Who is the man with the most majors

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Is the purpose of this thread merely to parrot wikipedia? Who wrote and/or contributed to the wikipedia entries? Members of this board? I wrote a complete explanation supporting my premise that Laver won 36 majors, based on the OP's criteria as well as the criteria used to support the notion that Rosewall won 25 majors. If you don't agree, please explain why. Be specific. Which of the majors that I enumerated would you not count toward Laver's total.

PS: To be clear, this is what I recently wrote in the "who is your top 10 right now" thread: "The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."

My point is that if you are going to apply a standard to Rosewall, you have to apply that standard to everyone.

I was not there so I will check pages from source , don't we all do this in history. Last I am not making any claims, I am just asking as Rosewall pages from neutral sources ( Wikipedia) do list him winning 23 majors, while Laver count is low.
I know Wikipedia or many pages on net are not 100% correct but none of them giving laver over 25 majors.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Reading comprehension fail? If you're making a blanket majors leaders list and include amateur and pro majors in it then I think it's absolutely right to include the YEC, especially for players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl etc...However I personally wouldn't count up majors in this way for players across era's.

At best you could say Laver won more big titles than Rosewall - if this is strictly true I don't know. But I wouldn't say Laver has 36 major titles versus just 14 for Nadal for example. To me that is absolute BS.

Again if you know the standard is nonsense to begin with why entertain it...or maybe you do really think Laver won 36 majors Perhaps Laver fans are the worst on this board

If we include pre-open majors in the total, than Emerson must make the list of top players.
Not to say, if we include Davis Cup results, then Emmo is really impressive.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I was not there so I will check pages from source , don't we all do this in history. Last I am not making any claims, I am just asking as Rosewall pages from neutral sources ( Wikipedia) do list him winning 23 majors, while Laver count is low.
I know Wikipedia or many pages on net are not 100% correct but none of them giving laver over 25 majors.

If you don't know, Wikipedia pages can be created and edited by anyone. Many are disputed. Many are repeatedly changed by biased individuals. On this board, I am merely applying the same standard to everyone.

What I ask of you and everyone else, is to review the major titles others have attributed to Rosewall, and those that I have included in my total count for Laver (and the reasons I provide), and decide for yourself if you think that there are titles in that shouldn't qualify as majors for either.

 

[Dan Lobb]

If you don't know, Wikipedia pages can be created and edited by anyone. Many are disputed. Many are repeatedly changed by biased individuals. On this board, I am merely applying the same standard to everyone.

What I ask of you and everyone else, is to review the major titles others have attributed to Rosewall, and those that I have included in my total count for Laver (and the reasons I provide), and decide for yourself if you think that there are titles in that shouldn't qualify as majors for either.

I have attempted to post some additional comments on some Wikipedia pages, especially the on the so-called Cleveland "U.S. Pro", which was not even labelled the "U.S. Pro" from 1954 to 1964, but rather the "Pepsi-Cola World Pro", even the media of the time, such as Sports Illustrated used the term "Pepsi-Cola World Pro", and not "U.S. Pro" for the Cleveland tournament...but, some one refuses to accept the evidence there...sounds familiar.

 

[NatF]

I didn't say the standard was nonsense. Reading comprehension fail?

I'm saying that applying one standard to Rosewall and another to everyone else is nonsense. Again, what I have said, and continue to say, is this: "The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."

PS: I am also a Rosewall fan.

No failure from me. I see your thread about Laver's 36 major titles as an attempt to ridicule. So at worst it's a misunderstanding

Your point 1 seems to confirm that you think the standards being used to beef up Rosewall's major counts is at least sketchy if not nonsense. My issue is with counting pro. amateur etc...majors on par with say a modern Wimbledon, as such in my view Laver does not have 36 majors compared to say Sampras on 14 or Federer on 17. You seem to agree with this point.

It would be helpful if we all just said what we mean, if you think Laver won the equivalent of 36 majors and feel happy bringing that to the table against Federer's 17 - then fine, we can discuss it. However I feel you're being disingenuous and would much rather have a serious discussion with you.

I think most of can agree that the concept of just counting classic majors (amateur and Open) and Pro Majors can be very flawed. There are a lot of other important tournaments in tennis that have to be taken into account. Heck all tournaments have to taken into accounts. All matches should be taken into account like the old tours including the legit World Championship Tours during the old Amateur/Pro divide day.

For example Sampras, Djokovic and Federer winning so many Year End Championships have to be taken into account.

Agreed, my issue is with sincerity and counting tournaments on the merits of their prestige/real value and not just counting them loosely to inflate greatness. By the same logic that some of those '36' might be counted as majors I could do the same for numerous masters series events. Could end up with totals of 40 majors for the present Big 3

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I will go with NatF ,I don't think either of Rosewall and Laver have so high count but then its me only.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No failure from me. I see your thread about Laver's 36 major titles as an attempt to ridicule. So at worst it's a misunderstanding

Your point 1 seems to confirm that you think the standards being used to beef up Rosewall's major counts is at least sketchy if not nonsense. My issue is with counting pro. amateur etc...majors on par with say a modern Wimbledon, as such in my view Laver does not have 36 majors compared to say Sampras on 14 or Federer on 17. You seem to agree with this point.

It would be helpful if we all just said what we mean, if you think Laver won the equivalent of 36 majors and feel happy bringing that to the table against Federer's 17 - then fine, we can discuss it. However I feel you're being disingenuous and would much rather have a serious discussion with you.



