WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I think everyone acknowledges that Rosewall was a great player but I do believe that just about all experts consider Rosewall to be below the ultimate top levels. There is nothing against Rosewall if a person puts him at number 7 or 11 or number 13. The person or expert considers Rosewall to be fantastic in any of these cases. What bothers me is that one poster will ignore any negatives (like when I wrote that Butch Buchholz said in 2016 that there was no World Championship Tour in 1964) and continue saying the 1964 Tour was a World Championship Tour when he knows full well that one of the participants in the tour said it wasn't. He then continues to write about the 1964 article by Buchholz, which he claims is definitive proof the 1964 Tour was a World Championship tour. However when I and some others read it, I find no evidence Buchholz wrote it was a World Championship!

    Things like that, which is not uncommon for this poster is misleading. If you do things like that can you really call yourself an expert?

    I can live with some different opinions. I don't mind if someone says Rosewall is the GOAT. I like Rosewall. However the constant incessant pushing of Rosewall does tend to be a broken record. It's like the old water torture where water drips on your face only in this case it's a huge waterfall.

    With me I feel in some ways he's like my child and I do get more upset when my children disappoint me.

    The poster has good knowledge of tennis history. I believe his analysis of tennis history leaves something to be desired however. I wish he would discuss more non-Rosewall topics on tennis.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  2. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,831
    When krosero found new material about the 1964 season, you were the first to ask for a change of subject.
    I for one was happy to oblige.
    But i was surprised by your reaction, and here´s why. I can´t understand how anybody who is interested and knowledgable in the history of tennis
    wouldn´t welcome new material, even if it meant that he or she might have to reevaluate their position.

    I remember well, what happened when Bobby talked about his phone calls to Bud Collins, and how Mr Collins presumably called Rosewall one of his GOAT candidates.
    I think it´s understandable that Bobby uses the same criteria regarding your phone conversation to Mr Buchholz.
     
    krosero and hoodjem like this.
  3. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    The big difference is this… Butch Buchholz was a participant on that 1964 tour and stated very clearly that it was not for the world championship!

    Bud Collins never considered Rosewall a GOAT candidate until Bobby convinced him. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that! However that is just an opinion of Bud Collins. The other conversation was not an opinion! It was Mr. Buchholz statement of fact! It is not the same criteria.

    I asked for a change of topic because I knew the poster in question would never give up no matter how many facts are pointed in the direction that it was not a world championship Tour. It would just be the same endless cycle.

    It's like saying 2+2 = 4. The other poster may say 2+2 = 5. You may provide proof that 2+2 = 4 but the other poster will never give up that 2+2 = 5. It would be an endless cycle and there would be no use in continuing.

    On that last post I was not discussing 1964 but I was using that to point out the problems we have. I probably should've used another example!

    As far as welcoming new information I always am happy to learn more about the history of tennis. However I'm not too crazy about debating things that are rehashed constantly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
    Dan Lobb and Limpinhitter like this.
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    What I find frustrating about Bobby is that he seems to forget the results of previous discussions, where some of us go to great lengths to find evidence to contradict him, he then goes silent for a while, and then pipes up again on the same point as if nothing had occurred...we have to remind him again about what was previously said, and he apparently does not remember the previous material...we have to start the process all over again, ad nauseum...is this a deliberate tactic of Bobby? I wonder.
     
    Phoenix1983, Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  5. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Very possible.

    What would be nice is if Bobby actually acknowledges some of the information some of our posters give him instead of ordering people to change their lists or telling them what to believe with the same recording.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Please tell us the "limitations" of a giant like Rosewall! If you say Wimbledon I say Laver's failure at Dallas in all five years he competed there.

    When I read your remarks (almost all about Hoad) I think: "Dan Lobb is the last one to blame another poster for writing much about Rosewall"...
     
