Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
Again, 21 stations does not constitute a network broadcast.
Lovely story.Never heard about.
Who was the most famous personality who played tennis at a certain competitive level? Jimmy Carter was hooked on tennis, I know.France former prime minister Jacques Chaban Delmas won some national events when he was starting his political career, but never got highly ranked enough.
John Alexander is now a MP.Buster Mottram and Adriano Panatta have ran for City Council seats, although in two very different ( opposite) parties.
Maybe John mc Enroe, who is a staunch democrat will give it a try at politics.He could turn out being the most famous tennis player/politican ever...
boredone3456, You made the point. Some of his statements and answers seem to be trolling. But at least I must concede that Dan never uses insulting words. I just ask myself if Dan is aware that he sometimes is trolling or if he is not aware...
The answer is simple. Boredone did not establish his point.
The 1954 Rose Bowl Parade was only broadcast on 21 stations, and was not a national broadcast.
End of argument.
Dan, that is not quite right. Prince Philipp showed up at the Hoad-Cooper final 1957 and attended the victory ceremony. I have seen pictures of this. The Queen never has been especially Wimbledon friendly. She gave Laver the trophy in 1962 and Virginiai Wade in 1977. It could be that she was present as a young girl togther with her King Father, when Kramer won in 1947. Or was it Princess Margaret, maybe both young girls.
Apparently the Queen attended the 1957 final and watched Hoad beat Cooper from the stands, Prince Philip presenting the trophy.
Her aversion to Wimbledon is known to stem from the 1926 men's doubles, in which her father competed, and insisted on not receiving any special treatment by the other players. He became the "target" in a one-sided beating, and I think that the other players should have ignored his advice, and given him some room to shine. Better business.
The Queen avoided Wimbledon like the plague until 1957, when the presence of Hoad in the final was too much of an attraction to stay away any longer.
I established my point quite clearly, that your statement was wrong. Just because you did not like what you read does not mean I did not establish a valid point.
End of argument.
What young woman in the 50´s could just let Hoad split away?
How can somebody dare to compare Hingis to Henin?
Henin>Hingis and the gap between them is much wider than Kafelnikov and Kodes.
Yes how can somebody think Hingis is on the same level as Henin, I honestly don't see it myself...especially when 3 of her majors came during the weakest year of the 90s. But hey..thats some posters for you. Goodbye now.
The 1954 Rose Bowl was not an NBC network broadcast.
The 1955 Hoad/Trabert match WAS, and attracted over 10 million viewers, the FIRST mass TV audience for tennis.
Vice-President Nixon knew a good thing and tagged along with Hoad and company.
wake me up the day the Belgian wins a Wimbledon title.Good evening.
Wake me up when Hingis win 7 slams.
Hingis and Henin were both great players and in my opinion both were fairly close. It's not exactly that they have a huge gap in playing level.
Here's the records for both.
Overall for singles career Henin has an edge but it's not a huge edge in my opinion. Both super players.
Well I'm pretty sure most fans would agree with me that Henin>Hingis. And I happened to root for Hingis whenever she play the Williams sisters.
We know kiki always short change a player's accomplishment if he/she isn't his favorite, but handout the bouquet of red roses for his favorite.
If we look single/doubles record there is no question which one is better player
Doubles? oh¡ it is not tennis for current standarts
that´s it, that´s it.
TMF´s only reason to pray for Henin is his/her hate for the Williams.
Wait, Martina had a pretty good record vs the ssisters...
In 1959, Hoad's winning percentage on the two championship tours was 70% (76 wins and 33 losses), the best on the tours.
Frank Sedgman is my no. 1 in 1953 and 1958.
Gonzales no. 1 from 1954 to 1957.
Hoad no. 1 in 1959.
Rosewall no. 1 from 1960 to 1963, co-no. 1 in 1965 and 1970, no. 1 again in 1971.
