Who do you rank higher between Pancho Gonzalez? Ken Rosewall? Novak Djokovic
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yup!
xFedal
Legend
But by discussing the past we can open the new millennials to come out of their recency bias...
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
This would be a stats crunch, as I believe only a few here ever saw or even remember about Gonzales and Rosewall playing.
xFedal
Legend
Speak about their achievements tell the millennials about them then///
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
By the way, I am not included in those few.
I started watching tennis in 1977, and considered to stop last Sunday.
xFedal
Legend
Considered to stop last Sunday? You don't appreciate great feat of mental toughness?
chimneysweep
Semi-Pro
Surprised anyone voted Rosewall. I love him, and think he is a true gentleman, elegant player, and one of the underrated greats (by casual fans and some of his own peers). Still of these 3 he is the only one who was never really a dominant player. His amazing longevity and many years as either a #1 or #2 does not make up for this. And his best surface by far is clay and he might not even be the 3rd best clay courter ever, way behind Nadal and Borg. Plus technically never winning Wimbledon (and yes I know he was barred like 12 years, but he lost many years he was a strong contender to win, including in finals).
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
What are you saying? Obviously Fed was not mentally tough enough.
RS
Bionic Poster
His 23 majors is unreal. Despite being banned for so long and he won 6 on clay as well. I think quite a few would have picked him.
chimneysweep
Semi-Pro
You cant add pro and amateur majors together. They were split fields, with the amateur majors being against the generally much weaker field.
mightyrick
Legend
Agree you can't add them together, but for tennis and golf in the early-to-mid 1900s, the amateur tour though weaker... had some incredibly strong players. Even though either amateur tour didn't have prize money, the players did have some "under the table" ways to get paid. Otherwise, the really good players would never have stayed amateur as long as they did. They simply couldn't get paid as much on the pro tour. Others wouldn't go pro because they'd get destroyed.
In tennis, you get into huge what-if debates such as between Roche and Laver. About how if they greased Laver a little more on the amateur tour, Roche would have only been a glint in the eye of tennis history. Or debates about what would have happened with Bobby Jones if he would have just taken the payday and went pro after winning a few amateur titles.
People can't disregard the pre-open-era amateur tour in tennis, though. Case in point, Gonzalez got bounced out of Wimbledon early as an amateur in 1949 and then won the Wembley Pro in 1950 going through Don Budge. There are several such examples for all of the ATGs.
The reality is that the very top of the amateur tennis (and golf) ranks already had players who were playing at "pro-level". So their accomplishments during that time cannot be simply dismissed.
chimneysweep
Semi-Pro
Fair enough. I still think as great as Rosewall was, he still wasnt dominant the way Gonzales and Djokovic were. And Gonzales is an easy comparision, obviously Djokovic is another era, and Gonzales was #1 a lot longer, had a winning record vs Rosewall until Gonzales was in his mid 30s, and all things considered was just clearly the better of the two.
mightyrick
Legend
I definitely don't disagree with your conclusion.
xFedal
Legend
Laver No.1 from 1964-1971 matches Gonzalez.
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
Laver won more amateur slams though, 6 vs. Rosewall's 5.
Pro Slams: Laver 8, Rosewall 15
Open Era: Laver 5, Rosewall 4 (but Rosewall was 34 by the time the Open Era started, and he also won two WCTs, arguably the most important tournament of its time, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Jack_Kramer_Tournament_of_Champions
Laver had the higher peak, yes, but Rosewall's longevity puts him in Tier 1 all the same.
xFedal
Legend
Tennis Champions Classic WAS THE BIGGEST TOURNAMENT THAT YEAR and Laver won over 13 straight excellent players like Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Ralston, Taylor?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Laver wasn't number one in 1964 or 1971 imo.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It wasn't. That's a myth. It was basically a qualifying tour with a four man tournament at the end. Laver did win all his matches undefeated which is impressive but most of those wins were just qualifying for the small tournament at the end. It also took place over several months e.g. a series of one night stands.