Agreed, my issue is with sincerity and counting tournaments on the merits of their prestige/real value and not just counting them loosely to inflate greatness. By the same logic that some of those '36' might be counted as majors I could do the same for numerous masters series events. Could end up with totals of 40 majors for the present Big 3

Then you could include the equivalent of "Masters Series" for the fifties and sixties.....and on we go.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

No failure from me. I see your thread about Laver's 36 major titles as an attempt to ridicule. So at worst it's a misunderstanding

Your point 1 seems to confirm that you think the standards being used to beef up Rosewall's major counts is at least sketchy if not nonsense. My issue is with counting pro. amateur etc...majors on par with say a modern Wimbledon, as such in my view Laver does not have 36 majors compared to say Sampras on 14 or Federer on 17. You seem to agree with this point.

It would be helpful if we all just said what we mean, if you think Laver won the equivalent of 36 majors and feel happy bringing that to the table against Federer's 17 - then fine, we can discuss it. However I feel you're being disingenuous and would much rather have a serious discussion with you.



Agreed, my issue is with sincerity and counting tournaments on the merits of their prestige/real value and not just counting them loosely to inflate greatness. By the same logic that some of those '36' might be counted as majors I could do the same for numerous masters series events. Could end up with totals of 40 majors for the present Big 3

I think people are listing important tournament as major equivalent of today wtf, IW or Rome which are quite prestigious masters . This method of counting is wrong , even today there are many prestigious tournaments like Rome or IW are know as fifth slam but none of them count as major.

 

[NatF]

Then you could include the equivalent of "Masters Series" for the fifties and sixties.....and on we go.

Were there masters equivalents? We're talking about distinctly different tours. I'm saying masters level events are the equals of many of these so called majors.

I think people are listing important tournament as major equivalent of today wtf, IW or Rome which are are quite prestigious masters . This method of counting is wrong , even today there many prestigious tournaments like Rome or IW are know as fifth slam but none of them count as major.

Indeed, I wouldn't bother counting 'majors' outside of comparable era's at all. Since the 90's when all 4 have been prioritised I think it's ok but in earlier era's I would look more closely than just counting up how many of the 4 classic majors someone has.

 

[pc1]

No failure from me. I see your thread about Laver's 36 major titles as an attempt to ridicule. So at worst it's a misunderstanding

Your point 1 seems to confirm that you think the standards being used to beef up Rosewall's major counts is at least sketchy if not nonsense. My issue is with counting pro. amateur etc...majors on par with say a modern Wimbledon, as such in my view Laver does not have 36 majors compared to say Sampras on 14 or Federer on 17. You seem to agree with this point.

It would be helpful if we all just said what we mean, if you think Laver won the equivalent of 36 majors and feel happy bringing that to the table against Federer's 17 - then fine, we can discuss it. However I feel you're being disingenuous and would much rather have a serious discussion with you.



Agreed, my issue is with sincerity and counting tournaments on the merits of their prestige/real value and not just counting them loosely to inflate greatness. By the same logic that some of those '36' might be counted as majors I could do the same for numerous masters series events. Could end up with totals of 40 majors for the present Big 3

Stats are stats but stats have to be analyze within the content of the situation and history. People can toss out stupid stats and make things look better than they seen. I could say that John McEnroe hasn't lost an ATP match in 2016 and if some fan didn't know better they would think "Wow, that John McEnroe is amazing!" Of course John McEnroe also hasn't won a match on the ATP tour in 2016 either.

The Emerson majors record is one of the stats that while important have to be analyzed in context of the amateur/pro divide. So many experts assume that it was the same as the Open Era and don't realize Emerson played in a era without many of the top players competing in the classic majors. Sure it's a major but at the same time winning it isn't that impressive. It's like winning any major over the last few years without Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray and I'll thrown in Stan for good measure. That player probably would not have won the major if those five competed in that major.

 

[NatF]

Stats are stats but stats have to be analyze within the content of the situation and history. People can toss out stupid stats and make things look better than they seen. I could say that John McEnroe hasn't lost an ATP match in 2016 and if some fan didn't know better they would think "Wow, that John McEnroe is amazing!" Of course John McEnroe also hasn't won a match on the ATP tour in 2016 either.

The Emerson majors record is one of the stats that while important have to be analyzed in context of the amateur/pro divide. So many experts assume that it was the same as the Open Era and don't realize Emerson played in a era without many of the top players competing in the classic majors. Sure it's a major but at the same time winning it isn't that impressive. It's like winning any major over the last few years without Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray and I'll thrown in Stan for good measure. That player probably would not have won the major if those five competed in that major.

Well this is my issue with these major counts. Split tours and a very different era where the value of certain tournaments was in flux. Counting majors up in that sort of era and then comparing it to now which has an established system with all the top guys aiming for the same prizes is silly IMO. Major counts is fine for players circa 1990 on wards but before that I think there needs to be a little more thought.

 

[Limpinhitter]

. . . Your point 1 seems to confirm that you think the standards being used to beef up Rosewall's major counts is at least sketchy if not nonsense. My issue is with counting pro. amateur etc...majors on par with say a modern Wimbledon, as such in my view Laver does not have 36 majors compared to say Sampras on 14 or Federer on 17. You seem to agree with this point. . . .

BTW, Sampras' ratio of major titles to total titles is 21.9% (14/64). Nadal's is currently at 20.3% (14/69). Federer's is currently at 19.3% (17/88). At 36 majors, Laver's ratio is 18% (36/200). Not far fetched at all.