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    It is always a defective methodology to assume the point which one is attempting to prove, and assume that everyone must see that it is right.
    It is better to start with actual data and draw conclusions from the facts, not start with a conclusion and look for facts which fit a preconceived belief.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  8. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    I post many things unrelated to Hoad...just check out my thread on the Second Golden Era of Sports, where I list your boy Rosewall among the greatest players ever...you should thank me for promoting the greatness of Rosewall.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  9. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Agreed. A good example of this is that so called stats he has when he writes Rosewall leads Laver in big matches except the matches are chosen by him or the semifinals Rosewall was in or the big time players Rosewall has beaten. It has to be done without bias but in this case I don't believe it is.
     
    Limpinhitter and Dan Lobb like this.
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Gary, I'm totally convinced that Rod Laver would gladly refused to win the TCC series if he could have won the 1971 Wimbledon, just as Rosewall would have given away his WCT trophy if he could have won Wimbledon the same year even though the Dallas event was a huge one and greater than the TCC series.

    It's not a wonder that Laver and Rosewall were revered and praised more than all other players because the two small Aussies dominated tennis about ten years and showed the most skilled tennis.
     
    krosero likes this.
  11. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    The question is whether Laver would have given up the $160,000 he won in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic for the 1971 Wimbledon at that time. That was a mammoth sum at that time and Laver wasn't a rich man at that moment. Perhaps another question is what would his family and wife Mary think of giving up $160,000 for a Wimbledon title that he has already won in the past.

    Edit-First price at the 1971 Wimbledon was 3750 pounds or about $4846.13. It's not remotely close to $160,000. Don't forget just one match won in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was $10,000 to the victor.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  12. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    The same question could be asked about Newcombe's year in 1974, where he concentrated his efforts on winning the WCT championship and the big money prize, and had less than stellar results at Wimbledon and Forest Hills that year...it was a trade-off similar to what Laver did in 1971.
     
    pc1 and Limpinhitter like this.
  13. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    True enough although the WCT Championship was considered prestigious at the time. Experts apparently didn't know what to make of the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. It was a different type of tournament format. I think the key with the WCT Championship was that it was viewed on television and promoted by the networks. Not sure if the Tennis Champions Classic was promoted the same way. I don't think so.

    Tennis players weren't rich in those days. They needed the money. Big money tournaments in those days generally brought big fields.
     
  14. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    No, you did not prove any such thing. You stated an opinion and backed it up with with what I think are some convincing points. That's not the same thing as "proof".
    I think we have to balance this out a bit with some common sense. We just saw Nadal risk his overall recovery for a week of insane tennis at the Olympics. Obviously it is not about the money in this case. Some people will look at the winning of singles as not worth much because the rewards are not obvious. People will look at Del Potros' run as empty because he is not even ranked #100 in the world. But for those of us who have watched tennis, Del Potro will be remembered for a very long time, and he will not be looked at as #141 in the world.

    He will be remembered as a former slam winner who took out both Novak and Nadal.

    It was not only about money in 1971 either. I agree with BobbyOne that Laver or Rosewall would not have felt that their year was a total success without winning slams, and Wimbledon would have remained a huge goal, money or no money.

    But at the same time we also have to remember that guys like Laver and Rosewall played in relative obscurity for most of their careers. TCC and WTC was not just a bonus check for guys who had so much money they didn't know where to spend it, true of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, others. They were finally getting paid huge rewards, and you are quite right in saying that they needed the money from those big checks.

    So athletes play for very little money, for the fame, for history. But they also pay huge attention to where the money is, and there are bragging rights involved in getting that money. It is no accident that the guys who make the most money are the guys who win the tournaments with the biggest payoff.

    In 1971 slams paid peanuts in comparison to big events like the TCC and WTC. At the same time, players of that time were aware of the importance of Wimbledon in tennis history.
     
  15. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Excellent points Gary as per usual. Of course Laver and Rosewall wanted to win Wimbledon or the US Open if possible yet at the same time they wanted the big prices money from the big money tournaments like the Tennis Champions Classic.

