Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
I would agree with that.
What do you mean that it's not a cool sport??
In 1971 I was 24 (about a year older than Gary Duane from bits and pieces I think he has written ) and I had been watching tennis since 1959-1960. I think I was old enough to understand what was going on. It is a long time ago though. However, in my judgement/recall about what was happening in that year
- no-one knew what was happening. Not the players, not the observers, not the audiences. All we knew was that everything was in a continuous state of flux and had been since the Open Era was ushered in. Those who were ranking players for the year were just guessing, because the old certainties about what was important had been completely over-turned.
- for the players the most important things were where the money was. The old slams still trundled along, because they always had, and Wimbledon had a cachet, because it always had, and it was a fixed point in the year where everyone knew it would happen and how to televise it, etc., etc. But it was not the most important tennis event of the year, and was down the pecking order of most of the top player's priorities. Some of the tennis observers found it hard to set aside old certainties, others happily abandoned them. There was no consistency of view. That is what happens when you are in a revolution, and tennis was in a revolution.
This state of huge uncertainty started in 1970 with the rival WCT and Grand Prix circuits and only started to ease in 1974 after the Wimbledon boycott.
In my opinion no-one knows who the #1 players were in those years, although clearly the candidates are clear, because no-one knows which were the most important matches or series of matches in the minds of the players (and they could well have been different for different players). And no-one now knows any better than those playing and assessing then because even the players playing then had different ideas about what was most important.
If you want certainty and a number-crunching way of assessing tennis players, avoid the period 1970-1973/4.
Oh yes, I know everyone considers him a saint. I don't - and I wish he would explain his absurd loyalty to BobbyOne.
That's about right. You were probably born in 47, and I was born in 48.
That's spot on. And "revolution" was everywhere at that time, not just in tennis.
Here is what I think is a great book about what was going on:
I would say that making Smith/Newcombe/Laver/Rosewall all right at the top was about right, but getting closer than that is really hard. So many things were going on.
I don't think things settled down until around the time Connors became #1.
And yet you are so sure.
Lance Tingay may have been "guessing", but his year end rankings were important to the tennis community, so when Lance ranks Newcombe number 1 in 1970 - despite his lack of anything else in his resume for that year - it is fair to say Wimbledon in that era was a very big deal indeed.
Gary, The TCC was one tournament (one-night stands and SF, Final).
I think we should respect the rules and the valuation of the older times.
I still say that Laver wanted to win Wimbledon and US Open of 1970 because he had to defend his titles. He did have some pride as every player in that situation would have.
Laver and Rosewall did not skip voluntarily French 1970 and 1972, Wimbledon 1972 and 1973.
Laver did play the 1975 US Open and the 1977 Wimbledon.
I rank Smith, Rosewall and Newcombe as tied No.1 players for 1971. I cannot add Laver because Rod failed in the three bigest events he participated: Wimbledon (Rosewall went further), AO and WCT Finals. I rank Laver slightly behind the three others. Also Bud Collins gave him the fourth place.
Gary, I agree that Dallas was a huge event but the GS tournaments were still very important in that time. The important World of Tennis annuals used to present the GS tournaments at the begin of every issue (in some years the AO not on the front pages) and gave them large description.
The 1971 AO was very important because it gathered most top players, similary to 1969, for the last time till the early 1980's.
As you rightly say, Dallas was very significant because it had a Laver/Rosewall final. Imagine a Ashe/Okker final. The interest would have been much less.
I rank the 1971 tournaments as follows: 1) Wimbledon, 2) Dallas or US Open, 3) US Open or Dallas, 4) AO.
Dan, It was a long time ago, 1964. That's also right regarding Buchholz's "interview" in 2016. I trust more the contemporary Butch. than the old one.
I guess that Rosewall did not answer my question because he found it a bit strange as he knew I had read the crystal clear Buchholz article and as he once told me that he was the No.1 player in 1964 (in that interview I plead for a tied top place Rosewall/Laver). But I have Ken informed meanwhile that krosero has found that "missing link", i.e. the newspaper quoting and tour standings of August 25.
If Rosewall was the tour manager, he surely has informed his fellow players that the tour is for world championship. Do you want to ask Laver, Buchholz, Olmedo, Ayala, Gimeno?
Gary, I must correct you: Newcombe and Rosewall met in 1968 for the first time, Newcombe winning at the French Pro and Rosewall winning in the ToC Wembley tournament.
