amateur and pro fields together before the era of open tennis.
 

kiki

Banned
The strength of the men's pro fields changed drastically from one year to the next, so you really have to consider both amateur and pro fields together before the era of open tennis.

That is really true.We should add the name of the great amateurs who, for whatever reason ( under table money, prestige, social status...) wanted to remain amateurs.And there are, at least 4-5 great amateurs in the 50´s as well as in the 60´s.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
The strength of the men's pro fields changed drastically from one year to the next, so you really have to consider both amateur and pro fields together before the era of open tennis.

Dan, the last time the amateurs reached the pros' level was probably in 1933...
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
That is really true.We should add the name of the great amateurs who, for whatever reason ( under table money, prestige, social status...) wanted to remain amateurs.And there are, at least 4-5 great amateurs in the 50´s as well as in the 60´s.

I am interested in the great amateurs of the 50s like Drobny, Seixas, Patty, Rose, Savitt etc. who never turned pro (actually Rose did very briefly, I believe, but the vast majority of his career was spent as an amateur).

I can only imagine how strong a combined tour would have been in that decade, with Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman etc. all playing alongside the men I mentioned above.
 

Dan L

Professional
Dan, you have already flown away into noman's land.....

Hey, if you have an objection with that point, that the best amateurs were usually superior to most of the pros, show us how you conclude differently.

I think it should be obvious.
 

kiki

Banned
I am interested in the great amateurs of the 50s like Drobny, Seixas, Patty, Rose, Savitt etc. who never turned pro (actually Rose did very briefly, I believe, but the vast majority of his career was spent as an amateur).

I can only imagine how strong a combined tour would have been in that decade, with Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman etc. all playing alongside the men I mentioned above.

Not just the 50´s but Crawford,Borotra,Von Cramm,Henkel,Austin were also very good.It was the 30´s and there was also US Champion Frank Shields who was Brooke´s GranPa if I recall well.He wo the title in 1931 or 1932.

But I agree there were very good amateurs in the 50´s and the 60´s who would be very competitive if they could adjust to the pro game.Larssen,Patty ( this one maybe the best of the lot), Seixas,Rose,Savitt,Pietrangeli and Jarsolav Drobny.Then Emmo,Santana,Stolle, Fraser ( whom my friend Bobbyone likes so much) and for a little bit the three up and coming stars like Roche,Newcombe and Ashe, but they were better as pros.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Hey, if you have an objection with that point, that the best amateurs were usually superior to most of the pros, show us how you conclude differently.

I think it should be obvious.

Dan, For instance in 1959/1960 the first eight to ten players were pros. Even
L'Equipe made top ten rankings without an amateur...

Other example: Even the best of the amateurs of the 1960's, Emerson, was only No.5 in his best year, 1964.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Not just the 50´s but Crawford,Borotra,Von Cramm,Henkel,Austin were also very good.It was the 30´s and there was also US Champion Frank Shields who was Brooke´s GranPa if I recall well.He wo the title in 1931 or 1932.

But I agree there were very good amateurs in the 50´s and the 60´s who would be very competitive if they could adjust to the pro game.Larssen,Patty ( this one maybe the best of the lot), Seixas,Rose,Savitt,Pietrangeli and Jarsolav Drobny.Then Emmo,Santana,Stolle, Fraser ( whom my friend Bobbyone likes so much) and for a little bit the three up and coming stars like Roche,Newcombe and Ashe, but they were better as pros.

kiki, Mervyn Rose, No.3 in the 1958 amateur world rankings, turned pro and achieved...nothing.

Fred Stolle, No.1 in 1966, turned pro and reached in the depleted pro ranks only No.5 place.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Dan, you have already flown away into noman's land.....

Hey, if you have an objection with that point, that the best amateurs were usually superior to most of the pros, show us how you conclude differently.

I think it should be obvious.

Whether if the pro were better than amateur or vice versa, but the fact is tennis had a split fields. One can't denies that the field was weaker before the open era. And even the start of the open-era was still weak until the ATP was established. The decade of the 60s and before is nowhere compare to the depth and competition since the start of the ATP. No way!


It's the same thing with basketball. Before basketball also had a split league(NBA & ABA). The modern NBA begins when the ABA and NBA merge in 1971. Basketball in the 60s and before is nothing when compare to the modern era.
 

urban

Legend
Quite a few experts however do say, that the old NHL and NBA leagues with less teams, but stronger players were stronger than the merged bigger leagues of NHL and WHA, or NBA and ABA. It was seen as a watering down of playing level.
 