 

[NatF]

BTW, Sampras' ratio of major titles to total titles is 21.9% (14/64). Nadal's is currently at 20.3% (14/69). Federer's is currently at 19.3% (17/88). At 36 majors, Laver's ratio is 18% (36/200). Not far fetched at all.

Considering the relative value of those 200 tournaments maybe Laver has the equivalent of 18 majors...

 

[KG1965]

The pre-open majors were not worth the current slam tournaments.

To compare the results should be divided into periods .
1990-2015 fairly uniform although Australian Open Sampras-era was worth less .
1968-1989 is necessary to make other reasoning why Aus was worth little and the French until 1978 was not very strong .
pre 1967 must eliminate amateur tournaments because there were not the best .

 

[pc1]

Well this is my issue with these major counts. Split tours and a very different era where the value of certain tournaments was in flux. Counting majors up in that sort of era and then comparing it to now which has an established system with all the top guys aiming for the same prizes is silly IMO. Major counts is fine for players circa 1990 on wards but before that I think there needs to be a little more thought.

Agreed.

Considering the relative value of those 200 tournaments maybe Laver has the equivalent of 18 majors...

Hard to say. What is the equivalent of a major anyway?

Again, perhaps we should just look at the whole of the career instead of just looking at some big tournaments. Bottom line with all super greats is that at their best they were capable of defeating the top players regularly in big best of five matches.

Nowadays with all the top players competing in majors it is always impressive to win an Open Major. It's more rounds, every top player competes and it's best of five. This does make it tougher than many of the Pro Majors.

However there were lot of unique tournaments in Laver's day like the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic won by Laver, the Howard Hughes in 1969 and 1970 won by Gonzalez, the Open US Pro in 1968 was extremely strong as was the 1968 Open French Pro, the old Prestigious British Covered Court. Perhaps they weren't the level of majors but perhaps some were the level of majors or even higher if you just look at the field. I would say the tournaments I just mentioned were at least as high as the Masteers 1000 tournaments of today.

However on the other end, some pro majors weren't that strong. I'm not saying this to be mean to any player but in the early 1960s for example Gonzalez wasn't around for a while and Laver was fairly new who was there to beat the top player. The depth of the field simply not nearly as strong as the early to later 1950s with Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert around. Even the first rounds could have an all time great at or near their prime in those days. So it's very possible the average level of competition could have been higher than the early days of Open Tennis. Essentially the Old Pro Tour would be what the Tour would be now if you took Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori and Raonic among others and had them play each other in smaller tournaments. I'm fairly certain that none of these players would have the won-lost records that they have now but perhaps all of them may even improve more because there are no easy marks to beat. Perhaps players as tremendous as Nishikori and Raonic could have awful records due to the opposition they face all the time.

The ATP tour would be watered down without these tremendous players and would be the equivalent of the old amateurs in the pre-open days.

 

[BobbyOne]

On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/did-laver-win-36-majors.562156/

Here is my breakdown as set forth in my OP:

Of course the answer depends on what counts as a major. It seems that some contend that Rosewall won 25 majors. From the link below, it appears that Rosewall won a total of 15 "pro majors," and it is well settled that he won 4 amateur and 4 open majors for a total of 23. I don't know where the other 2 come from.

In Laver's case, it is well settled that he won 6 amateur majors and 5 open majors for a total of 11 traditional majors. In addition, Laver won the following pro titles:

Wembley - 6
U.S. Pro - 5
French Pro - 3
Australian Pro - 4
Wimbledon Pro - 1
MSG Pro - 1
Masters Pro - 1
Forrest Hills Pro - 1
Tennis Champions Classic - 2
Dunlop International at Sydney - 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_tennis_tournaments_before_the_Open_Era

These total 25. Add to that his 11 amateur and open majors, Laver has a total of 36 majors.

Of the "pro majors," I have included all of Laver's titles through his last in 1969. It seems to me that if a pro major counted as a major in the pre open era, and the quality of the draw included a similar level of competition, I see no reason to withdraw the status of pro major just because pros were also eligible to play in the traditional majors. Regarding the Australian Pro, Wimbledon Pro, MSG Pro, Masters Pro, Forrest Hills Pro, the same standard applies. I don't have easy access to the draws of these events. Perhaps a board member can find them.

It also seems that the Tennis Champions Classics that Laver won were as prestigious as any major, amateur, pro or open, given the level of the competition and the prize money involved in those events. Further, it seems that it is well settled, at least among a majority of the members of this board, that the Dunlop International at Sydney was the defacto Australian National Championship of 1970.

Limpin, We have already explained to you that Rosewall won two very big WCT Finals.

We also have explained to you that you can't count the old pro majors after 1967 because they had lost much of their importance because the pros could play the open ara majors!

You also omit Rosewall's MSG 1966 win and his Masters Pro 1964 win.

If you count (erroneously) the old pro majors in open era you "forgot" Rosewall's big 1968 Wembley win.

Especially for your knowledge: There were NO Australian Pro championships in 1960's. But if you yet count them you "forgot" 3 Rosewall titles.

It's a shame that you presented us such a messy list months ago. But it's an even much bigger shame and a scandal that you present us now the same wrong list even though krosero and I have proved the list totally WRONG!!!

 

[BobbyOne]

@Limpinhitter , are you sure with your count? Wikipedia is listing Rosewall as 23 majors + 2wct final ( which was a major in those years) , while they are listing Laver 19 .
According to your count 36 which deviate lot from the page.
I checked another page , none of them are listing 36 , they are giving 19 or 20 .
How are you counting ? Is us pro from 1968 was a major?.

