Which decade had the toughest overall competition for men

Which decade had the most overall competition amongst the men


  • Total voters
    135

NatF

Bionic Poster
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!

QFT

The other exception was Pat Cash a great serve volleyer at Wimbledon. So not a bad loss either.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
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!

Lendl is indeed underrated. I rank him among the all-time Top 10.
 

90's Clay

Banned
I think it should go something like:

1980's
1970s
1960's
1990's
1950s
1930's
2010's
2000s


Not sure where the 20s and 40s would be ranked however
 

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, You contradict yourself: First you say "We cannot know about Emerson/Gimeno", then "No contest"!!??!!

Emerson did not improve after 1961. He just had one outstanding year, 1964.

Vienna 1961 was indoors, most probably on fast court!

I'm not sure if Turin was on clay.

You "forget" that in Gimeno's five best years, 1963 to 1967 there was no French Pro on clay!!!

You forget to mention that Andres won several tough claycourt tournaments where he beat Laver and/or Rosewall, and that he reached several big claycourt finals, among them 1961 Milano (tough match to Gonzalez), Trofeo Facis , 1964, second place, Noordwijk and Munich 1964: title, Geneva 1966 title, Oklahoma and Barcelona 1966 win over Laver plus Rosewall, thus winning all three big claycourt events that year!!!. Doubt that Emmo could have been claycourt No.1 in any year against Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno!

You "forget" Gimeno's five set French Open SF against winner, Rosewall, also 1969 QF against Laver, French Open 1972 triumph and 1972 Davis Cup win against Smith. So I can paint a very different picture of Gimeno's claycourt strength and achievements in comparsion to your (and many other Emerson fans') biased picture...
 

Dan L

Professional
Dan, You contradict yourself: First you say "We cannot know about Emerson/Gimeno", then "No contest"!!??!!

Emerson did not improve after 1961. He just had one outstanding year, 1964.

Vienna 1961 was indoors, most probably on fast court!

I'm not sure if Turin was on clay.

You "forget" that in Gimeno's five best years, 1963 to 1967 there was no French Pro on clay!!!

You forget to mention that Andres won several tough claycourt tournaments where he beat Laver and/or Rosewall, and that he reached several big claycourt finals, among them 1961 Milano (tough match to Gonzalez), Trofeo Facis , 1964, second place, Noordwijk and Munich 1964: title, Geneva 1966 title, Oklahoma and Barcelona 1966 win over Laver plus Rosewall, thus winning all three big claycourt events that year!!!. Doubt that Emmo could have been claycourt No.1 in any year against Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno!

You "forget" Gimeno's five set French Open SF against winner, Rosewall, also 1969 QF against Laver, French Open 1972 triumph and 1972 Davis Cup win against Smith. So I can paint a very different picture of Gimeno's claycourt strength and achievements in comparsion to your (and many other Emerson fans') biased picture...

Oklahoma?

Not "the world pro championships"?

Wow.

You mean, he LOST to Rosewall in five. You consider that a win?

Doesn't sound great if you have to list his LOSSES as evidence of his greatness.

He had big trouble with Cooper and Stolle at Roland Garros, the big house for clay.

Previously, you claimed that Vienna was a CLAY event for your idol Rosewall, now you say you think it was not clay.

Make up your mind.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
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.

kiki, Rosewall was extremely strong in the 1970 US Open: beat Smith 6-2,6-2,6-2, beat Newcombe in three clear sets and Roche in four...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
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.

Gimeno was 33 when meeting one of the two best grasscourters in the world, Newcombe, and 32 when meeting the best grasscourter, Laver.

Santana and Emerson would also be intimitated when facing prime L&R.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Oklahoma?

Not "the world pro championships"?

Wow.

You mean, he LOST to Rosewall in five. You consider that a win?

Doesn't sound great if you have to list his LOSSES as evidence of his greatness.

He had big trouble with Cooper and Stolle at Roland Garros, the big house for clay.