In 1970 Rosewall lead Newcombe 5:2. This is one reason why I rank Rosewall equally with Newcombe (and Laver) for that year.
Altogether I have counted a 15:10 hth in Ken's favour which means a great achievement for Rosewallas as he was 33 - 43 years old when they met. In majors Rosewall leads 4:3
Gary, It's time to get serious!! You (like a few other posters) use double standard: You want me to get banned because I attack posters but you NEVER EVER posted that you want those few aggressive posters being banned for their attacks against me ("Idiot") and their mean lies (Lmpinhitter) and their distorting my words (Dan Lobb)!!! I thought you are a bit more fair but you don't seem it at all. I'm very disappointed.
Please stop that idiotic claim that I attack posters just because they don't agree with me!!! When ever have I attacked a poster (exception recently gino for his absurd rankings) because they have, f.i., listed up Rosewall at No. 6 (as Phoenix used to do). I do respect that most people don't rate Rosewall as a GOAT or a top three player.I got furious because Phoenix insulted both krosero and me ("lackey", "bribery") and because he often seems to hope that Rosewall will die soon. Don't you see the difference???
Tell me a person who does not react sharply when being attacked in a mean way! You will not find many people.
Dan again brought that nonsense that many people (including Buchholz) rated Rosewall at No.1 for 1964 because he won the 1963 (sic!!!) tour.
Regarding my English you are also wrong: Even though I knew exactly that I have understood Bud's words on Tennis Channel correctly I even asked a man who is a native English speaker and a very serious and intelligent person to boot. I can tell you his name (hope he does not mind me for that). His name is KROSERO who told me that "You could make an argument can also be formulated "One could an make an argument" which does NOT mean that Bud would have meant "YOU, as my interviewer, could make an argument, but I, Bud Collins, would not agree with YOUR argument".
I wonder that you also seem to distort English language just in order to blame me and to belittle Rosewall and to be without respect for the great Bud Collins. It's a big shame for my enemies that I must explain them what English language , English terms mean!!!
Now I ask you and your few friends on this board: Do you really believe that krosero is not able to understand a clearly written English term?? Then please say it.
I sometimes feel as though we are in a mental home and not in a serious tennis forum. Get serious!
Limpin, It's your best post so far! Never ever a certain Limpinhitter has been described so correctly. I must make a little remark: Limpin has two agendas: Pushing Laver with totally wrong numbers (You never have corrected them after krosero, NatF and I have shown them to you) and to smash down Rosewall. Too few to be a serious poster here!!
Gary, Money is not all. I'm sure Gonzalez and Rosewall would have refused to take any prize money if they would have been allowed to participate in open Wimbledons prior to open era. I just remember that excatly that was a suggestion made by some pros years before open era started.
70sHollywood, I yet believe that Newcombe rated his AO win as a win in a major (albeit lesser major).
Phoenix1983, You are wrong. It was not krosero. You are often wrong and rather often mean and ugly. Here you make the next ugly claim: that krosero is not capable to see the clear thing that BobbyOne is ridiculously biased. Do you mean krosero is an idiot? Then please are outspoken. He will survive your insult as he has already survived some of your obnoxious insults...
Gary, I don't agree with DMP that the GS tournaments were not very important in the early years of open tennis. The old pros were eager to finally participate in them and they did very well: They won 10 out the first 12 open GS tournamnets where they participated.
70sHollywood, Of course it was.
I don't know if krosero wants to reply and how he would. But may I present you my assumption: Maybe krosero uses to be loyal to people who never (or almost never) were unfair toward him and to people who he recognizes as serious posters with reasonable arguments. I don't refer to my tendency to be a hotread though. I also assume that krosero is impressed that I am able to apologize when having made a wrong claim and to accept good counter-arguments. I'm sure he also finds it remarkable that I would forgive even my worst enemies like Limpinhitter if they would end their attacks and apologize for their lies. I even have told Limpinhitter that we could become (sort of) friends. Perhaps krosero also gives me some credit that I never wrote that Rod Laver shall die soon and that on his obituary will be written: "A fine player who was not able to win at Dallas even though he tried it five times" ....
Hmmm! Has anyone noticed that krosero and Ken Rosewall have never been seen together?
Let me repeat:
I should have said:
The first H2H match between the two players THAT is listed on the ATP site is 1970, when Rosewall was at least 35 years old.
I have never AT ANY TIME claimed to be an expert on what went on during the pro period before Open tennis, nor do I claim to be an expert in any other period.