Navdeep, US Pro 1968 and following years was not a major. Only in Limpinhitter's imagination.

 

[BobbyOne]

Laver did not win 36 majors. Lets not be ridiculous.

NatF, Thanks for being reasonable. I always appreciated that you, even though you contradict me several times and even I cannot follow you at some points (f.i. regarding tied No.1 places), still try to be objective both regarding your favourite players like Laver and toward other players like Rosewall. Limpinhitter could learn from you much on this field.

I also realized that Laver cannot have won three French Pros even if we count open era events because, as far as I know, Laver won in 1967 and 1968. I doubt that afterwards there was a French pro at all.

 

[BobbyOne]

What's ridiculous about it? Be specific. My criteria is consistent with that of the instant OP's criteria and the vociferous Rosewall fanboys. If pre-open, non-traditional majors are in play, then tell me which of the major titles I enumerated for Laver's total are ridiculous.

Limpin, I would understand if a poster makes one or two errors (as we all seem to do from time to time), but you make numerous errors. But your main mistake is to PERSIST IN ALL OF YOUR MISTAKES for months and till today even though two serious posters have already shown you where you have erred and specified all wrong numbers. Get real!!

 

[BobbyOne]

Is the purpose of this thread merely to parrot wikipedia? Who wrote and/or contributed to the wikipedia entries? Members of this board? I wrote a complete explanation supporting my premise that Laver won 36 majors, based on the OP's criteria as well as the criteria used to support the notion that Rosewall won 25 majors. If you don't agree, please explain why. Be specific. Which of the majors that I enumerated would you not count toward Laver's total.

PS: To be clear, this is what I recently wrote in the "who is your top 10 right now" thread: "The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."

My point is that if you are going to apply a standard to Rosewall, you have to apply that standard to everyone.

Limpin, If you would be a serious researcher and an honest man (or woman) you would omit at least nine from your 36 Laver titles because they are simply WRONG! You also forgot to add some majors to Rosewall's 25 majors list (using your own criteria)! Please change your list! Not for me as I can "live" with wrong data but for your own reputation as a (maybe) serious poster. Your lies are also not good for your reputation (the "40" Rosewall open era majors of BobbyOne) and the ignoring of krosero's quoting about the 1964 "Pro World Championships" (newspaper August, 25, 1964)...

 

[BobbyOne]

Reading comprehension fail? If you're making a blanket majors leaders list and include amateur and pro majors in it then I think it's absolutely right to include the YEC, especially for players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl etc...However I personally wouldn't count up majors in this way for players across era's.

At best you could say Laver won more big titles than Rosewall - if this is strictly true I don't know. But I wouldn't say Laver has 36 major titles versus just 14 for Nadal for example. To me that is absolute BS.

Again if you know the standard is nonsense to begin with why entertain it...or maybe you do really think Laver won 36 majors Perhaps Laver fans are the worst on this board

NatF, I'm sure Laver fans are not the worst on this board but Rosewall haters are. Limpinhitter seems to be the No.1 of the latter as he ranks Rosewall only at No.18 or so. Even my "friend", Phoenix, "the man who loves obituaries", includes Muscles among his top ten...

 

[BobbyOne]

I didn't say the standard was nonsense. Reading comprehension fail?

I'm saying that applying one standard to Rosewall and another to everyone else is nonsense. Again, what I have said, and continue to say, is this: "The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."

PS: I am also a Rosewall fan.

Limpinhitter, Is the 36 majors your research (as it seems till today) or you estimation (or your fantasy)?

I must concede you are among the best posters regarding "best jester"! Your joke about you a Rosewall fan is really unique! Guess some readers have been forced to laugh loudly when reading it.

Limpin, Can you do me a little favour? As you are a true Rosewall fan, could you please put the Little Master from place 18 to 17 in your all-time list? You would make me so happy and grateful! I would praise you then as the all-time greatest Rosewall fan...

 

[BobbyOne]

Very true, especially when comparing pre-open and open careers. As I said in my "Did Laver win 36 Majors," thread: "Of course the answer depends on what counts as a major."

Limpin, You will wonder but here I can fully agree!

 

[BobbyOne]

I was not there so I will check pages from source , don't we all do this in history. Last I am not making any claims, I am just asking as Rosewall pages from neutral sources ( Wikipedia) do list him winning 23 majors, while Laver count is low.
I know Wikipedia or many pages on net are not 100% correct but none of them giving laver over 25 majors.

Navdeep, Even though Wikipedia sometimes makes errors, they don't make huge errors such as reducing Limpinhitter's 36 Laver majors to just about 20. The main problem is that Limpin just has misread some numbers (f.i. regrading Austrian Pro where he included 4 Laver titles but ignored the 3 Rosewall titles), that he believed Wiki that there were Australian Pros at all in the 1960's and that he misjudged the old pro majors as still being majors in open era even though the big titles for the pros in open era were (mostly) the Grand Slam tournaments plus a few other events just like Dunlop 1970, TCC 1971 and the WCT finals, but NOT anymore French Pro, US Pro and Wembley (even they were still important titles just like L.A. PSW title).

 

[BobbyOne]

If you don't know, Wikipedia pages can be created and edited by anyone. Many are disputed. Many are repeatedly changed by biased individuals. On this board, I am merely applying the same standard to everyone.

What I ask of you and everyone else, is to review the major titles others have attributed to Rosewall, and those that I have included in my total count for Laver (and the reasons I provide), and decide for yourself if you think that there are titles in that shouldn't qualify as majors for either.