Previously, you claimed that Vienna was a CLAY event for your idol Rosewall, now you say you think it was not clay.

Make up your mind.

Dan, learn to read and to think: Oklahoma 1966: Gimeno beat Rosewall in the final (W. Pro Ch.)! No five-setter at all!

I said earlier that Vienna 1959 was clay. Vienna 1961 was fast surface (I asked also a friend today who witnessed that tournament!

Gimeno lost to Cooper and Stolle before and after his prime. Don't tell us nonsense!
 

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
Toughest 10 consecutive years toughest overall competition: 1975-85. You had Laver, Rosewall, Newcomb, Connors , Borg, Mcenroe, and Lendl.
 

kiki

Banned
Gimeno was 33 when meeting one of the two best grasscourters in the world, Newcombe, and 32 when meeting the best grasscourter, Laver.

Santana and Emerson would also be intimitated when facing prime L&R.

Emerson and Santana may have lost more often than not to Laver and Rosewall on grass.But if anything, they certainly would never be intimidated.

Gimeno was not as mentally strong ( but more than Roche)
 

kiki

Banned
Now, try find a decade with this top 15

Borg
Connors
Newcombe
Vilas
Nastase
Rosewall
Smith
Kodes
Ashe
Mc Enroe
Orantes
Panatta
Gerulaitis
Tanner
Gimeno

plus, in female´s play:

Court
King
Evert
Navratilova
Goolagong
Wade
Austin

and make your all possible combinations

The 30´s,50´s and 80´s would have had a very comparable top ten.But not such a top 15 and much less if we go down to the next 15 players.Guys like Laver,Pilic,Riessen,Roche,Gorman,Okker,Franulovic,Solomon,Dibbs,Ramirez,Gottfried,Barazutti,Stockton,Metrevali or Richey
 

kiki

Banned
The 60´s is the easiest one to rank.I doubt there is an alternate to:

1/Laver
2/Rosewall
3/Emerson
4/Gonzales
5/Santana
6/Fraser
7/Hoad
8/Stolle,Anderson,Cooper
11/Newcombe
12/Roche
13/Mc Kinley
14/Ashe
15/Osuna and Pietrangeli

plus
1/Court
2/Bueno
3/King
4/Hard
5/Jones
6/Richey
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The 60´s is the easiest one to rank.I doubt there is an alternate to:

1/Laver
2/Rosewall
3/Emerson
4/Gonzales
5/Santana
6/Fraser
7/Hoad
8/Stolle,Anderson,Cooper
11/Newcombe
12/Roche
13/Mc Kinley
14/Ashe
15/Osuna and Pietrangeli

plus
1/Court
2/Bueno
3/King
4/Hard
5/Jones
6/Richey

I agree that Emerson was the 3rd best of the 60s in the men's game.

However, there are some here who think he was little more than a journeyman. ;-)
 

kiki

Banned
I agree that Emerson was the 3rd best of the 60s in the men's game.

However, there are some here who think he was little more than a journeyman. ;-)

If Gonzales or Hoad had been more consistent, no doubt they were far better players and would be in the top 4 (Hoad) and top 3 (Pancho)

Burt Emerson was the amateur´s king and was very consistent, that should be rewarded or at least, recognized.
 

kiki

Banned
the 1960 aussies could be divided into two geo sociologichal groups.

Those coming from the rich southern cities, and relatively well off families like Newk,Rosewall,Fraser,Cooper,Stolle,Dent

and those coming from rural or very humble environtments, basically in the north or the bush: Laver,Anderson,Emerson,Roche,Hoad,Alexander

That did not prevent interactions like Hoad and Rosewall, Emerson and Stolle,Anderson and Cooper,Roche and Newcombe, Alexander and Dent.

Laver and Emerson had a very particular tie; both always refeered to themselves as the farmer players and both supported each other no matter whom they were playing against.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Laver and Emerson had a very particular tie; both always refeered to themselves as the farmer players and both supported each other no matter whom they were playing against.
Laver and Emmo were good doubles buddies.