Laver no. 1 in 1964, co-no. 1 in 1965, no. 1 from 1966 to 1969, co-no. 1 in 1970.
Then I have Nastase two years (1972-73).
Federic, I agree with most of your points. I only would rank Sedgman behind Kramer in 1953 and Rosewall as Co. No.1 for 1964 as he won the official tour.
It's good that you have Rosewall No.1 in 1971 (I rank tied No.1 Smith and Newcombe).
"Co" number ones? This is a cop-out and makes no sense.
Sedgman is very close to Gonzales in 1958, beating Gonzales in both the Wembley Pro and the big tournament in Australia, but I still have Gonzales ahead. He won the US Pro in Cleveland and the Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills, and won the world pro tour against Hoad. In 1960, Gonzales barely played any tournaments after the end of his contract with Kramer, but he dominated the world pro tour, including Rosewall, and the tour was the most important thing back then.
I have Gonzales as number 1 from 1954-1961, because he always either the very best, or never toppled as the best, throughout that whole period.
Mustard, Therefore I plead to make Co.-No.1 for several years (plus other tied places).
I agree with the following exceptions:
1970: it´s between Newcombe and Rosewall ( I´d pick Rosewall) but not really Laver, if you take into consideration the whole year ( and not 2 or 3 events were Laver was unbeatable).As you probably know, I am one of the fiercest Laver admirers over here, but he was behind Newcombe and Rosewall in the overall look of the year.
1971: although Rosewall won 2 of the 6 biggest events, Smith won Forest Hills and was runner up at both Wimbledon and the Masters.
Kodes won Paris and lost the USO final.Nastase lost the FO final and took the Masters.Newcombe won Wimbledon ( but little else ), Ashe reached the AO final against Rosewall ( and reached the Dallas semis), and finally Laver lost the WCT finals to Rosewall.
1971 is one of my fav years, with 7 excelent and yet diverse players making the 6 big finals of the year (Smith,Rosewall,Laver,Newcombe,Kodes,Nastase,Ashe).That top 7 is possibly the best ever for a single year ( even better than late 50´s pros )
1972.Nastase wins Masters and USO while Smith wins the then big DC and Wimbledon.Smith beat Nastase in two of their 3 finals, although Nastase had probably a better year overall.Very very close.Their Masters final is one of the greatest indoor finals of all time.
Just my two cents.
For 1958, I still have to rate Hoad at number one, because he was the leading money-winner on the year based on tournament points (which is the system we use today!), plus he won the greatest match of 1958 or of any year against Gonzales at Kooyong 4-6, 9-7, 11-9, 18-16 (a match Gonzales rated as the best ever between the two).
If you beat the best at his very best, what does that make you?
Dan, best match does not mean most important match.
Not always, but in this case it does.
You never know in advance when the big one will come along, it just develops.
Many Wimbledon finals are dogs.
Most important match does not necessarily mean greatest match.
Dan, okay, but what do you want to tell us?
This is it.
In my opinion you are overrating Tour in some years.
In 1961 the tour was missing Rosewall, so Gonzales didn't faced his direct opponent there. I mean, it was surely a big event but I think we can't say it was more important than two Pro Majors with full fields (if Rosewall was on the tour, then maybe...)
They were 2-2 on tournaments head-to-head, with Rosewall winning both the big titles. No chance for Pancho as no. 1 in 1961 in my (very) humble opinion.
In 1960 he had a strong lead against Rosewall but he retired after the tour, in my vision of tennis I can't accept a no. 1 who plays only half season, that's why I go with Rosewall in 1960 also.
In 1959 Hoad was my no. 1 beacause Pancho won the tour, but just slightly, while Hoad won many tournaments, including the biggest one, and he leads him also on head-to-head matches.
In 1958 I go with Sedgman because he won two of the four biggest events (Australian Pro, Wembley Pro), while Gonzales "only" one (ToC). The fact that he won the tour against Hoad didn't prove he was stronger than Sedgman too, in fact on tournaments head-to-head we find Sedgman leading 4-2.