    Since we're discussing the Olympics a bit, do you have an comments on the Olympic Men's single final? I'm a big fan of Murray's but in this case I am rooting for Del Potro. It would be some story if he manages to win the Olympic Gold in singles!
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, Your accusation is not only wrong but also mean and ugly. Tell us one single case where I behaved as you insinuate.

    The contrary is right: You use to ignore all facts other posters (like krosero and I) provide.

    Yes, you and your few friends use to contradict me but you are not able to DISPROVE me!!

    If you refer to the 1964 debate it was you and your friends who ignored the historical facts, the English language (the clear Buchholz article!) plus (in a disrespectful way) the fantastic research from krosero.

    I recently came back to the 1964 issue because I found just another quoting that proved that Rosewall was the undosputed No.1 player in 1964, namely in Bud Collins' great encyclopedia. I had been hoping that my finding would impress some posters. But the result was that NatF (not the worst poster here) assumed that Bud has followed Joe McCauley which assumption was false.

    I got furious that you for weeks demanded that krosero and I should find a quoting that the tour was an official world championship and, after krosero finally found such a quote, still refused to recognize it. You used several excuses in order to not recognizing truth. Just disgusting.

    If you refer to my quotings of Bud Collins about Rosewall a GOAT candidate, I must say that that case was my worst disappointment at all. Posters like you claimed that Bud has only echoed what I had said just in order to do me a favour. That was a heavy insult against both Bud and myself. You refused to accept my reports about Bud's statements on the phone as not credible. But the absurdest thing in that case was your and your friends' reaction to Bud's clear statements on Tennis Channel about Rosewall maybe the GOAT and about Rosewall a GOAT candidate. The hate (against Rosewall, against me) from you and your few friends went so far, that even American and Canadian posters distorted Bud's words and English language (sic!) : They wrongly claimed that "You can make an argument..." does not mean that Bud says Rosewall being possibly the GOAT!! These idiotic reactions were very frustrating for me and some other posters who exactly know what Bud's sentence has meant.

    A good friend of mine has suggested to make a pause in posting, especially after Limpinhitter's bad post and bad behaviour. I will reflect about that. But I always think that good arguments are able to convince other people, even stubborn posters like you and Limpin....
     
    krosero likes this.
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Gary, I DID prove because I quoted World of Tennis yearbook where WCT Finals got two long chapters of description while TCC got nothing. WoT annuals were the most serious source in that time.

    I only can agree partly about money. Pride and glory are mostöy more important than money. Laver and Rosewall were not poor persons before 1971...
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    Let's just take one example, one from a possible many examples.
    Buchholz made it clear in his 1964 article that Rosewall was the tour manager, and he gave details on that...somehow, you refuse to comment on that, you go silent, and then pipe up later about how you still do not see any proof of Rosewall being tour manager for 1964....you disengage from the argument when things get tough, and then seem to forget that the discussion ever took place.

    I saw the reference from Krosero on the 1964 tour, BUT if that were true, then the players on the 1964 tour would certainly be aware of it being a world championship tour...which they were clearly not aware of. We have Buchholz' assurance of that.
    So, all we have there is a local newspaper reference without any backup from the tour manager, your boy Rosewall himself, the tour manager....silent as the sphinx.
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    treblings, You hit several points. We all should be ready to reevaluate our opinions after learning new material. I think I am ready. For instance I originally and for a long time thought that Rosewall is the only GOAT but after having studied history longer I realized that Laver was about equal with Rosewall thus deserving a place as GOAT.

    By the way, Bud Collins definitely twice called Rosewall one of his GOAT candidates when talking to me on the phone. Once even he gave reasons for his valuation: "...because of his longevity and his two wins over Laver at Dallas".

    I'm a bit sceptical about this year's phone call with Buchholz because we don't know how the question exactly was and because the reported answer contradicts Buchholz's own "crystal clear" article.
     
    krosero likes this.
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan, It's fine that you have spoken with Newcombe personally and learnt from him that Newk wanted to win Dallas more than Wimbledon...
     
