You didn't mention it in your descriptions of Tilden or Wilding. But OK, we agree.
You've got a thread here: World Championship Series - Pros
and a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_...e_the_open_era
I remember a debate between Rosewalltards and Gonzalestards on these boards. The pro-Gonzales argued that these long tours were the major events on the Pro Tour since the Major tournaments sometimes had very small draws (which is true, mainly for the US Pro). The blemish being that Gonzales would then usually have to face a rookie (except in 1954) and the gap between amateur and pro standards was so huge that these were easy wins for him (and as mentioned, he was himself destroyed by Kramer while being the rookie).
Rosewall also won some of these long tours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ros...C_1957_to_1967
(in 1963, he destroyed Laver in these, Laver being a rookie)
Edit: By the way, Lendl's poor record in Davis Cup came from the fact that he was no longer allowed to play for Czechoslovakia after playing an exho in Apartheid South Africa.
Interesting reads. Yes, the long tours were what was popular during the earlier days of the pro tour, transporting a portable court from city to city and playing the matches at nights to the crowds. What a time it must have been to live in and watch.
Usually when the top amateur went pro, he received a beating for the first 1-2 years. You saw it happen to Gonzales at the hands of Kramer before Pancho dominated, you saw it with Rosewall against Gonzales before he reigned supreme and then with Laver against Rosewall for a year until Laver became king.
And Lendl's dispute with the Czech's over his nationality is well known, no?
Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave
a few huge problems with this list is that you have given some players SO MUCH credit (a huge majority of your top ranked) when they played at a time when tennis was not at all competitive like it has been the last half century...... unfair credit.
You mean Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge? Those guys' resumes are too awesome for words.
DJokovic behind Hewitt and Rafter is insulting and AGASSi, my god, I have never seen such an offensive rank for Agassi who is probably the best returner (1st or second serve) in the history of the game. you did a great job explaining things and it was a fun read but some of the choices and ranks just seem SO BIASED in regard to your own liking of the player. There is no inclination or substantial reason to put Agassi as low as you did or put Rafter/Hewitt over DJokovic.......... and too many what ifs based on your top older generation players... this comes off as more of a thread about glorifying players from less competitive eras and pointing out one obvious thing (Federer's brilliance) than fairly ranking the players based on skill, results, and competition
Djokovic is well ahead of Rafter, and the only reason he is ever so slightly behind Hewitt is because Djokovic JUST got to #1 in the world.
Agassi, well, he was always in the shadow of Sampras, so it is difficult to rank him. I am curious, mountaindewslave, what would your top 20 be?