Did the Older guys like Rosewall,Tilden,Gonzales had it easy? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Did the Older guys like Rosewall,Tilden,Gonzales had it easy?

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 06:06 AM
This is based on whatever the videos are posted on Internet including Youtube.

I saw Rosewall's game.hindisght. And i still cant comprehend how can he win so much with such a limited game. He had a Okayish Serve. Didnt have a forehand and backhand really. It was more like a WTA Slice. Yeah i can get he used to volley somewhat good. But whats the big deal about those guys Rosewall,Tilden And Gonzales.

And when Connors arrived at the scene he set the records straight, whooped Rosewall 6-0 6-0 6-0 in the Wimbeldon Final. Can you imagine anybody playing that badly in the Wimbeldon final. Our Guy Nalbandian played better in the final against Hewitt.

Its shocking Really how much easy those guys had it.

Topspindoctor
12-30-2011, 06:47 AM
Most top 10 WTA players of today would've beaten mugs playing in the 60's.

GSMnadal
12-30-2011, 07:13 AM
This ought to be good... Nostalgiatards: ENTER!

orangehat
12-30-2011, 07:59 AM
3(2?) nadaltards lined up into this thread already.

:rolls:

green25814
12-30-2011, 08:07 AM
Tennis was a totally different game back then, was more skill based due to the wooden rackets. They didn't generate much power so had to rely on tactical/technical ability.

Also LOL at anyone suggesting Pancho Gonzalez had it easy. He's without doubt the most badass tennis player of all time. Makes Nadal look like a kitten in comparison.

FairWeatherFan
12-30-2011, 08:33 AM
Tennis was an infinitely more skilful game back then, something that the simple-minded plebeians who constitute tennis fans in this present era struggle to comprehend.

Funny that Nadal fans see it as necessary to so ignorantly impugn the players of the past in order to justify Mugboar's present "achievements". This is because they know that Nadal could never have succeeded in an era which required skill and grace for success, rather than smacking the ball mindlessly with an oversized sweet spot and running endlessly, along with a physique attained by unethical methods.

TennisOnWood
12-30-2011, 08:58 AM
Lets see the fight of two ''mugs''

K8IJ0F01IiU&feature=related

Attacking game and going for shots (as much a s racquets allows them) instead of killing each other for 4 hours from baseline like today's Number 1 and 2 (you can't send them to the net even if they life's depend on that)

General Suburbia
12-30-2011, 09:53 AM
Yeah obviously Pancho was an all serve mug.

Mystique
12-30-2011, 10:02 AM
EVOLUTION. Know that word?

masterclass
12-30-2011, 10:22 AM
This is based on whatever the videos are posted on Internet including Youtube.

I saw Rosewall's game.hindisght. And i still cant comprehend how can he win so much with such a limited game. He had a Okayish Serve. Didnt have a forehand and backhand really. It was more like a WTA Slice. Yeah i can get he used to volley somewhat good. But whats the big deal about those guys Rosewall,Tilden And Gonzales.

And when Connors arrived at the scene he set the records straight, whooped Rosewall 6-0 6-0 6-0 in the Wimbeldon Final. Can you imagine anybody playing that badly in the Wimbeldon final. Our Guy Nalbandian played better in the final against Hewitt.

Its shocking Really how much easy those guys had it.

It's shocking and laughable, how close this thread is to being unworthy of response.
First, please get your facts straight, or don't publish them!!
21 year old Jimmy Connors (born Sep. 2, 1952) beat 39 year old Ken Rosewall (born 2nd Nov, 1934) at the 1974 Wimbledon Finals 6-1, 6-1, 6-4 (Rosewall was clearly tired having had to defeat John Newcombe in 4 sets, followed by Stan Smith in the semifinals in a grueling 5 sets), and at the US Open 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 during Jimmy Connors greatest year where Jimmy went 99-4.
Mr. Rosewall won his final 2 Slams at the Australian Open in 1971 (against a strong field - sponsored by Dunlop WCT players were allowed to compete) and 1972 ( a very depleted field) at the age of 37 and 38.