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    There was no contradiction between Buchholz' 1964 article and Buchholz' recent comment to PC1...two different questions, obviously...how did you miss that, Bobby?
    The question of whether or not the 1964 tour was understood by the players to be a world championship tour is a very different question from who was regarded as the number one player after the 1963 world championship tour...think about it.

    Bud Collins conceded that Rosewall might be thought of as GOAT candidate by some people IF you use certain criteria which stress LONGEVITY....not level of play.
    No surprise there, Bud knew whom he was speaking to, and for what purpose, and why the call was being made.
     
    Phoenix1983, Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    Newcombe had already won THREE Wimbledon's, so, of course, winning that particular tournament was more important to Rosewall than to Newcombe at that point in time.
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Dan You are funny: It's not important at all if Rosewall was the tour manager or only the treasurer. We know too little about that but I would happily accept if Muscles actually was the manager. So what?

    We have Buchholz's assurance (his article) that the long 185 day tour in 1964 was the deciding tour to determine the No.1 player. That's enough we should know.
     
    krosero likes this.
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    It is "not important at all"? It was important because of your own stress that this was the world championship tour. Rosewall is the official who could clear up the mystery.
    The "deciding tour" according to your own view....
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    Now it's enough! Your post is as ugly as the worst posts from Limpinhitter are. Use your brain when posting. I refuse to discuss with people who don't use their brain!

    You again don't understand English language: "YOU can make an argument" means "ONE can make an argument" and NOT that OTHER people can make an argument or the interviewer can make an argument!!! Learn English!!!

    And stop posting without using your brain. Thanks.
     
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    Why not? I frequently exchange posts with some individuals who need a brain boost.
     
    Phoenix1983 likes this.
  27. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    Another thing about 1971:

    I don't see anywhere that either Rosewall or Laver was seriously considered as #1 for the year above both Smith and Newcombe.

    This MAY be because the tennis world was so accustomed to giving huge weight to slams that it had not yet adapted to the financial reality of the post-1969 world.

    Stan Smith's record against Laver was at best spotty. From 1973 on Laver did not appear to win, but he was at that time 35 or close to 35. Before that Laver had the edge.

    Laver clearly dominated Newcombe.

    So I find the ranking in 1971 extremely questionable, with too much weight on slams and too little weight on newer tournaments where the money was huge.

    I don't remember anything about the "TCC". I was still in college and was not even able to watch TV until the summer of 1971, when I was finished with school and back home. However, apparently Laver beat Rosewall there Jan. 2nd. I believe I saw also that the final was played in March. Am I looking at the right data? Or is that more than one tournament?

    What I see in the H2H of Laver and Rosewall is that Laver was utterly dominant for most of 1969 - no surprise there. I see one "one night stand" victory by Rosewall in Oct. 1969. That dominance continued in 1970, apparently.

    But 1971 is strikingly different. I see four other meetings in 1971, starting in August, and for those four meeting the record was 2/2.

    Of course it matters what round and which tournament. But in any match-up of this sort every match is important to both players. Think, for instance, of Djokovic and Federer. Any victory of either over the other is talked about. Both players hate losing to the other.

    Laver and Rosewall were fierce opponents, both hating to lose.

    Certainly by the end of 1971 Laver was losing his edge over Rosewall.

    The discussion about slams is more complicated. Obviously both players were concentrating mainly on non-slam events, where the money was big. After getting to the finals at RG, Rosewall never went back. He didn't play W in 72 or 73, didn't play the USO in 71. I have to ask whether or not Rosewall would have bothered to play in the AO the two years he won it had he not been Australian.

    Laver only played the AO two years and never again after 71. He never again played RG after 69. Never again at W after 71. Didn't play the USO in 71.

    Some absences were due to legal fights, bans, things of that sort, but I don't see any evidence that Laver much cared about slams after 69. It seems to me that winning slams was far more important to younger players, who had not yet established the same degree of fame.