The Tennis Champions Classic is frequently miscategorised.
xFedal
Legend
1971 LAVER
Opposition Breakdown
Vs Top 5 - 81.3% (13-3)
Vs Top 10 - 77.4% (24-7)
Vs Top 20 - 75.4% (43-14)
Overall
80.2% (81-20)
Speaking of Laver in 1971, did any of you ever have a thread on Laver's great victory in the Tennis Champions Classic over 13 straight excellent players like Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Ralston, Taylor? It has to be the toughest field for anyone to play to win a tournament.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971 STAN SMITH
Opposition Breakdown
Vs No. 1 - 0.0% (0-1)
Vs Top 5 - 33.3% (2-4)
Vs Top 10 - 50.0% (7-7
Vs Top 20 - 61.5% (16-10)
Overall
80.0% (64-16)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971 John Newcombe
Opposition Breakdown
Vs No. 1 - 33.3% (1-2)
Vs Top 5 - 70.0% (7-3)
Vs Top 10 - 56.5% (13-10)
Vs Top 20 - 56.8% (21-16)
Overall
77.0% (57-17)
NatF
Bionic Poster
Laver was very good in 1971 but he didn't succeed in the biggest events.
xFedal
Legend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_World_Championship_Tennis_circuit#Standings
Laver is first in this standing.........this tennis circuit had way more prise money and laver biggest point earner and completly dominated prize money.
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
Laver had the best seasons '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70
Rosewall had the best seasons '60, '61, '62, '63, '71 (in '71 won 8 titles including 2 "masters"--U.S. Pro and Johannesburg-- and WCT finals)
Like I said, Laver had the best peak years but Rosewall had the best longevity. It's sort of like Connors vs. McEnroe
Haven't heard of it but I'm not opposed to adding it as a major. Still, the fact that Rosewall is just below Laver in Open Era despite being that old from 1968-1971 is impressive
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think Laver has a case for number one in 1971 (better than in 1964 at least) but its not a slam dunk. Its definitely arguable.
xFedal
Legend
In 1964, comparing with his rival Rosewall:
Laver won 11 tournaments to 10
Laver had a 12-3 head to head advantage
Laver won the 2 most prestigious events Wemblely And US pro (beating Rosewall at both events)
Rosewall won one prestige title the French pro
These stats show a clear edge to Laver
1971 Laver dominated the top 10 and top 5.....
@NatF
xFedal
Legend
Yes he was better than Laver 1972 onwards but 1964-1971 LAVER should get NO.1
NatF
Bionic Poster
Some of the tournaments Laver won were at the end of the season after Rosewall had topped the rankings table and gone home. They were essentially small events not counted towards the ranking that year. Rosewall clearly topped the rankings table that. IIRC a lot of Laver's wins were in one night stands as opposed to tournament play.
There was a play off match billed as for the ranking at the end of the year which Rosewall won as well.
If we judge things based on today's rankings system then it's easy to see why many give Laver those years at number one but it's no where near that simple.
xFedal
Legend
Rosewall came from the world tours which the winner of the h2h world tours would be seen as world champion..... Laver beat him 12-3......thats too much to overlook.....Rosweall crushed Laver in 1963..... but Reverse happened in 1964
NatF
Bionic Poster
One night stands are not the same as the World Tour though. The established ranking system in 1964 had Rosewall at number one. Now Laver did win the H2H and won the US Pro and Wembley, but the Pro Majors didn't occupy the same stratosphere on the pro tour as the slams do today - Rosewall clearly outperformed Laver in the other big events.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Someone has been reading old Limpinhitter posts.
xFedal
Legend
In early 1964, Rosewall finished third behind Hoad and Laver in a 4-man 24-match tour of New Zealand.
Lavers great achievement of 1971 was the champions classic. 13 rounds best of 5. First round opponent? Rosewall. Second round opponent? Newcombe and it goes on
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sure but Rosewall won the designated world championship tour of tournaments.
xFedal
Legend
READ POST 119....@NatF doesn't think so fondly of Tennis Champions classic 13 rounds of best of 5....
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
You make a good case. In this article for 1971, Laver and Rosewall aren't even mentioned for top 2. Laver did win the most prize money for that year though.