I was talking ONLY about the H2H listed on the ATP site, which I presume is only about matches the ATP is counting. I used it only as an example to show how well Rosewall did against people far younger.
Limpin, Here even I must laugh. Nice joke. But in seriousness, I strongly guss that krosero does know more Rosewall matches (their results) than Muscles himself does (as also other experts like Andrew Tas do)...
Gary, I see. But many people have critisized the ATP records. I never understood their philosophy. F.i. the two 1968 encounters were played in big events and ATP has considered even smaller pro events in 1968. For a long time they even forgot thebig OPEN L.A. tournament (PSW) where Laver beat Rosewall in final.
You are beyond belief. Belittle Rosewall?
I respect Rosewall more than most anyone else in this forum.
Which apparently is not enough for you.
I meant that EVEN the ATP is showing a H2H in favor of Rosewall when it does not count matches, apparently, before 1970.
I never claimed to have a definitive match count of any kind for any of the players who played before the Open era.
I still do not claim to have such a count.
My point remains that at roughly the beginning of the Open era Rosewall was about 10 years older than Newcombe, who at that time would have been close to his middle 20s and - if anything - would have been expected to have a huge advantage re his age.
Were he not one of my e-pals I'd seriously wonder if the guy was human. Definitely one of the fairest individuals you'll ever meet.
You're just realizing this now?
Well, I do agree with him at least to some extent for the simple reason that Laver did not even bother playing at many slams after he won the grand slam in 69.
But more important, I do believe that tennis by the early 70s, with all the suits and bans and competing tennis organizations, was very much in revolt. I remember being very confused at the time about who was playing what and where.
The point system was nothing like it is today. I remember the year that Borg skipped RG - I believe that is correct - because he had a lucrative contract to play WTT. Then there was the year that Wimbledon was boycotted.
Things were often a mess.
No. I mostly chose to stay out of it for the sake of learning new information.
I probably lost my temper a couple times because of the endless back-and-forth between at least two members who can't resist the urge to jab each other repeatedly to the extent that all reasonable communication stops.
Gary, Just cool down, obviously you have not followed the long time discussion between me (and a few others) and my "enemies" about the interesting question if Rosewall is a GOAT candidate or not. Especially there was a curious debate a few months ago about if Bud Collins has rated Muscles a GOAT contender or not. I mentioned that he has done it four times, twice in a Tennis Channel video and twice in phone calls with me. Some nice posters blamed me for distorting Bud's words, others claimed that Bud just echoed my words or suggestions because he knew I was a great Rosewall admirer. I considered that as an affront against Bud.
Regarding the first of Bud's video statements a few very intelligent posters claimed that my English was too bad to understand Bud correctly. They argued with this and that, wrote about the difference between "could make" and "should make" and the geniuses among the posters (I remember Dan for the moment) explained an German speaking Austrian (BobbyOne) that "You could make an argument" means that Bud told to his interviewer or to the camera man or to anybody else that THEY could make (the wrong) argument that Rosewall could be the GOAT while he, Mr. Bud Collins, would never say that stupid statement. Even though I knew I have understood Bud perfectly (my English is not as bad as my Chinese or Arab) and I knew that Bud had years before told me that Rosewall is one of his GOAT candidates (some nice posters don't believe me in this case till today), I asked a good friend, krosero, if I was right with my interpretation because I knew that krosero is a native English speaker and speaks and writes a very good English (I think you will agree here). krosero answered me that my version was the right one.
Therefore I was upset when you wrote about my English thus insinuating my "enemies" were right with their stupid interpreation.
I never wanted to belittle your Rosewall admiration. I'm sorry.
Gary, I don't think that Laver skipped many GS majors. As far as I know he only skipped AO 1972, French 1971, US Open 1971 in the first three years after his Grand Slam. He was not allowed to play in several other GS events.
I also don't think that there was such a mess in those years. We had the GS tournaments and two important series (WCT and GP).
Apart from a couple Graf fanatics I've certainly never seen another groupie who's so obsessed with fending off any perceived slight to his hero. I'm beginning to think it might be better for everyone involved if he stayed banned or at least took a long leave of absence, but then the forum would need a new bag to punch.
NonP, Thanks for your nice Graf insinuation. But you are right: Some primitive posters seem to need a punching ball.
Stay at music. There you understand a bit more (?) than about tennis history.
