Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by dima, Feb 28, 2007.
Dan, you try to always have the last word even if it is a strange one...
pc1, Yes, Buchholz beat Newcombe in the 1969 Atlanta final in five sets.
kiki, after a longer while and having studied tennis history myself, I must contradicct you: Buchholz was not used to fill the pro field. No.4 and No.5 in several years...
Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson were not stronger than Buchholz.
Ayala was a joke in comparison to Buchholz in the pro ranks. See Joe's book!
Olmedo won W and FH, so did Coop and Anderson won FH...Butchols??? a mere qf.No better than Riessen or Tim Gullikson.
Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?
If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.
He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?
Like I have written before, Laver won Pro Majors on wood. Federer hasn't won a major on wood. Do we penalized Federer for not winning on wood? Of course not. He didn't have the opportunity and he probably would have. Same with Laver.
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.
Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.
Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.
Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.
But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.
Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!
I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....
Why would Buchholz turn pro at 20 BEFORE he won anything, and TAKE A WEAK CONTRACT as a result? Something wrong there.
Did he realize that he might as well turn pro, that Laver would only continue to get better in the amateurs, and that he might have better luck in the pros BEFORE Laver got there?
Bobby, I have nothing against Bucholz but I was always amused he was talked about in same sentence as all time greats who also were pros
You had to have proven something to get signed by Kramer or Mc Call back in that time so Butch is a real exception...maybe because he was american and that let him overcome his poir record as an amateur?
Anyhow,I wont regard you as a true historian till you give me a full picture about Jan Kodes
Mc Call had 5 aussies and 2 latins but no pure US player unless you assume Gonzales and Olmedo were WASP
So he desperatey signed journeyman Butch
He should wait a bit more and sign Mc Kinley or Ralston
Why a joke? Gullikson reach a W qf just like your beloved Buch so where is difference?
Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.
Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.
At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.
Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.
Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?
Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.
kiki, I rate Kodes as a very good player, about in the class os Orantes.
kiki, Buchholz was clearly stronger than McKinley and about equal with Ralston.
A typical journeyman among the pros was Ayala who seldom won a match.
The big difference is that Buchholz was ranked among the top five all categories for several years while Gullikson was never a top ten player.
Gizo, I agree totally.
Had Fed was in the same position, I agree he would turned pro intstead of sticking around with the amateurs.
On the bolded part, Federer have been dominating against the whole field. Had the field was spit into two circuits, I think Fed would have won a lot, maybe even more majors. Let say Nadal was playing in the amateur like Emerson did, he would win many more majors himself. But this is alll speculating and we don't know for sure.
Fed has not won a major on wood??!!
No!! I don't believe it. Fed is the greatest player of all time, he must have won a major on wood. Otherwise his record is incomplete, or "No he didn't, thus making it not that good."
Next *******s argument: did not win in current grass,blue clay,sand and snow
Agreed. Also many people have the wrong idea than in Laver's time, because 3 of the majors were on grass, grass was the dominant surface on the tennis calendar. However of course that couldn't be further from the truth. There were only a handful of grass court events in existence outside those 3 majors, and even before the US Open many of the lead up tournaments in those days were actually on different surfaces. There were considerably more indoor carpet events back then than grass court tournaments for starters.
Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)
Come on Dan, Richey was an excellent player and he beat greats like Laver and Rosewall.
Buchholz did win one Pro Major in 1961 but I agree with you that it's probable he would not have won a major. However with Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez around how many would win a major? Buchholz was a top player for years and wasn't a journeyman.
I will write this. It wouldn't have been surprising if Buchholz won a major.
You will have to return the serve before the ball hit the ground! It will require a longer tennis racquet or a change of rule so that you can receive the serve from the service box. There will be no ground stroke.. all of the shots will have to be volleys.
So I guess there will be no rallies at all unless the standard of volleying improves because no one can volley today. lol.
Personally I'm of the opinion we should have a wood major. Only problem would be termites and maybe woodpeckers.
Dan, In 1968 Buchholz was after his peak.
Edit: In 1969.
Butch would have had good chances to win amateur majors against players like Emerson, Santana and Stolle. The latter three were not unvincible, to say the least. By the way, Gimeno as an amateur would most probably have won amateur majors.
So, he was too young to win in 1961 or 1962, and too old to win in 1968. When and where was there a peak?
Gimeno and Bucholz could see the writing on the wall, and took a weak pro contract rather than get clobbered by Laver, Emerson, and Santana in the amateur ranks.