Dan L

Professional
Dan, For instance in 1959/1960 the first eight to ten players were pros. Even
L'Equipe made top ten rankings without an amateur...

Other example: Even the best of the amateurs of the 1960's, Emerson, was only No.5 in his best year, 1964.

Yes, Bobby, I agree that 1958, 1959 saw the top eight players in the pros.

But I cannot think of another period where that was true.

Emerson and Santana in 1964?

Yes, maybe 5 and 6, but possibly 4 and 5, with only Laver, Rosewall, and possibly Gonzales clearly better.

I don't see Gimeno above Emmo or Santana, maybe about the same.

And I put both Newcombe and Roche at 3 and 4 overall for 1967.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Yes, Bobby, I agree that 1958, 1959 saw the top eight players in the pros.

But I cannot think of another period where that was true.

Emerson and Santana in 1964?

Yes, maybe 5 and 6, but possibly 4 and 5, with only Laver, Rosewall, and possibly Gonzales clearly better.

I don't see Gimeno above Emmo or Santana, maybe about the same.

And I put both Newcombe and Roche at 3 and 4 overall for 1967.

Dan, Gimeno was better than Emerson, especially if we consider his extremely high claycourt level (not far behind Rosewall and Laver).

Roche was not too strong in 1967. Emerson was better. Gimeno and RALSTON were probably stronger than Newcombe. Ralston beat Laver several times in 1967.
 

kiki

Banned
Ralston is underrated but he was one of Laver 's nightmares
Did he turn pro after his 66 Wimbledon final?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Ralston is underrated but he was one of Laver 's nightmares
Did he turn pro after his 66 Wimbledon final?

kiki, He probably turned pro at the end of 1966 but it's not clear when exactly. He did not play a pro event in 1966.
 

Dan L

Professional
Dan, Gimeno was better than Emerson, especially if we consider his extremely high claycourt level (not far behind Rosewall and Laver).

Roche was not too strong in 1967. Emerson was better. Gimeno and RALSTON were probably stronger than Newcombe. Ralston beat Laver several times in 1967.

We cannot know about Gimeno/Emerson for the period 1960 to 1967.

Sure, Gimeno improved after turning pro, but so did Emerson improve during these years.
Emerson was great on clay, winning at Roland Garros in 1963 (after outlasting Kunhke and Pietrangeli in 5-set marathons) and 1967 (defeating Roche, the defending champion, in the final).

Gimeno did, what?, at the 1960 Roland Garros, where he played twice that year, amateur and pro?
Seeded third in the amateur Roland Garros, he lost in the quarters to Pietrangeli.
Lost in the pro version of Roland Garros to Sedgman in the quarters, and to Cooper in the fifth place playoff.

In 1961, lost at Roland Garros to Trabert in the quarters, to Trabert in the Kramer Cup semi at Barcelona (6-3, 6-4, 6-1), and to Cooper at Vienna, your home town.

Yes, all on red clay.

In 1962, Gimeno did better at Roland Garros, beating Anderson and Olmedo, before losing to Rosewall in the final.

In the 1962 Kramer Cup semi at Turin on red clay, Gimeno lost both of his singles to Hoad and Rosewall in four set matches (losing to an over-the-hill Hoad 2-6, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4).

At Roland Garros Pro in 1968, Gimeno lost in round of 16 to Fred Stolle.

I would expect that these clay results would have been surpassed by Emerson had he been in the pro ranks, Emerson winning over tough clay fields at Roland Garros in 1963 and 1967.

Really, no contest.
 
Last edited:

Dan L

Professional
Dan, Gimeno was better than Emerson, especially if we consider his extremely high claycourt level (not far behind Rosewall and Laver).

Roche was not too strong in 1967. Emerson was better. Gimeno and RALSTON were probably stronger than Newcombe. Ralston beat Laver several times in 1967.

Actually, Roche was defending Roland Garros champion in 1967, and was runner-up at Roland Garros that year to the great clay courter, Roy Emerson, who showed just why he was great on clay.