It's not just those "primitive" posters who are fed up with your incessant Rosewall worship. In case you haven't noticed Limpin is not the only one who has refused to engage you or tuned you out since your comeback, and your non-"enemies" have taken you to task for your hysterical attack on gino, to name just one example. Hell, you just said yourself your friend has recommended that you take some time off, too. Ever wonder why that is?
When so many people have the same reaction you have to be willing to at least consider the possibility that the problem is you, not the people who "hate" you or your darling Rosewall.
Yes, I definitely know more about music than you ever will, especially about a certain Beethoven sonata.
Laver did not to compete in the AO in 1970, competed in 71 but never again.
He never played at RG after 1969.
He competed at Wimbledon two more years and then stopped in 72. From 72 on he competed only at the USO except for 77, at Wimbledon - which obviously was way too late for a serious effort there.
The year after he won the grand slam he skipped two of the four slams. Then he skipped two again in 71.
From 72 on he skipped all but one slam. When he played at Wimbledon once more, in 77, he lost in the 2nd round from what I am reading now. I have no recollection of him playing at that point. He was not even seeded.
Meanwhile, he played in something like 5 WTC tournaments in 72, I believe. Is this correct or not?
My conclusion: he made his fame with the grand slam, then put his biggest efforts elsewhere.
I don't think anyone else agrees with you on this point. I'll leave it at that.
Have you ever considered the idea that Bud Collins, a superb human being, needs no support? He does not need my support, and he does not need yours.
I don't quibble about language. Ever. You write English far better than I write German, and I admire that.
But you really need to take a big "time out" and consider the possibility that your manner of communication is not doing Bud, Butch or Rosewall any good.
Some of us - and I am one - think that GOAT debates are pointless. It is hard enough to choose between two or more players in the same era. "Grading" them in some manner, comparing them to players in different eras, may be entertaining, but it will always be a matter of preference based on opinions.
I will state my own view one more time: During the era in which I first became a tennis fan, Laver and Rosewall were hands down the biggest stars in tennis. I simply knew who they were. A bit later I learned about Kramer, Gonzales, and other players of that time of a slightly earlier time. I was only 12 in 1960, a time when Gonzales was already around 32, I believe. I only saw him play a couple times in the twilight of his career, and from that I assumed (at that time) that he must have been a monster player during his peak. Since everyone else who knew much more than I seemed to say the same thing, that idea was pretty much cemented.
But for my generation the world changed when Open tennis started. We saw Wimbledon on TV, and we knew that the pros were allowed to compete for the first time. Then Laver sort of settled the whole matter by beating everyone in 69.
Laver was THE guy then. He was the most famous. The whole world knew who Laver was.
We all heard about Rosewall because when we thought of the one guy who could "bring it to him" very early in the Open era, we thought of Rosewall. Not any number of other guys. Not Newcombe. Not Ashe. Not Gimeno. Not Stolle, Richey, Drysdale, Riessen, Okker, Ralston, Anderson, Taylor, Smith, Nastase. And certainly not Emerson.
So for me, growing up in the Laver/Rosewall era, these were the two guys, much like Nadal and Fed were THE two guys in tennis up until around 2010.
Today I don't see any less evidence that Rosewall was Laver's #1 competitor for at least the latter half of the 60s. Laver may have been better - I think he was - but Rosewall won his fair share of big matches, and even if he was #2 to Laver, he was an incredibly dangerous and competitive #2.
Add that together with Rosewall's amazing playing record in his 30s and I think any open-minded person has to rate him very high.
That's the end of it for me.
This is where you need to get a grip. People who disagree with you, for whatever reason, are not enemies. They are people with different opinions. They may or may not express those opinions well, or fairly. You may or may not express your own opinions in the best manner.
Enemies are the people who drop bombs on your country, hurt your friends and family. You have no enemies here. You do not know any of us well enough for us to be enemies or friends. We are people, mostly in other countries, whom you have never met face to face.
I expect people in their teens and early 20s to go to war in a forum over a perceived slight or an emoticon.
But good grief, man, we are both nearly 70.
Put things into perspective.
You are the one who needs to cool down.
I did say it was long time ago. However if both Gary and I, he in the States and I in the UK have the same perception, then maybe we are both mistaken, or our joint recollection is accurate. You are free to make your own judgement.
I think they were important to Tingay, and they were based on a lot of experience of tennis-watching. But he was part of the old guard and I don't think he had caught up with the 'modern' views of the tennis players. I think his opinions were a lot less important to them than the money on offer.