Limpin, You are again wrong: You DON'T apply the same standards to everyone: You give Laver 4 Australian Pros and Rosewall zero Australian Pros even though you have read in your source that Rosewall won 3 of them!! Are you a child or an adult who can seriously read and seriously count and seriously write? If you hate me as a Rosewall fanboy, okay, just forget me, but why do you blame one of the most serious posters at all here, krosero, (not a Rosewall fanboy) in not considering his corrections to your odd 36 majors list? I cannot understand such stubborness. Your readers will consider you as unreliable (or have already done so...).

 

[Dan Lobb]

Stats are stats but stats have to be analyze within the content of the situation and history. People can toss out stupid stats and make things look better than they seen. I could say that John McEnroe hasn't lost an ATP match in 2016 and if some fan didn't know better they would think "Wow, that John McEnroe is amazing!" Of course John McEnroe also hasn't won a match on the ATP tour in 2016 either.

The Emerson majors record is one of the stats that while important have to be analyzed in context of the amateur/pro divide. So many experts assume that it was the same as the Open Era and don't realize Emerson played in a era without many of the top players competing in the classic majors. Sure it's a major but at the same time winning it isn't that impressive. It's like winning any major over the last few years without Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray and I'll thrown in Stan for good measure. That player probably would not have won the major if those five competed in that major.

Agreed, but we have to be consistent and exclude amateur slams from other players.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Limpinhitter, Is the 36 majors your research (as it seems till today) or you estimation (or your fantasy)?

I must concede you are among the best posters regarding "best jester"! Your joke about you a Rosewall fan is really unique! Guess some readers have been forced to laugh loudly when reading it.

Limpin, Can you do me a little favour? As you are a true Rosewall fan, could you please put the Little Master from place 18 to 17 in your all-time list? You would make me so happy and grateful! I would praise you then as the all-time greatest Rosewall fan...

Bobby, I really think that we must re-evaluate those amateur slams which Rosewall won...are they really slams?

 

[Dan Lobb]

The pre-open majors were not worth the current slam tournaments.

To compare the results should be divided into periods .
1990-2015 fairly uniform although Australian Open Sampras-era was worth less .
1968-1989 is necessary to make other reasoning why Aus was worth little and the French until 1978 was not very strong .
pre 1967 must eliminate amateur tournaments because there were not the best .

Then we have to be consistent and eliminate ALL amateur majors, not just those which Emerson won...that would be silly.

 

[NatF]

Hard to say. What is the equivalent of a major anyway?

Again, perhaps we should just look at the whole of the career instead of just looking at some big tournaments. Bottom line with all super greats is that at their best they were capable of defeating the top players regularly in big best of five matches.

Nowadays with all the top players competing in majors it is always impressive to win an Open Major. It's more rounds, every top player competes and it's best of five. This does make it tougher than many of the Pro Majors.

However there were lot of unique tournaments in Laver's day like the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic won by Laver, the Howard Hughes in 1969 and 1970 won by Gonzalez, the Open US Pro in 1968 was extremely strong as was the 1968 Open French Pro, the old Prestigious British Covered Court. Perhaps they weren't the level of majors but perhaps some were the level of majors or even higher if you just look at the field. I would say the tournaments I just mentioned were at least as high as the Masteers 1000 tournaments of today.

However on the other end, some pro majors weren't that strong. I'm not saying this to be mean to any player but in the early 1960s for example Gonzalez wasn't around for a while and Laver was fairly new who was there to beat the top player. The depth of the field simply not nearly as strong as the early to later 1950s with Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert around. Even the first rounds could have an all time great at or near their prime in those days. So it's very possible the average level of competition could have been higher than the early days of Open Tennis. Essentially the Old Pro Tour would be what the Tour would be now if you took Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori and Raonic among others and had them play each other in smaller tournaments. I'm fairly certain that none of these players would have the won-lost records that they have now but perhaps all of them may even improve more because there are no easy marks to beat. Perhaps players as tremendous as Nishikori and Raonic could have awful records due to the opposition they face all the time.

The ATP tour would be watered down without these tremendous players and would be the equivalent of the old amateurs in the pre-open days.

Majors won is just one criteria, perhaps it is the most or one of the most important ones but it is still just one facet of a career. Obviously defining what a major is across various era's is very difficult, do we go by format and draw? Or do we consider only the top 4 tournaments of any year majors for simplicity and to be fair?

There were lots of various big events in the early Open Era this is true. Weighting them is of course difficult. Sometimes I think it would be useful to have tiers for majors to differentiate without assigning exact values. But there's so much subjectivity.

My issue with the pro majors is that the field lacked depth, in a pro type field would there have been a Del Potro at the USO in 2009? A Cilic at the USO in 2014? Would Djokovic have encountered a Querrey at Wimbledon this year? Would Wawrinka have been in the pro's in 2014 to stop Djokovic at the AO?

I prefer not to compare major title hauls from earlier era's than 1990 to now personally.

NatF, Thanks for being reasonable. I always appreciated that you, even though you contradict me several times and even I cannot follow you at some points (f.i. regarding tied No.1 places), still try to be objective both regarding your favourite players like Laver and toward other players like Rosewall. Limpinhitter could learn from you much on this field.

I also realized that Laver cannot have won three French Pros even if we count open era events because, as far as I know, Laver won in 1967 and 1968. I doubt that afterwards there was a French pro at all.