    I can see reasons for arguing that both Laver and Rosewall were better in 1971 than their official rankings. And the fact that we are seeing 1971 in a different light from that in which it was viewed at the time seems important to me. It is not true that contemporaries are always the best judge of history.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    I never have contested that. So what? That was NOT our discussion. It was about Newk wanting WCT or Wimbledon. Use your brain!
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,923
    I have already asked Ken but he did not answer my question.
     
  30. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    You are making the same points as I am. 1971 was part of a huge experiment.

    2016 is long after the return to judging slams as the measure of a tennis player. Even in the 1990s this was not clear, but the financial structure of slams was pretty much in place, as I understand it.

    When slams pay more money than any other tournaments, have the highest ranking points, have the biggest audiences, it is clear that they are most important, and WHY they are most important.

    Well, that simply was not the case in 1971, and prize money at slams was a joke.

    Tennis is a hugely traditional and a rather reactionary sport.

    I don't trust the viewpoint of tennis experts from 1971 judging the importance of the top players in 1971 - any of them.

    I suspect the public had a far better sense of what was really important then, to the fans, and the fans were a large part of what tournaments were most important.

    The WTC Final was huge in 1971. Any match involving Laver and Rosewall was huge, and the money was where these players - and others - were competing. Only Wimbledon kept its huge reputation, with perhaps the USO a distant 2nd.

    We forget that today, because in the end the old pecking order of slams regained its former strength with a vengeance.

    But that was absolutely not true in 1971 when it appeared that tennis was completely rewriting the rules.
     
    Phoenix1983 and pc1 like this.
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,379
    It was a long time ago, 1964, 52 years ago...still, Ken was apparently making the arrangements for that tour, according to Buchholz.
    If this tour was a world deciding tour, then I think that Ken would have included that in his correspondence on the tour events.
     
  32. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    I would personally look at that as TWO Wimbledons, the first coming in the "Emerson era" when the best players in the world were barred from playing slams.

    I think we should keep amateur and pro slams victories in two categories.

    Newcombe was almost 10 years younger than Rosewall and had not experienced so many years winning big without getting very much money.

    Today we would be amazed at any older player still being competitive at a ten year disadvantage.

    The first H2H match between the two players is listed on the ATP site as in 1970, when Rosewall was at least 35 years old.

    Today we would laugh at the record of a 10 years younger player who at best won 50% of his matches against someone Rosewall's age.
     
    krosero likes this.
  33. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    Bobby, there was nothing ugly about Dan's post. You simply disagree with him.

    It is not wise to argue about the English language with people who use it as their mother tongue.

    I agree with you about some points re Rosewall, whom I personally value much more highly then many. But if you continue to attack people because they do not agree with you, you deserve to be banned and should be banned.

    If your reason for attacking is simply because someone else attacked you, your logic is that of a five year-old.

    It's time to grow up.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
    Phoenix1983 and NatF like this.
  34. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,298
    Is it even debatable? In my view, he is not interested in objective truth. He has a transparent agenda, and that is the only reason he posts any comments at all.
     
    Phoenix1983 likes this.
  35. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    In the same vein I feel the record of Pancho Gonzalez who was to turn 40 which Open Tennis started so amazing. I'm not sure if any player won a tournament as strong as the 1969 and 1970 Howard Hughes over age 40. Among the players he defeated in those two tournaments were merely Newcombe, Rosewall, Smith, Ashe, Gimeno, Ulrich, Roche and Laver. Gonzalez also won the 1969 Pacific Southwest by defeating Parun, Carmichael, Rosewall, Smith, Osborne and Richey. Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Gimeno were among those who played in the 1969 Pacific Southwest.
     
  36. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,298
    Similarly, Laver had already won 4 Wimbledon titles (and 2 Grand Slams), when he decided to focus on the TCC and that prize money which was more than 32 times greater than the Wimbledon 1st prize money that year.
     