Dan, You mean the 1969 Canadian Open. You did not mention that Buchholz defeated Newcombe in the SFs, winning the last set by 6-0....
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.
Here you again are far away from logic and facts.
Buchholz did win a major in 1962!
In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....
Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.
Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).
Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...
Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....
Yes, it was 1969. Buchholz was a feeble old man of 28. (As you stated earlier, 28 is not the age of a veteran.)
He did not win a major in 1962. He won the Cleveland Arena championship, with virtually no competition except Segura in the final, who lost in straight sets. It was a four-man tournament, with Barry McKay and Jack Arkinstall also on board. Wow.
He beat a rookie Laver in one match in 1963.
You mean he was third in the Handsome Eight competition? Without Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Stolle, Emerson, Ralston in the field, the group that Buchholz used to belong to, but quit for some reason. Was Buchholz about EIGHTH in that field? I guess Emerson's signing pushed Buchholz out.
Actually, Ralston did the wise thing and jumped over to Handsome Eight as well as Bucholz.
Whether in a jokingly way or a serious way, I get aknowledged.
BTW, Gimeno vs Santana was the missing match of the 60´s.
Buchholz finished third in the 1968 WCT rankings in terms of PERCENTAGE of matches won only.
In terms of money he was sixth (behind Pilic, Drysdale, Ralston).
In terms of matches won he was fifth.
The top money-winner was Roche, followed closely by Newcombe (who won the most tournaments), and no one else close. This is what you would expect.
Newcombe and Roche were above Drisdale,Barthes,Pilic,Taylor,Butcholtz and Riessen.Nicky Pilic, however, was a real great player and could beat anybody if "on"
because no one else has done it in the open era or done it twice
Dan, Buchholz was not as feeble at 28 as you are in tennis history...
Dan, again WRONG! Buchholz beat a Laver who was much better than in his amateur days (You wrote that Laver, Emerson and Santana would have destroyed Buchholz at the amateurs).
Buchholz also beat Laver the same year at the Japanese pro championships
in straight sets.
Ralston was yet in the WCT field!
Buchholz was at least as good as Emerson and Stolle in 1968.
Butch finished only a bit behind Laver in the 1963 6 man tour, edging out Gimeno!
Dan, I'm tired to correct you every time. I hope that kiki or other posters can teach you tennis history...
Dan, five winning tournaments against strong competition (Newcombe, Roche etc) is a proof for strength!
You have a special gift: Your ignorance increases from post to post...
Dan, the percentage list was the official list to rank the Handsome Eight.
You have a strong money-fixation, I see.
I thought that you believed Buchholz was past his peak by 1969, a doddering old veteran of 28.
The bottom line is MONEY. Buchholz was way back, Roche and Newk far ahead of the rest.
Ralston was on both tours in 1968.
Why did Buchholz skip over to the WCT? Obviously, a weaker field.
Buchholz failed to win a major, and at Wembley in 1963, he choked against a lame Hoad, who pulled a thigh muscle in the third set. If you can't put away a player who is stumbling around on only one leg, you've got problems.
There is a HUGE gap between Roche and Newk and the rest in terms of money.
I hope that you are not shocked to learn that some matches are worth more money than others. This is where Newk and Roche apparently stood out.
Dan Lobb, Buchholz in 1969 was 29 but still very tough. Even in 1970 he lost to No.1 player, Rosewall, 6-3, 4-6, 6-7 at Corpus Christi.
And as late as 1975 he lost a tough match to Rosewall. Doddering???
Dan, Ralston played only the WCT tour and a few tournaments where all pros met, just as Buchholz did.
Where have you read that Buchholz skipped over to the WCT?
The WCT group was pretty tough.
If you neglect facts and logic repeatedly, you will get problems: serious fans will doubt if you are a serious man...
Dan, I'm not easily shocked by something because I have learnt your strange opinions and your ignorant kind of argumentation...
Dan, what did you expect? That Buchholz dominates Newcombe, Roche, and maybe even Laver and Rosewall??? I never claimed that Buchholz was a top three player. But he did be a top player, in my rankings several times being among the top five players of the world (1963 to 1966). Where is you logic?
This time I don't suggest that you should ask kiki, because he also belittles Buchholz....
Yes, Ralston just played a few joint tournaments against NTL players.
That means that Buchholz and Ralston chose (or had to choose) the weaker WCT league to the more elite NTL. Hmmm........
And how did Buchholz fail to beat a one-legged Hoad at Wembley in 1963? The London Times reporter was flabbergasted.
Do you think Butcholz was as good as Gimeno?
Separate names with a comma.