Second, the times were so different, you can't compare the eras.
Look, the players you mentioned had it very easy...;) :p Playing with state of the art equipment of the day, they traveled using the best imaginable transportation systems available, and played for the love of the sport and fantastic, exorbitant cash contracts and exhibitions. They were swimming in luxury. They had it so good, they only needed to play a match every other day on average, though to be fair, they did play day after day in some of their mano-a-mano events.

Third, I'll provide an example from one of the players mentioned:
The best the 42 year old Richard Alonso Gonzalez (born May 9, 1928), known as Pancho Gonzales could manage to do in 1970 was to beat Rod Laver (who had just won the Grand Slam the year before) at Madison Square Garden in a huge $10,000 winner-take-all contest 7-5, 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2. He repeated that accomplishment later at the lucrative Howard Hughes Open beating Laver 6-1, 7-5, 5-7, 6-3. The year before, a younger Gonzalez, at age 41, somehow managed to squeak by, in succession, four Hall of Famers-to-be, John Newcombe, 6-1, 6-2, Ken Rosewall, 6-4, 1-6, 6-3, Stan Smith, 8-6, 7-9, 6-4, and Arthure Ashe, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4 to win the $50,000 Howard Hughes Open at Las Vegas, and the $12,500 first prize, which was second highest payout at the time(only the U.S. Open prize was higher).

I won't mention his earlier play, as during his peak years, where he was considered #1 for 8 years running, his serve was blamed as being too overpowering (he was around 1.9 meters, 6'2 or 3), so much so they changed the rules for a time to not allow serve and volley (the return had to hit the ground first). Probably one of the highest compliments paid to Gonzalez was by journalist and commentator Bud Collins (who has seen and reported on a lot of tennis during his 82 years). Collins said as recently in an August 2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."

-masterclass

leng jai
12-30-2011, 10:23 AM
Of course they had it easy - they didn't have to endure the stupidity of MTF back then.

Time Violation
12-30-2011, 10:35 AM
If they could compete at the top at 40+, they definitely had it easy physically wise. However, that says nothing about the skills part of it :)

TennisOnWood
12-30-2011, 11:08 AM
Not to mantion that tie break was introduced in 1970. (Sampras and Federer won more than 300 sets in 13th game) and before that you could not just wait for it.. you needed break!! Laver and Roche would for sure love to play few minutes tie break instead of 22-20 set in mythical 1/2 of AO 1969

Nixer
12-30-2011, 11:37 AM
Not to mantion that tie break was introduced in 1970. (Sampras and Federer won more than 300 sets in 13th game) and before that you could not just wait for it.. you needed break!! Laver and Roche would for sure love to play few minutes tie break instead of 22-20 set in mythical 1/2 of AO 1969

well, you can ask Isner and Mahut about that :rolleyes:

Saberq
12-30-2011, 11:57 AM
Not to mantion that tie break was introduced in 1970. (Sampras and Federer won more than 300 sets in 13th game) and before that you could not just wait for it.. you needed break!! Laver and Roche would for sure love to play few minutes tie break instead of 22-20 set in mythical 1/2 of AO 1969

Tiebreak helps lesser players.....how many mugs would actually break Roger or Pete at their peak to win a set?

green25814
12-30-2011, 01:07 PM
"If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."

-masterclass

Fucking right

Also Serbinator, learn to read you gimp

GSMnadal
12-30-2011, 01:13 PM
3(2?) nadaltards lined up into this thread already.

:rolls:

Shinoj is the biggest Nadal hater on this forum :lol:

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 02:59 PM
It's shocking and laughable, how close this thread is to being unworthy of response.
First, please get your facts straight, or don't publish them!!
21 year old Jimmy Connors (born Sep. 2, 1952) beat 39 year old Ken Rosewall (born 2nd Nov, 1934) at the 1974 Wimbledon Finals 6-1, 6-1, 6-4 (Rosewall was clearly tired having had to defeat John Newcombe in 4 sets, followed by Stan Smith in the semifinals in a grueling 5 sets), and at the US Open 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 during Jimmy Connors greatest year where Jimmy went 99-4.
Mr. Rosewall won his final 2 Slams at the Australian Open in 1971 (against a strong field - sponsored by Dunlop WCT players were allowed to compete) and 1972 ( a very depleted field) at the age of 37 and 38.