But Laver and Muscles also teamed up at the 1973 US Open and made it to the finals.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Now, Gimeno deserves a spot around Nr. 5, at least equal with Santana and very close to Emerson. Anderson and Cooper did close to nothing in the 60s. The Wimbledon seeding of the first open event in 1968 had: Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Newcombe, Emerson, Santana, Hoad, Gonzalez, Ralston, Stolle, Bucholz, Ashe, Okker, Drysdale, Roche, Pilic. I agree, that Osuna and Pietrangeli were very interesting artistic players. An early round Wim match between Santana and Osuna i think in 1964 was seen by the British press corps as one of the finest matches alltime. McKinley was small, but a living jumping ball with a great overhead, he became a broker later and died early on a brain tumor.
 
Last edited:
To me it seems like every decade has only 2-3 at the top and maybe a couple more that can challenge them regularly. So to have Djokovic/Murray/Nadal all playing at the same time with Federer still a threat, and Del Potro nearby, how could it have ever been tougher than that?
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If Gonzales or Hoad had been more consistent, no doubt they were far better players and would be in the top 4 (Hoad) and top 3 (Pancho)

Burt Emerson was the amateur´s king and was very consistent, that should be rewarded or at least, recognized.

kiki, Pancho was much stronger than Emerson in the 1960's.
 

kiki

Banned
Now, Gimeno deserves a spot around Nr. 5, at least equal with Santana and very close to Emerson. Anderson and Cooper did close to nothing in the 60s. The Wimbledon seeding of the first open event in 1968 had: Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Newcombe, Emerson, Santana, Hoad, Gonzalez, Ralston, Stolle, Bucholz, Ashe, Okker, Drysdale, Roche, Pilic. I agree, that Osuna and Pietrangeli were very interesting artistic players. An early round Wim match between Santana and Osuna i think in 1964 was seen by the British press corps as one of the finest matches alltime. McKinley was small, but a living jumping ball with a great overhead, he became a broker later and died early on a brain tumor.

My bad.I just forgot to place Gimeno ( even if I was thinking of him I just oblitterated).He would be around nº 7, with Hoad and Stolle and behind Santana and Fraser.
 

Dan L

Professional
Dan, learn to read and to think: Oklahoma 1966: Gimeno beat Rosewall in the final (W. Pro Ch.)! No five-setter at all!

I said earlier that Vienna 1959 was clay. Vienna 1961 was fast surface (I asked also a friend today who witnessed that tournament!

Gimeno lost to Cooper and Stolle before and after his prime. Don't tell us nonsense!

Vienna 1960 was on clay?

Than Cooper whipped Gimeno on clay twice that year?

Gimeno was 23 years old in 1960.

I guess if you blinked, you missed his prime.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
My bad.I just forgot to place Gimeno ( even if I was thinking of him I just oblitterated).He would be around nº 7, with Hoad and Stolle and behind Santana and Fraser.

kiki, Thanks for that great joke: Gimeno behind Fraser! Gimeno:No.3 in several years. Fraser: No.9 or 10 in his best year.....
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Vienna 1960 was on clay?

Than Cooper whipped Gimeno on clay twice that year?

Gimeno was 23 years old in 1960.

I guess if you blinked, you missed his prime.

Confused Dan, There was no Vienna 1960 at all. Learn history!!

Gimeno was a top three or four player for six years in a row- about equal with your darling!
 

Dan L

Professional
Confused Dan, There was no Vienna 1960 at all. Learn history!!

Gimeno was a top three or four player for six years in a row- about equal with your darling!

Right, it was 1961 where Cooper whipped Gimeno in Vienna.

Also in 1960 Cooper overpowered him at Roland Garros and Wembley.

Gimeno was probably third for a few years in a weak pro field.

Emmo dominant in the strong amateur field.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Right, it was 1961 where Cooper whipped Gimeno in Vienna.