Thanks for your friendly words Bobby and the information about the French Pro. The French Pro in 1968 had a really good draw and Mccauley includes 1968 in his history of professional tennis. So I'm on the fence with regards to including it as a 'major'. Again as I said to pc1 it depends on whether draw/format determines what is a major or if it's due to status relative to other events.

 

[pc1]

Majors won is just one criteria, perhaps it is the most or one of the most important ones but it is still just one facet of a career. Obviously defining what a major is across various era's is very difficult, do we go by format and draw? Or do we consider only the top 4 tournaments of any year majors for simplicity and to be fair?

There were lots of various big events in the early Open Era this is true. Weighting them is of course difficult. Sometimes I think it would be useful to have tiers for majors to differentiate without assigning exact values. But there's so much subjectivity.

My issue with the pro majors is that the field lacked depth, in a pro type field would there have been a Del Potro at the USO in 2009? A Cilic at the USO in 2014? Would Djokovic have encountered a Querrey at Wimbledon this year? Would Wawrinka have been in the pro's in 2014 to stop Djokovic at the AO?

I prefer not to compare major title hauls from earlier era's than 1990 to now personally.

Needless to say, you're preaching to the choir. That is the biggest weakness of the Pro Majors, ie the lack of depth and rounds also. The biggest edge the Old Pro Tour has is the level of competition relatively is stronger compared to the overall field.

The 1990s have set conditions so you can compare apples to apples.

 

[NatF]

Needless to say, you're preaching to the choir. That is the biggest weakness of the Pro Majors, ie the lack of depth and rounds also. The biggest edge the Old Pro Tour has is the level of competition relatively is stronger compared to the overall field.

The 1990s have set conditions so you can compare apples to apples.

Agreed, though I will say that when comparing the 90's to now there are certain things to be aware of - masters becoming mandatory, more best of 5 finals on the tour level etc...But certainly in terms of major numbers it's much more comparable.

 

[pc1]

Agreed, though I will say that when comparing the 90's to now there are certain things to be aware of - masters becoming mandatory, more best of 5 finals on the tour level etc...But certainly in terms of major numbers it's much more comparable.

I always enjoyed it more where the Masters events are best of five in the finals. It takes on a greater feeling of importance. A couple of the best Masters finals were the 2005 final in Miami with Federer rallying from two sets down to Rafael Nadal to win. Nadal was the 29th seed! Sometimes I think when Nadal was born he was automatically top five in the ATP. It's been so long that Nadal has been a part of the elite in tennis. The other one was the Rome Masters with the same two the next year with Nadal winning in five. You can't have that type of drama in best of three events.

 

[NatF]

I always enjoyed it more where the Masters events are best of five in the finals. It takes on a greater feeling of importance. A couple of the best Masters finals were the 2005 final in Miami with Federer rallying from two sets down to Rafael Nadal to win. Nadal was the 29th seed! Sometimes I think when Nadal was born he was automatically top five in the ATP. It's been so long that Nadal has been a part of the elite in tennis. The other one was the Rome Masters with the same two the next year with Nadal winning in five. You can't have that type of drama in best of three events.

Nadal was on the way up during that Miami final, he won Montreal later in the year beating Agassi in the final and then Madrid Indoors (this time coming back from 2 sets down IIRC) over Ljubicic - Ljubicic had been on fire indoors.

I value those back to back Indian Wells and Miami titles of Federer quite highly in 2005-2006, especially in 2005. They were 6 rounds each with 5 set finals. In Miami Federer beat Ancic, Henman, Agassi and Nadal all in a row.

I really think 2005 was one of the most entertaining years of tennis in the last 15 years, some really great matches spread across the slams, masters, Davis Cup and the YEC.

 

[BobbyOne]

Majors won is just one criteria, perhaps it is the most or one of the most important ones but it is still just one facet of a career. Obviously defining what a major is across various era's is very difficult, do we go by format and draw? Or do we consider only the top 4 tournaments of any year majors for simplicity and to be fair?

There were lots of various big events in the early Open Era this is true. Weighting them is of course difficult. Sometimes I think it would be useful to have tiers for majors to differentiate without assigning exact values. But there's so much subjectivity.

My issue with the pro majors is that the field lacked depth, in a pro type field would there have been a Del Potro at the USO in 2009? A Cilic at the USO in 2014? Would Djokovic have encountered a Querrey at Wimbledon this year? Would Wawrinka have been in the pro's in 2014 to stop Djokovic at the AO?

I prefer not to compare major title hauls from earlier era's than 1990 to now personally.



Thanks for your friendly words Bobby and the information about the French Pro. The French Pro in 1968 had a really good draw and Mccauley includes 1968 in his history of professional tennis. So I'm on the fence with regards to including it as a 'major'. Again as I said to pc1 it depends on whether draw/format determines what is a major or if it's due to status relative to other events.

NatF, If we include the 1968 French Pro we also must include the 1968 Wembley event ("Tournament of Champions") forgotten by Limpinhitter...

 

[NatF]

NatF, If we include the 1968 French Pro we also must include the 1968 Wembley event ("Tournamnet of Champions") forgotten by Limpinhitter...

I assume Rosewall won this event? Could you give me any info about the draw e.g. who the winner went through? How many rounds etc...

And yes that would be fair - the question is if we should include them at all.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Needless to say, you're preaching to the choir. That is the biggest weakness of the Pro Majors, ie the lack of depth and rounds also. The biggest edge the Old Pro Tour has is the level of competition relatively is stronger compared to the overall field.

The 1990s have set conditions so you can compare apples to apples.

That's what KG says.

 

[BobbyOne]

I assume Rosewall won this event? Could you give me any info about the draw e.g. who the winner went through? How many rounds etc...