-masterclass


Allright Rosewall Lost at US Open instead of Wimbeldon.. Big Deal Really.And by the way by mentioning the Age Difference you yourself are implying that the Era prior to Connors one was a Meak one. Think Again


If Rosewall won his final two Slams at that age, it is shocking really the competitiveness of that Era.No kidding here.



Second, the times were so different, you can't compare the eras.
Look, the players you mentioned had it very easy...;) :p Playing with state of the art equipment of the day, they traveled using the best imaginable transportation systems available, and played for the love of the sport and fantastic, exorbitant cash contracts and exhibitions. They were swimming in luxury. They had it so good, they only needed to play a match every other day on average, though to be fair, they did play day after day in some of their mano-a-mano events.



I am all for not comparing a Pre World War Era where they are being filmed on a Walking Reel.But if those matches are on Youtube and on Real Time they can be compared. Cant see any reason why they cannot be.

They played every alternate day but what was the level of competition then? In Amateur sports you do not get much leeway between the games. Everybody knows about it.





Third, I'll provide an example from one of the players mentioned:
The best the 42 year old Richard Alonso Gonzalez (born May 9, 1928), known as Pancho Gonzales could manage to do in 1970 was to beat Rod Laver (who had just won the Grand Slam the year before) at Madison Square Garden in a huge $10,000 winner-take-all contest 7-5, 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2. He repeated that accomplishment later at the lucrative Howard Hughes Open beating Laver 6-1, 7-5, 5-7, 6-3. The year before, a younger Gonzalez, at age 41, somehow managed to squeak by, in succession, four Hall of Famers-to-be, John Newcombe, 6-1, 6-2, Ken Rosewall, 6-4, 1-6, 6-3, Stan Smith, 8-6, 7-9, 6-4, and Arthure Ashe, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4 to win the $50,000 Howard Hughes Open at Las Vegas, and the $12,500 first prize, which was second highest payout at the time(only the U.S. Open prize was higher).




I dont know what kindof courts were Madison Square Garden. Were they Grass? if yes then

Its honestly quite shocking that how fast those Grass courts were really. All you have to have is a good serve and a good enough Volley. There was no need to strong groundstrokes. You can check for your self. I dont know how to embedd a youtube Video but i will provide the link. I asked the Admin few days ago but i guess he is stiff to answer this.


This was a Match between Tony Roche and Rosewall. And you can see for yourself. Who is the more aggressive player, who has better strength on his groundstrokes,stronger serve.Its Tony Roche yet he lost out that match.

These results are no surprise really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJubuKDN7Fk&feature=related

And lastly your signature is quite a put off. If you really mean so much respect and courtesy why do you want to put in your signature.Its a show off really.

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 03:03 PM
Lets see the fight of two ''mugs''

K8IJ0F01IiU&feature=related

Attacking game and going for shots (as much a s racquets allows them) instead of killing each other for 4 hours from baseline like today's Number 1 and 2 (you can't send them to the net even if they life's depend on that)


So what? had you seen the courts. they are as fast as they can be.you need not have an All COurt game. All you need to know is a Slice,both backhand and Forehand and a good serve.

And a good Brylcream on your head for Rosewall:lol:

thrust
12-30-2011, 03:06 PM
Tennis was an infinitely more skilful game back then, something that the simple-minded plebeians who constitute tennis fans in this present era struggle to comprehend.

Funny that Nadal fans see it as necessary to so ignorantly impugn the players of the past in order to justify Mugboar's present "achievements". This is because they know that Nadal could never have succeeded in an era which required skill and grace for success, rather than smacking the ball mindlessly with an oversized sweet spot and running endlessly, along with a physique attained by unethical methods.