  37. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    12,298
    FYI, I think Ulrich was almost the same age as Pancho.
     
    Gary Duane likes this.
  38. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    I am not disputing that. The WTC Finals got two long chapters.

    But let me finally be blunt. I don't care what the tennis establishment of that time supported. You forget that I lived during that period myself.

    I have already said clearly that in my opinion no one - and I do mean no one - fully understood at that time how much the structure of tennis was changing.
    Partial agreement is fair enough.

    I personally think you are undervaluing two things - how much less athletes made back then, and how important it is to all athletes to make as much money as possible. This has more to do with ego than needs.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  39. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Gary,

    Again excellent points. It's often better to judge history in hindsight because we know more facts.

    Laver was having some health problems, mainly a chronic wrist problem suffered I believe from a fall and he had some back problems in the early 1970s, perhaps 1973 and before. Rosewall generally was in good health and that's to his credit and his smooth style. Laver's style imo was more violent and perhaps more taxing to the body although he did last a long time.

    Players like Gonzalez and Rosewall had styles imo less taxing to the body which helped their longevity. That is to their credit.
     
  40. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I loved Torben. He was the guru of tennis.
     
  41. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    The guy is still around. What an amazingly man!
     
    pc1 likes this.
  42. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    He's one of my GOAT candidates for coolest guy in tennis history. Heck he's up there for coolest guy on the planet.
     
  43. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    767
    http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...three-for-the-money-laver-is-ready-to-go#text


    The Odessa American:

    "Laver has what many experts consider the greatest record in the history of tennis. He has won the “grand slam” twice, sweeping the championships of Australia, the United States, France and Britain in 1962 as an amateur and again in 1969 as a pro. In 1970 he won the Tennis Champions Classic and repeated again in 1971 when he won 11 straight matches, the semi-finals and the finals. In 1971 he garnered an amazing $292,000 in prize money; since then he has been cutting down on his tennis activity. Laver was a finalist in the World Championship of Tennis finals at Dallas in 1971 and 1972 and last year led Australia to victory in the Davis cup. In January 1974 he won the U.S. Pro Indoor Championship, won three straight WCT tournaments and in Mid-May added the Alan King Classic to his victory list."

    This is from an article prior to the Connors v Laver challenge match. I think it is interesting because it shows the TCC was remembered some years after the event, as a highlight of Laver's career.


    http://www.si.com/vault/1975/05/05/606611/jackpot-for-jimbo

    I think this is interesting because Newcombe says Connors is the best in the world after their challenge match, despite Newk beating Connors in the AO final earlier in the year. In other words, Newk didn't think Connors had to beat him in a "major".
     
    krosero likes this.
  44. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,184
    Isn't his son the drummer for Metallica? That alone gives him some cool points.

    I wonder who the coolest man in tennis history is. I guess Borg and Gerulaitis would be up there.
     
  45. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,184
    I wonder why Krosero remains such a good friend of yours. He is the only one here who can't see that you are ridiculously biased!

    Perhaps Krosero is a UN diplomat or something. He can't see the bad in anyone (even when it's obvious to everyone else).
     
  46. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    767
    It is important to look at history with the benefit of hindsight. It is also important to respect history and the way things were at the time, otherwise you risk rewriting what happened.
     
    krosero and pc1 like this.
  47. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    That is simply what I would call a reasonable and balanced view. ;)
     
    pc1 likes this.
  48. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    767
    Now that is a tough question! Let's be honest, tennis is not a cool sport.

    [​IMG]

    Double denim and a receding hairline + mullet. I dunno if I can agree with Gerulaitis!

    http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/news/a10079/the-25-coolest-sportsmen-of-all-time/

    Two tennis players in here: Borg and Fred Perry.
     
    pc1 and Phoenix1983 like this.
  49. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,861
    Krosero gets my vote for one of the nicest guys around. ;)
     
    NatF and pc1 like this.
  50. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Yes his son is Lars.
     

Share This Page