out of 28 slams, he didn't make the semis on 4 occasions.
Budge was a beast.
They have them bcs they respect are overestemate players they played against. You bet that when they are all retired Nadal will say Djokovic was in top10 players ever, Novak will say Rafa is in top3, they will even put Murray in top20. I'm not saying Kramer or Budge were bad, just look at it this way: Fed is the GOAT. Rafa owns Fed. And if tomorrow Fed and Novak say 'Rafa is the best player who ever lived' would you put Rafa as no1??
And budges 10 Slams and CYGS < Sampras' 14 Slams IMO, but that's IMO. 14 Slams > 5 Slams is not IMO, that's a fact
Oh, you mean Kramer? Yes he did only win 5 slams, but in those days, it was more lucrative on the pro tour to play barnstorming sessions. From 46-52, he owned everyone. Riggs, what was left of Budge, Segura, Gonzales, and Sedgman.
As for Budge over Sampras, this is also subjective, but I'm giving it to Budge.
I am quite sure uxyzapenje was wondering more about Kramer's ascent than Budge's. I too have Kramer lower down. More like where he was on your list yesterday. So - can you convice us as to why he deserves better?
Kramer set the standard for tennis post WW2
His long tours where he was clearly superior to all challengers is proof enough, in my opinion.
I am not expert on tennis history but having someone as random as Kramer in the top 8 is incorrect. His previous ranking of 21 is more accurate IMHO. Obviously, this is still Groove's thread, so he can have Young as #1
Kramer is random? A player who was #1 in the World for 4 years is random? The guy who was basically the father of modern pro tennis is random? The guy has a tennis racket named after him for fuck's sake and you call him random?