While I do not know how Rafa got his physique, I do agree with this post. While the Pro Tour players did earn money, legally, they did not make much. Also, they played in rather primitive conditions compared to today's pampered players. They did not travel in luxury jets, with personal coaches, physical trainers or doctors. They did not get medical time outs during matches or take 20-30 seconds between points. They played with heavier and much smaller rackets. They had to play as many tournaments as possible in order to make any money. One year that Rosewall won the US Pro tournament, beating Laver in the fianl, he got no money because the tournament made no profit. This is not to imply that today's players have it easy, however, to say that the Pro Tour players had it easier than today's players is to be ignorant of the facts or be in denial.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 03:09 PM
This is based on whatever the videos are posted on Internet including Youtube.

I saw Rosewall's game.hindisght. And i still cant comprehend how can he win so much with such a limited game. He had a Okayish Serve. Didnt have a forehand and backhand really. It was more like a WTA Slice. Yeah i can get he used to volley somewhat good. But whats the big deal about those guys Rosewall,Tilden And Gonzales.

And when Connors arrived at the scene he set the records straight, whooped Rosewall 6-0 6-0 6-0 in the Wimbeldon Final. Can you imagine anybody playing that badly in the Wimbeldon final. Our Guy Nalbandian played better in the final against Hewitt.

Its shocking Really how much easy those guys had it.

Ah yes, another thread to bash old GOATS. MugTF at its best.

Most top 10 WTA players of today would've beaten mugs playing in the 60's.

Dumbass.

It's shocking and laughable, how close this thread is to being unworthy of response.
First, please get your facts straight, or don't publish them!!
21 year old Jimmy Connors (born Sep. 2, 1952) beat 39 year old Ken Rosewall (born 2nd Nov, 1934) at the 1974 Wimbledon Finals 6-1, 6-1, 6-4 (Rosewall was clearly tired having had to defeat John Newcombe in 4 sets, followed by Stan Smith in the semifinals in a grueling 5 sets), and at the US Open 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 during Jimmy Connors greatest year where Jimmy went 99-4.
Mr. Rosewall won his final 2 Slams at the Australian Open in 1971 (against a strong field - sponsored by Dunlop WCT players were allowed to compete) and 1972 ( a very depleted field) at the age of 37 and 38.

Second, the times were so different, you can't compare the eras.
Look, the players you mentioned had it very easy...;) :p Playing with state of the art equipment of the day, they traveled using the best imaginable transportation systems available, and played for the love of the sport and fantastic, exorbitant cash contracts and exhibitions. They were swimming in luxury. They had it so good, they only needed to play a match every other day on average, though to be fair, they did play day after day in some of their mano-a-mano events.

Third, I'll provide an example from one of the players mentioned:
The best the 42 year old Richard Alonso Gonzalez (born May 9, 1928), known as Pancho Gonzales could manage to do in 1970 was to beat Rod Laver (who had just won the Grand Slam the year before) at Madison Square Garden in a huge $10,000 winner-take-all contest 7-5, 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2. He repeated that accomplishment later at the lucrative Howard Hughes Open beating Laver 6-1, 7-5, 5-7, 6-3. The year before, a younger Gonzalez, at age 41, somehow managed to squeak by, in succession, four Hall of Famers-to-be, John Newcombe, 6-1, 6-2, Ken Rosewall, 6-4, 1-6, 6-3, Stan Smith, 8-6, 7-9, 6-4, and Arthure Ashe, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4 to win the $50,000 Howard Hughes Open at Las Vegas, and the $12,500 first prize, which was second highest payout at the time(only the U.S. Open prize was higher).

I won't mention his earlier play, as during his peak years, where he was considered #1 for 8 years running, his serve was blamed as being too overpowering (he was around 1.9 meters, 6'2 or 3), so much so they changed the rules for a time to not allow serve and volley (the return had to hit the ground first). Probably one of the highest compliments paid to Gonzalez was by journalist and commentator Bud Collins (who has seen and reported on a lot of tennis during his 82 years). Collins said as recently in an August 2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."

-masterclass

Good stuff here. Rosewall's pure racket skills with the wooden racket were incredible. One of the greatest slices of all time, and even in his late 30's he was top 10 in the world, winning slams, making slam finals.