And yes that would be fair - the question is if we should include them at all.

NatF, The "4 biggest tournaments" "rule" could be a good solution.

Yes, Rosewall won the big Wembley event (as Laver won the tough French Pro and the tough US Pro). It had a slightly tougher field than US Pro and as tough a field as French Pro had: 16 man field, the 16 best pros assembled, all six great NTL players (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Gonzalez, Gimeno), the 8 WCT "Handsome Eight" (Newcombe, Roche, Drysdale, Taylor, Ralston, Buchholz, Pilic, Barthes) plus rookie pros, Riessen and Ray Moore who had beaten Gimeno both at Wimbledon and Forest Hills.

Laver lost to Emerson in the first round. Rosewall beat Drysdale (who had beaten Laver in the US Open), Pilic and Gimeno in two sets and Newcombe in four sets. They say the final was a great match.

The tournament was organized and presented by Jack Kramer ("T.o.C").

 

[pc1]

NatF, The "4 biggest tournaments" "rule" could be a good solution.

Yes, Rosewall won the big Wembley event (as Laver won the tough French Pro and the tough US Pro). It had a slightly tougher field than US Pro and as tough a field as French Pro had: 16 man field, the 16 best pros assembled, all six great NTL players (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Gonzalez, Gimeno), the 8 WCT "Handsome Eight" (Newcombe, Roche, Drysdale, Taylor, Ralston, Buchholz, Pilic, Barthes) plus rookie pros, Riessen and Ray Moore who had beaten Gimeno both at Wimbledon and Forest Hills.

Laver lost to Emerson in the first round. Rosewall beat Drysdale (who had beaten Laver in the US Open), Pilic and Gimeno in two sets and Newcombe in four sets. They say the final was a great match.

The tournament was organized and presented by Jack Kramer ("T.o.C").

I'm not sure if the four biggest tournaments would be a good solutions. Some years may have less than four major-like tournaments an some years may have more. For example 1971 had Wimbledon, the US Open, the Australian Open, the WCT championship and the Tennis Champions Classic. That's five tournaments of immense importance with arguably the strongest tournament in history in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. You have to go I believe on a year by year basis. Why be so rigid and restrict it to four tournaments a year? It could be less or more.

I assume Rosewall won this event? Could you give me any info about the draw e.g. who the winner went through? How many rounds etc...

And yes that would be fair - the question is if we should include them at all.

Yes Rosewall won. I'm sure you're extremely surprised at that result NatF since Bobby discussed the event. LOL. Rosewall defeated John Newcombe in four sets 6-4 4-6 7-5 6-4 in the final. It was a four round event. Laver was beaten in the first round by that super untalented player (joking of course) Roy Emerson who by the way may have changed some results on the Old Pro Tour if he was a pro eariler. Others in the tournament were Stolle, Buchholz (that famous writer of articles on 1964), Newcombe, Riessen, Ralston, Taylor, Gimeno, Barthes, Roche, Moore, Pilic, Gonzalez, Drysdale. It was a four round tournament. It was best of three until the final.

Interestingly enough Newcombe was in the final of all three Pro Majors. Newk lost to Laver in two of them and Rosewall in the other.

 

[KG1965]

Then we have to be consistent and eliminate ALL amateur majors, not just those which Emerson won...that would be silly.

I delete all amateurs slam fact, not only those of the poor Roy .

 

[Dan Lobb]

NatF, The "4 biggest tournaments" "rule" could be a good solution.

Yes, Rosewall won the big Wembley event (as Laver won the tough French Pro and the tough US Pro). It had a slightly tougher field than US Pro and as tough a field as French Pro had: 16 man field, the 16 best pros assembled, all six great NTL players (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Gonzalez, Gimeno), the 8 WCT "Handsome Eight" (Newcombe, Roche, Drysdale, Taylor, Ralston, Buchholz, Pilic, Barthes) plus rookie pros, Riessen and Ray Moore who had beaten Gimeno both at Wimbledon and Forest Hills.

Laver lost to Emerson in the first round. Rosewall beat Drysdale (who had beaten Laver in the US Open), Pilic and Gimeno in two sets and Newcombe in four sets. They say the final was a great match.

The tournament was organized and presented by Jack Kramer ("T.o.C").

How could Laver lose to an old Emerson?

 

[KG1965]

Measured only four biggest tournaments it is simple but the problem is that for many years were not the biggest 4 !

In addition the top players did not know to be measured on the 4 ... so Borg (and others) did not go to Melbourne, Connors did not go to Paris , Laver jumped 2 slam in some years, many top players did not go to the Masters , Nastase and Connors were not participating in the WCT circuit .. ....

Now Djoker and Co. know that they are measured on 4 slam ( and on 9 Master1000 ) but no time back .

 

[pc1]

NatF, The "4 biggest tournaments" "rule" could be a good solution.

Yes, Rosewall won the big Wembley event (as Laver won the tough French Pro and the tough US Pro). It had a slightly tougher field than US Pro and as tough a field as French Pro had: 16 man field, the 16 best pros assembled, all six great NTL players (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Gonzalez, Gimeno), the 8 WCT "Handsome Eight" (Newcombe, Roche, Drysdale, Taylor, Ralston, Buchholz, Pilic, Barthes) plus rookie pros, Riessen and Ray Moore who had beaten Gimeno both at Wimbledon and Forest Hills.

Laver lost to Emerson in the first round. Rosewall beat Drysdale (who had beaten Laver in the US Open), Pilic and Gimeno in two sets and Newcombe in four sets. They say the final was a great match.