However, you use round robin as an argument for Laver being best in '71, but in '64 Rosewall was best in round robin for the year (he had a positive record against Gonzalez too, while Laver had negative). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_Pro I'm inclined to say now that '64 and '71 were tie between Laver and Rosewall for best player (similar to 2016 where Djokovic won more important tournaments but Murray had the best head to head record against all players and therefore got the year end number one)
I've often wondered how different tennis history would have turned out if the major tournaments were all Round Robin instead of single round elimination. Tennis is after all a game of matchups, and it doesn't seem fair that the luck of the draw plays so much a factor in determining who is the "best". Perhaps if the tour were only a round robin league of matches spaced out evenly throughout the year to allow for maximum rest, then players like Federer would be at the top at the end of it all (because they wouldn't have to play against Nadal-Djokovic back to back), instead of Djokovic who benefited from being a mental giant in pressure scenarios. But of course, a round robin "world league" would only work if the top 20 or so played, because of the sheer amount of matches. Perhaps it could work out if there were multiple leagues like in soccer, with premier league A, B, C. But then, low ranking players would get paid even less than they do now. It's easy to see why tennis was so low-paying for the pros back then.
Last edited:
Come on lol
Djoker by far !!!
Then pancho then ken
The modern game from Lendl makes the older game very substandard
In November 1964 Rosewall was officially declared No 1 for the year. That was admitted also by Laver. The individual stats don't work in this case.
Second, Rosewall has 11 won tournaments that year.
1971 is a bit more complex year. Laver won 3 big titles (TCC, Berkeley and Rome). Rosewall had 4 (AO, WCT Finals, Boston and Wash.). The most important event said by Laver and Rosewall was WCT finals. It's my opinion that both deserve the co-No 1 place.
By any criteria a retired player can't be in any ranking, right?
These stats (not a "methodology") are important and interesting but not a decisive factor for a ranking. Anyway, off the record the above figures are not fully correct because the source ultimate...com is not reliable. Here the figures for 1971:
Smith - 70-14 (83.3%)
Laver - 85-18 (82.5%)
Rosewall - 76-20 (79.2%)
Newcombe - 60-19 (75.9%)
Smith had excellent ratios overall but they are made mostly in small tournaments. In big tournaments the figures look different:
Laver - 84%
Rosewall - 83%
Smith - 77%
Newcombe - 73%
In a newspaper article at the time, they rated it higher than Laver’s grand slam. I disagree but it is indicative of the high status of the achievement of the time
Have a read of this short article
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...DMKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824
Last edited:
Hi ivan,
I am very interested in your opinion about who is the greatest between Rosewall and Djokovic and the reason that makes you choose one of the two.
Hi KG, I think you know my view very well. The greatness in tennis as well as in EVERY sport is measured through the achievements every player had made. All other stuff like the way of play, service, volleys, surface etc. are details.
Till now neither Nole nor Fed and Rafa have reached the careers and success of Laver and Rosewall.
I know you will talk about the media and the pulse of the society. Every era hails it's heroes and massively ignores the past more and more. Many fans don't know the careers of Connors, Borg, Lendl. What to say about the pre-OE??? That's sad.
Yes I know your point of view very well that the greatness in tennis as well as in EVERY sport is measured by the results achieved by each player.
In fact my question concerns this aspect (not the media, the critics, the fans, me or anything else).
You answered and I thank you.
xFedal
Legend
Fedole have 16 slams MINIMUM AND 250+ WEEKS AT NO.1, how did Rosewall achieve more than them? Look either slams or if no slams in your time then time at No.1!!! Rosewall behind in Slams but he had full opportunity like everyone else to achieve whatever it takes to be No.1 and Spend the longest at No.1 which he failed to do... Laver and Gonzalez have more time at No.1
Being No 1 doesn't bring you anything. Just prestige. What brings you the value are the titles, the competition and the results.
Bill Tilden has 630+ weeks at No 1. Is he the greatest?
xFedal
Legend
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Using the word "Maestro" in describing Djokovic is a laughable oxymoron. He's the antithesis of a maestro.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Tilden is tough to rate because he played in the transitional period of tennis from hobbyism to professional attitude, himself being the flagship of the change. For that reason, you shouldn't take his records almost at face value like we do with the 50s-60s pros, but neither largely discount them like Renshaw's 7 Wimbledons pre-WWI.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