Pancho Gonzales was just a beast. Dominated the tour in the 50's after he took over #1 from Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer in the early 50's. Had an 8 year run as #1 in the world, the best serve of his time, he was Sampras before Sampras was Sampras. And what a serve. You mentioned they tried to change the serve and volley rules :lol: Can you imagine a player in this era who was so good, they had to change the rules to make it more competitive?

As for Tilden, well, he was king in the 20's, he won a shit load of tournament, Davis Cup, slams, pro and amateur, and was GOAT at his time, much like Fed is now. Big serve, too good, would often tank sets just to make matches interesting. Too bad the USLTA (mugs then, and mugs now) took away his amateur eligibility because....he was paid to write tennis articles for newspaper :facepalm: Well, not just that, Tilden was a massive diva, secret homosexual, and always had outrageous demands. But as long as he won, the USLTA had to keep putting up with him. His defining moments were in the late 20's, early 30's, vs. the French Muskateers. After dominating the game for years, the French began his downfall.

First, the 1927 French Open final, losing 11-9 in the 5th set to Rene Lacoste, losing from 2-1 up in sets. Then at Wimbledon a few weeks later, he lost from 2-0 sets up to Henri Cochet in the SF :facepalm: Then, at the USO later that summer, he lost 11-9, 6-3, 11-9 to Lascoste at the USO finals. To top it off, Tilden then lost to the French at the Davis Cup final right after the USO, losing the potential clinching 4th tie vs. Rene Lacoste again, this time 6-2 in the 4th.

Then, the next year, he lost SF at Wimbledon 1928 to Lacoste, again this time from 2-1 sets up. They lost the Davis Cup final 4-1 to the French in '28 again, lost again to Lacoste in 4 sets at the French Open 1929 SF, lost to Cochet at Wimbledon 1929 SF, got destroyed by Cochet in the 1929 Davis Cup finals, but rebounded to win USO 1929. Lost to Cochet at RG 1930 finals, but won Wimbledon 1930. And then again lost in the 1930 Davis cup finals vs. France. Then the USLTA were pretty much done with Tilden, and since he wasn't winning as often as before, they threw him out of the amateur game and Tilden went pro in 1931 and stayed around for another 15 years in the pro game, playing top 10 players for years, often giving away 10-15 years to his younger opponents and still pulling out wins over top 10 players even at age 40+, even 45+! Of course, the molestation charges put a true damper over his career at the end, and the jokes, especially at this place, are easy to make.

Of course they had it easy - they didn't have to endure the stupidity of MTF back then.

This too :lol:

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 03:13 PM
Ah yes, another thread to bash old GOATS. MugTF at its best.



At Age 22 defending a player who you have never ever seen properly. This is called Gloryhunting.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 03:13 PM
So what? had you seen the courts. they are as fast as they can be.you need not have an All COurt game. All you need to know is a Slice,both backhand and Forehand and a good serve.

And a good Brylcream on your head for Rosewall:lol:

Last I checked, that was a complete game, and those guys back then knew how to volley.

What, you think guys like Djokovic and Nadal and Murray and Tsonga and Del Potro and Ferrer all have complete games? :spit:

While I do not know how Rafa got his physique, I do agree with this post. While the Pro Tour players did earn money, legally, they did not make much. Also, they played in rather primitive conditions compared to today's pampered players. They did not travel in luxury jets, with personal coaches, physical trainers or doctors. They did not get medical time outs during matches or take 20-30 seconds between points. They played with heavier and much smaller rackets. They had to play as many tournaments as possible in order to make any money. One year that Rosewall won the US Pro tournament, beating Laver in the fianl, he got no money because the tournament made no profit. This is not to imply that today's players have it easy, however, to say that the Pro Tour players had it easier than today's players is to be ignorant of the facts or be in denial.

YES!

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 03:14 PM
At Age 22 defending a player who you have never ever seen properly. This is called Gloryhunting.

No, it is called reading history. From those that were there.