How many times was Roche runner-up in a major?
Some kind of record?
 

kiki

Banned
Tony Roche won his only GS title at the 66 French Championships (Guylas)

He lost 5 finals: to Stolle at the RG 1965, to Emerson at the RG 67, to Laver at Wimbledon 68 and also at the USO 69 and finally, to Rosewall at the 70 USO.Not a shameful lost at all, but 1 win and 5 defeats is probably worse than Lendl in the first half of the 80´s.It took...Roche...for Lendl to mature and start winning bunch of majors, if I recall well.

Roche lost some very tight semifinals as well: in 69 laver beat him in that great match at Brisbane, then Newcombe beat him in a classic five setter at Wimbledon (Roche would beat him at Forest Hills that same year).Two more lost semis that I remember: the 1969 FO against Rosewall and the 75 AO against Newcombe.

So, three semis and one final in 1969, which was his probably best year in terms of peak play, and he did beat laver few times that year in minor tournaments.

I don´t think it was just a case of bad luck.In 1970, Rosewall was a bit over the hill.
 

Dan L

Professional
Tony Roche won his only GS title at the 66 French Championships (Guylas)

He lost 5 finals: to Stolle at the RG 1965, to Emerson at the RG 67, to Laver at Wimbledon 68 and also at the USO 69 and finally, to Rosewall at the 70 USO.Not a shameful lost at all, but 1 win and 5 defeats is probably worse than Lendl in the first half of the 80´s.It took...Roche...for Lendl to mature and start winning bunch of majors, if I recall well.

Roche lost some very tight semifinals as well: in 69 laver beat him in that great match at Brisbane, then Newcombe beat him in a classic five setter at Wimbledon (Roche would beat him at Forest Hills that same year).Two more lost semis that I remember: the 1969 FO against Rosewall and the 75 AO against Newcombe.

So, three semis and one final in 1969, which was his probably best year in terms of peak play, and he did beat laver few times that year in minor tournaments.

I don´t think it was just a case of bad luck.In 1970, Rosewall was a bit over the hill.

I recall that Roche played below his usual form in the finals he lost against the legends Laver and Rosewall.

Some players show amazing guts and refuse to be intimidated, like Santana or Emerson.

Gimeno, also, seemed off his form in big slam showdowns, for example the 1969 Australian final, or the Wimbledon semi against Newk in 1970.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Yeah, Santana was always a pretty tough rival for amateur Laver.Not just on clay, but he also gave him a tough QF match at 1962 Wimbledon if memory serves well.
I recall his last great win, a stunning straight sets victory of Laver in the 1970 Spanish Open.He retired a few months later.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
We cannot know about Gimeno/Emerson for the period 1960 to 1967.

Sure, Gimeno improved after turning pro, but so did Emerson improve during these years.
Emerson was great on clay, winning at Roland Garros in 1963 (after outlasting Kunhke and Pietrangeli in 5-set marathons) and 1967 (defeating Roche, the defending champion, in the final).

Gimeno did, what?, at the 1960 Roland Garros, where he played twice that year, amateur and pro?
Seeded third in the amateur Roland Garros, he lost in the quarters to Pietrangeli.
Lost in the pro version of Roland Garros to Sedgman in the quarters, and to Cooper in the fifth place playoff.

In 1961, lost at Roland Garros to Trabert in the quarters, to Trabert in the Kramer Cup semi at Barcelona (6-3, 6-4, 6-1), and to Cooper at Vienna, your home town.

Yes, all on red clay.

In 1962, Gimeno did better at Roland Garros, beating Anderson and Olmedo, before losing to Rosewall in the final.

In the 1962 Kramer Cup semi at Turin on red clay, Gimeno lost both of his singles to Hoad and Rosewall in four set matches (losing to an over-the-hill Hoad 2-6, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4).

At Roland Garros Pro in 1968, Gimeno lost in round of 16 to Fred Stolle.

I would expect that these clay results would have been surpassed by Emerson had he been in the pro ranks, Emerson winning over tough clay fields at Roland Garros in 1963 and 1967.

Really, no contest.

Dan, I will answer your faulty and one-sided post tomorrow. Must find my sleep to be able to disprove you tomorrow...;-)
 

timnz

Legend
1980's was toughest!

That's why I think Lendl is so underrated:)

Completely agree. When you think about the 11 slam finals Lendl lost - 10 of them were against players who were number 1 at some time in their career. It was tough back then!
 
Top