Also in 1960 Cooper overpowered him at Roland Garros and Wembley.

Gimeno was probably third for a few years in a weak pro field.

Emmo dominant in the strong amateur field.

Dan! The pros had Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, three GOAT candidates, plus strong Hoad. A weak field for Gimeno???
 

Dan L

Professional
Dan, Gonzalez was No.3 in the world in 1964 and 1965. When were old Budge and Riggs No.3 in the world? Please tell us!

Budge was runner-up to Gonzales at the U.S. Pro in 1953, and beat Gonzales at L.A. in the 1954 tour.

Riggs was still showing up at majors into the mid-fifties.

Gonzales at 3 in 1964 and 1965?
Shows you how shallow the pro field was, and how slow Gimeno was to grow.
 

kiki

Banned
Coming back to topic, and as much as I think the 30,50 and 80 were just as fun, I don´t think we will ever have a decade with such depth atop and such depth at the challenge level.The best package is the 70´s.
 

SamprasisGOAT

Hall of Fame
I've not read thought the whole thread but I'd say the pool of talent in the 80s with McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Lendl, wilander, edberg and Becker will never be beaten. The 90s was very tough aswell. The 10s only have 3 top top players.

I'd say this

80s
90s
70s
00s
10s
 

kiki

Banned
Now tell me if there´s been a decade with a seeding list for a whole decade that goes like this:

Borg,Connors,Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Vilas,Smith,Ashe,Kodes,Orantes,Mc Enroe,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Gimeno and Laver


Equally great top ten, maybe the 30,50,80 but never ever such a top 16

If we include Okker,Ramirez,Roche,Pilic,Pecci and five or ten more names in, it beats left right up down any other decade.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Now tell me if there´s been a decade with a seeding list for a whole decade that goes like this:

Borg,Connors,Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Vilas,Smith,Ashe,Kodes,Orantes,Mc Enroe,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Gimeno and Laver


Equally great top ten, maybe the 30,50,80 but never ever such a top 16

If we include Okker,Ramirez,Roche,Pilic,Pecci and five or ten more names in, it beats left right up down any other decade.

kiki, Here I can agree.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Now tell me if there´s been a decade with a seeding list for a whole decade that goes like this:

Borg,Connors,Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Vilas,Smith,Ashe,Kodes,Orantes,Mc Enroe,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Gimeno and Laver


Equally great top ten, maybe the 30,50,80 but never ever such a top 16

If we include Okker,Ramirez,Roche,Pilic,Pecci and five or ten more names in, it beats left right up down any other decade.

Your love of the 70s knows no bounds!
 

kiki

Banned
1980-1981

Men: Mac,Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis and Tanner
Women:Evert,Mandlikova,Navratilova,Austin,Goolagong,Jaeger and Shriver

1971

Laver,Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Kodes,Ashe,Smith
Court,King,Goolagong,Evert,Bueno ( if healthy),Casals,Wade
 

Dan L

Professional
1980-1981

Men: Mac,Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis and Tanner
Women:Evert,Mandlikova,Navratilova,Austin,Goolagong,Jaeger and Shriver

1971

Laver,Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Kodes,Ashe,Smith
Court,King,Goolagong,Evert,Bueno ( if healthy),Casals,Wade

Let's only include players who were still producing their best game, or who had reached it.

1950's

Kramer Gonzales Sedgman Hoad Trabert Rosewall Segura Cooper Anderson Olmedo Fraser Patty Drobny Savitt
 

kiki

Banned
Let's only include players who were still producing their best game, or who had reached it.

1950's

Kramer Gonzales Sedgman Hoad Trabert Rosewall Segura Cooper Anderson Olmedo Fraser Patty Drobny Savitt

Yes, as good as mine.Maybe the 50´s share the top with the 70´s.Difference is that in 1950 tennis was still divided while in 1970´s it was open ( divided by organizations but all players could compete vs the others)
 
Top