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 03:14 PM
Good stuff here. Rosewall's pure racket skills with the wooden racket were incredible. One of the greatest slices of all time, and even in his late 30's he was top 10 in the world, winning slams, making slam finals.

Pancho Gonzales was just a beast. Dominated the tour in the 50's after he took over #1 from Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer in the early 50's. Had an 8 year run as #1 in the world, the best serve of his time, he was Sampras before Sampras was Sampras. And what a serve. You mentioned they tried to change the serve and volley rules :lol: Can you imagine a player in this era who was so good, they had to change the rules to make it more competitive?

As for Tilden, well, he was king in the 20's, he won a shit load of tournament, Davis Cup, slams, pro and amateur, and was GOAT at his time, much like Fed is now. Big serve, too good, would often tank sets just to make matches interesting. Too bad the USLTA (mugs then, and mugs now) took away his amateur eligibility because....he was paid to write tennis articles for newspaper :facepalm: Well, not just that, Tilden was a massive diva, secret homosexual, and always had outrageous demands. But as long as he won, the USLTA had to keep putting up with him. His defining moments were in the late 20's, early 30's, vs. the French Muskateers. After dominating the game for years, the French began his downfall.

First, the 1927 French Open final, losing 11-9 in the 5th set to Rene Lacoste, losing from 2-1 up in sets. Then at Wimbledon a few weeks later, he lost from 2-0 sets up to Henri Cochet in the SF :facepalm: Then, at the USO later that summer, he lost 11-9, 6-3, 11-9 to Lascoste at the USO finals. To top it off, Tilden then lost to the French at the Davis Cup final right after the USO, losing the potential clinching 4th tie vs. Rene Lacoste again, this time 6-2 in the 4th.

Then, the next year, he lost SF at Wimbledon 1928 to Lacoste, again this time from 2-1 sets up. They lost the Davis Cup final 4-1 to the French in '28 again, lost again to Lacoste in 4 sets at the French Open 1929 SF, lost to Cochet at Wimbledon 1929 SF, got destroyed by Cochet in the 1929 Davis Cup finals, but rebounded to win USO 1929. Lost to Cochet at RG 1930 finals, but won Wimbledon 1930. And then again lost in the 1930 Davis cup finals vs. France. Then the USLTA were pretty much done with Tilden, and since he wasn't winning as often as before, they threw him out of the amateur game and Tilden went pro in 1931 and stayed around for another 15 years in the pro game, playing top 10 players for years, often giving away 10-15 years to his younger opponents and still pulling out wins over top 10 players even at age 40+, even 45+! Of course, the molestation charges put a true damper over his career at the end, and the jokes, especially at this place, are easy to make.



This too :lol:


Have you ever seen a video of all that? Or reading from a Wikipedia you Mug

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 03:16 PM
Have you ever seen a video of all that? Or reading from a Wikipedia you Mug

Who gives a fuck about video? :lol:

Just cause it wasn't on video doesn't mean it didn't happen? I guess all of human history and indeed history of the universe prior to the invention of film never happened :lol:

nalbyfan
12-30-2011, 03:19 PM
The so called "old" guys who had it easy were able to play and win single, double, and mixed double in GS...how many so called good athletes of today are able to win RG both in single and double ???
clown Monfils ?? Paellafatbutt ? Tabasco ?? None of them is the correct answer so don't underrate old players, they are probably better than some today's always injured/exhausted/tired cry babies

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 03:28 PM
Who gives a fuck about video? :lol:

Just cause it wasn't on video doesn't mean it didn't happen? I guess all of human history and indeed history of the universe prior to the invention of film never happened :lol:

Giving an ignorant reply and laughing about it.. Dont ever befather Britney Spear coz your kid will be totally One and a half times Dumb. The whole of you and the half of her.

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 03:35 PM
Last I checked, that was a complete game, and those guys back then knew how to volley.

What, you think guys like Djokovic and Nadal and Murray and Tsonga and Del Potro and Ferrer all have complete games? :spit:



YES!


I said Forehand and Backhand Slice and volley. there was no Forehand and Backhand Attacking shots. Neither topspin,as much as i hate it but still it is a part of the game.