The tournament was organized and presented by Jack Kramer ("T.o.C").

Let's compare the fields
1968 Wembley had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ralston, Buchholz, Taylor, Barthes, Moore, Pilic, Gonzalez, Drysdale, Riessen, Gimeno.
1968 French Pro----Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ralston, Buchholz, Taylor, Barthes, . Pilic, Gonzalez, Drysdale, , Gimeno.
Instead of Moore and Riessen the French Pro had Anderson, Olmedo, Molinari, Haillet, Ayala, Segura, Davies.

Wembley was best of five only in the final. The French Pro was best of five in all rounds. The French Pro was clearly tougher than Wembley in that it had a bigger and perhaps better field and all best of five instead of just the final.

 

[KG1965]

I think it is necessary , set another method :
1 )divided into Tier tournaments played in recent years , but it is already very difficult because I think W , US , RG are in Tier 1 and Melbourne not ( in Tier 2 , for a very poor history ) , then in Tier 3 of the Finals , IW , Miami , Rome , MCarlo , Canada and Cincy .
The other 3 Master do not fall .
Total tournaments between Tier 1 and 3 to consider: 11
2 ) try to find a middle year (1980 ?) such a situation : 3 "Tier 1" tournament , a tournament in "Tier 2" and 8 "Tier 3".
3 ) then as with a "rubber band" try to attempts to consider the various years in the middle and those before .

 

[hoodjem]

Yes Rosewall won. I'm sure you're extremely surprised at that result NatF since Bobby discussed the event. LOL. Rosewall defeated John Newcombe in four sets 6-4 4-6 7-5 6-4 in the final. It was a four round event. Laver was beaten in the first round by that super untalented player (joking of course) Roy Emerson who by the way may have changed some results on the Old Pro Tour if he was a pro eariler. Others in the tournament were Stolle, Buchholz (that famous writer of articles on 1964), Newcombe, Riessen, Ralston, Taylor, Gimeno, Barthes, Roche, Moore, Pilic, Gonzalez, Drysdale. It was a four round tournament. It was best of three until the final.

This is the 1968 Wembley Pro final score.

(I had thought the 1968 French Pro, in which Laver beat Newk: 6-2, 6-2, 6-3, was being discussed.)

 

[70sHollywood]

Let's compare the fields
1968 Wembley had Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ralston, Buchholz, Taylor, Barthes, Moore, Pilic, Gonzalez, Drysdale, Riessen, Gimeno.
1968 French Pro----Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ralston, Buchholz, Taylor, Barthes, . Pilic, Gonzalez, Drysdale, , Gimeno.
Instead of Moore and Riessen the French Pro had Anderson, Olmedo, Molinari, Haillet, Ayala, Segura, Davies.

Wembley was best of five only in the final. The French Pro was best of five in all rounds. The French Pro was clearly tougher in that it had a bigger and perhaps better field and all best of five instead of just the final.

Not to mention it was played at Roland Garros.

I'm not sure if the four biggest tournaments would be a good solutions. Some years may have less than four major-like tournaments an some years may have more. For example 1971 had Wimbledon, the US Open, the Australian Open, the WCT championship and the Tennis Champions Classic. That's five tournaments of immense importance with arguably the strongest tournament in history in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. You have to go I believe on a year by year basis. Why be so rigid and restrict it to four tournaments a year? It could be less or more.

I'll say what I said before, that I see little justification in counting the AO but not RG, and perhaps also the WCT finals but not the GP Masters.

Regarding the TCC it should be made clear that it was not a normal tournament, taking place over a couple of weeks. It took place over a couple of months and Laver lost in regular tournaments inbetween matches. He did not literally win 13 matches in a row. He beat Newcombe in the RR stage of the TCC but then lost to Newk in the final of the US Pro Indoor a few weeks later.

 

[Limpinhitter]

How could Laver lose to an old Emerson?

He couldn't, unless Emmo was a truly great player.

 

[pc1]

Not to mention it was played at Roland Garros.



I'll say what I said before, that I see little justification in counting the AO but not RG, and perhaps also the WCT finals but not the GP Masters.

Regarding the TCC it should be made clear that it was not a normal tournament, taking place over a couple of weeks. It took place over a couple of months and Laver lost in regular tournaments inbetween matches. He did not literally win 13 matches in a row. He beat Newcombe in the RR stage of the TCC but then lost to Newk in the final of the US Pro Indoor a few weeks later.

Yes but it was a huge tournament with a great field and a big money one at that.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Man with the most major in my eyes is Federer with 17 slam + 6 tour finals..
I hope Djokovic becomes second best atleast in open era. ( I don't think he will cross Fed).

 

[pc1]

Man with the most major in my eyes is Federer with 17 slam + 6 tour finals..
I hope Djokovic becomes second best atleast in open era. ( I don't think he will cross Fed).

It's not just in your eyes but he really is the owner of the most classic majors. Of that there is no doubt.

The dispute always is whether others would have had higher totals if the Pros weren't banned from the majors until the French Open 1968.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

It's not just in your eyes but he really is the owner of the most classic majors. Of that there is no doubt.

The dispute always is whether others would have had higher totals if the Pros weren't banned from the majors until the French Open 1968.

Its not dispute Laver was very good enough to cross him, even Rosewall won 6 major(2 wct titles) after 32 so he also could have reached around Fed.
The biggest point were that Laver and Rosewall style allowed them to play in late 30s without dropping too much level. Even with one slam per year would have done the trick