Just look how tennis history change by changing the observer. You have Gonzales no. 1 for eight straight years, while I have him on top "only" four straight years (+ he is also my 1952 no. 1). On the contrary you rank Rosewall no. 1 only in 1962-63, while he is my no. 1 or co-no. 1 in 1960-61-62-63-65-70-71.
Bumped for reference purposes.
71 is intrincate, probably the closest ever year among the top players.
73 is also close, but Nastase won 2 out of 6 majors, and he probbaly played the best tennis, although Newcombe and Kodes did play fantastic tennis at the US Open.Maybe Nastase is the nº1 for the first half and Newcombe or Kodes are the best candidates for the second half?
excellent, but I´d consider Hoad and Gonzales on par in 56 and Newcombe or Kodes at Nastase´s results level in 73( but I am happy with your choice of Nasty anyway).
Looks very good, to me.
1977 is tricky, as is 1970, as is 1961, as is 1958.
1977 is very debatable. Borg won 11 official titles and went 76-7 on the ATP site. He went 2-1 vs. Connors, with wins at Wimbledon (grass) and the Pepsi Grand Slam (rubico), and a loss at the Masters (indoors) in Jan. 78. He was 3-0 vs. Vilas, with wins at the Masters in Jan. 78 (carpet), Monte Carlo (clay) and Nice (clay). So, Borg was 5-1 versus his primary competition at the top, with 11 titles won, including Wimbledon. He won at Wembley (indoor), Cologne (carpet), Basel (carpet), Barcelona (clay), Madrid (clay), Wimbledon (grass), Denver (carpet), Monte Carlo (clay), Nice (clay), Memphis (carpet), and the Pepsi Grand Slam- Boca Raton (clay). His surface versatility with big titles, head to head record versus Connors and Vilas, and his win at Wimbledon all weigh in favor of Bjorn Borg in 1977. It's debatable, but I would submit that Borg has the best record overall in 1977.
kiki, Hoad was never in the same class with Gonzalez in 1956.
borg number one, I would split 1977 between Borg and Vilas.
That's fair enough. Vilas has two majors, with the French Open and the U.S. Open. Yet, Borg's record head to head record versus Vilas and Connors, as well as his Wimbledon title are very significant.
and as I said earlier, Connors has the two indoor majors and two times finalist at the other slams ( Lost to Borg at W and Vilas at FH).
So, Connors 2 wins and 2 finals
Vilas 2 wins, 1 final and a semifinal
Borg a win and a final
neither Borg or Connors entered the AO and the FO and neither Borg or Vilas entered the WCT finals ( they just played a WCT event, the MC open and both reached the final...)
Connors has a case here.At the end, however, I´d give the edge to Vilas.Borg would have to wait until 1978.
Impossible to compare indoor majors and Grand Slams ! 0 Grand Slam for Connors, it's impossible for a player whon won 0 Grand Slam to be considered as the n°1. In 1977, Vilas was the real world champion, Borg n°2 and Connors n°3.
both were considered majors back then.Vilas had a great win at the Masters against Connors but failed against Borg and Connors won the MSG tournament at the end.
kiki, I agree that we should not omit Connors from the No.1 discussion for 1977. He was No.1 in the ATP list...
while I still support Vilas for nº1, I´d even say that Connors was the real nº2 and Borg was the nº3.IMO, of course.Borg beat Jimmy at Wimbledon, but Connors stroke back at the Masters.
A pitty Borg defaulted at the US open, in his fourth round match.it would have been extremely interesting what could have happened if Borg had been fit.
5-1 for Borg head to head has to big a big factor as well guys. 5 out of 6 matches won is a telling statistic.
Head to head is not really important, because the question is not "who is the best player ?", but "who is the world champion ?".
Separate names with a comma.