In 1968 the traditional GS tournaments were important to the old pros. They were the only things on offer, and they were part of the tennis history they had all come from.
But by 1970 everything was very different and it was a wholly different ball game. A lot of money had flooded into the game and the old pros could see there was big money to be made. As Gary has said, you never knew from one month to the next when there would be a new announcement about a new big money tournament or series.
I cannot think of any similar chaos in a major sport. The nearest analogy I can come to is in cricket when Kerry Packer entered the scene with World Series Cricket, or the start of the IPL in India. But they were nowhere near as disruptive. It was as if the IPL was announced, then a rival series, then World Series Cricket,all within a few months of each other.
Winning becomes less important the more often you´ve won something? Tell that to Roger, Rafa or Novak
first of all, i don´t know that Bobby had to convince Bud Collins. maybe you know more than me.
i also don´t know what you and Butch Buchholz talked about on the phone. Maybe he wanted to get rid of you, and gave you the answer you wanted for that reason?
i choose to believe that both phone conversations went exactly as Bobby and you reported.
i would have tried to use the opportunity to talk to Buchholz by asking him more than one question, but that´s another story.
my point is, Bobby has the right to be sceptical about your phone conversation. without that being used as evidence against him.
i understand about your frustration with some of these discussions. that´s why i was glad when krosero presented these articles.
because i thought, perhaps foolishly, that the endless cycle that you talk about could be broken.
treblings, Thanks. I don't know why some posters make a problem out of my relationship with Bud. We were friends ("at a distance", as he once formulated). Alas, we never met (but Bud used some of my long letters as lecture in his bed, as he told me). But it's an insult to believe that Bud praised Rosewall that way because he wanted to do me a favour. Bud was a sovereign man who did not need to echo any man's opinions. If I would have said that in my opinion Gimeno is a GOAT candidate, he would have asked me (in a friendly manner): "Robert, mein Freund, are you crazy?". Bud Collins, even though he was THE Laver man at all, had highest respect for Rosewall and used to refer to Muscles as "Kenny Rosewall".
We still don't know how the question at that Buchholz call was. I have my doubts not regarding Buchholz's answer but regarding the formulation of the question. I strongly guess that the latter was about a "130 day tour" to which also Limpinhitter used to refer wrongly. The 130 day tour was NOT for world championship. It was only an important part of it.
krosero's great findings should have ended the strange debate but unfortunately it did not...
Phoenix1983, If there is a person who hates Rosewall it's you and Limpinhitter.
NonP, I don't know if you hate Rosewall (as Limpin and Phoenix obviously do) but I do know that you hate me and without reason.
You never blamed Dan Lobb for his worshipping. That's double standard and bias!
It's easy and nasty to beat a fellow poster knowing that also otherr posters hate him. But don't make an error: I also have some posters who understand my opinions and claims!
Hysterical attack on gino?? Show me that hysterical attack. It was an attack but hysterical? NatF once called me also an ignoramus but I did not answer it was an "hysterical" attack. gino made a totally absurd ranking list to formulate it mildely.
Your and your few friends' attacks against me could be called hysterical and obnoxious (pleading for my ultimate ban)!
You err totally: My good friend did NOT mean that I should take some time off because I would be nasty, hysterical etc. In contrary: He of course meant that my "enemies" are unfair toward me, that the whole situation is now heated up and that my opponents would (hopefully) get real and calm again after a pause!!
Play Beethoven 111 to any people (as I have done toward several people by CD) and they will assure you that in the second movement there is a 2-3 minutes passage of Jazz.
How do you know that you understand more about classic music than I do? You don't know f.i. how many symphonies I can sing without hearing them...
Gary, I'm sorry but I again must contradict. Laver was not allowed to enter the 1970 AO and the 1972 Wimbledon ( WCT boycott). He did not skip two GS tournaments in 1970!
Laver played till 1979 (only one tournament in the last year). He played more than 5 WCT tournaments in 1972.
I do think that some readers agree with my view. I already read about some agreement regarding Laver's pride to defend his 1969 titles.
People like to say how such and such a player would be embarassed by what they read on here. Nevermind embarrassment, these same people would be downright offended to be painted as little more than mercenaries with hearts of avarice.
Tennis is a job, I don't think there's anything wrong with going after the big pay cheques. Relatively speak prize money was a lot lower back then I'm sure.
Separate names with a comma.