Sham Kay
12-30-2011, 03:37 PM
Give it 10 years. Fed, Nadal and Nole will have had it easy as well according to a thread.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 03:49 PM
Giving an ignorant reply and laughing about it.. Dont ever befather Britney Spear coz your kid will be totally One and a half times Dumb. The whole of you and the half of her.

This must be the most asinine reply I have ever read on this site, and this is saying quite a bit.

I said Forehand and Backhand Slice and volley. there was no Forehand and Backhand Attacking shots. Neither topspin,as much as i hate it but still it is a part of the game.

There is such a thing as an attacking slice, you know. Rosewall perfected that. You want attacking topspin backhand? Look no further than Laver.

Give it 10 years. Fed, Nadal and Nole will have had it easy as well according to a thread.

Oh yeah. In 10 years we will look back on today as a Golden Era of the ATP, instead of the mug era we refer to it now.

Orka_n
12-30-2011, 04:07 PM
What an utter shit thread born of ignorance. MTF at its worst.

Mountaindewslave
12-30-2011, 04:48 PM
it is really quite hard to gauge... there is no argument that the level of competition was weaker back then, more disorganized, but there were many things that made playing pro-tennis taxing on a person. travel, much worse benefits and tournament prize money, a dysfunctional tennis system with multiple tours from time to time.....

it is hard to say whether or not these older generation players were more talented than what we have today. one thing I think some of you are making the mistake to use for your argument is that it is incredible that some of these guys in their mid thirties and early fourties (Gonzales, Rosewall, etc) were able to defeat younger players in the beginning of the 1970's. this does point to these old school players having abundant talent, BUT, it also indicates that they likely had a fairly easy field in their primes and as a result their bodes maintained great condition.

they had it easier in some ways but it is really impossible to know to what ratio the more 'lax' tour of the 50's and 60's affected the competition and levels of talent... unless there are some on here who watched many matches of the time

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 04:52 PM
There is such a thing as an attacking slice, you know. Rosewall perfected that. You want attacking topspin backhand? Look no further than Laver.




WHo was questioning Laver in the first place? Its Rosewall and co which i had pointed out.

Rosewall never had a decent Baseline Forehand and Backhand. And i am not talking about the Slices.

Mr.Michael
12-30-2011, 04:57 PM
and the jokes, especially at this place, are easy to make.



I've been guilty of making stupid and not so funny references of Tilden. But it's just my really crappy sense of humor. Anyway I admire the history of the game and said it before that if Nadal had to wear sweaters and long trousers and play with a wooden racquet on a grass court from the 30's, he'd be in deep shit even against Bill "Little Bill" Johnston.

To answer the question about the title if they had it easy, I'd say that Tilden actually had it somewhat easy. Today he would get the "Jerry Sandusky"-treatment. And we are so lucky that our sport had its own perv so long ago and not during these hectic times, when the media really has a field day with everything. That being said, it's a pretty safe bet that the USTA won't be naming any courts after Tilden. If I remember correctly there is only one picture of him at Forest Hills.

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 05:06 PM
No, it is called reading history. From those that were there.



I,for one, would judge a player good only if i have seen his play.

For me Laver was great, Borg was great,MC Enroe was great. Because i had seen their videos.

I dont want to read a wikipedia and come here out blabbering saying This is great,That is great having no idea about how the person played at first place.

You my friend are NAIVE.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 05:13 PM
it is really quite hard to gauge... there is no argument that the level of competition was weaker back then, more disorganized, but there were many things that made playing pro-tennis taxing on a person. travel, much worse benefits and tournament prize money, a dysfunctional tennis system with multiple tours from time to time.....

it is hard to say whether or not these older generation players were more talented than what we have today. one thing I think some of you are making the mistake to use for your argument is that it is incredible that some of these guys in their mid thirties and early fourties (Gonzales, Rosewall, etc) were able to defeat younger players in the beginning of the 1970's. this does point to these old school players having abundant talent, BUT, it also indicates that they likely had a fairly easy field in their primes and as a result their bodes maintained great condition.

they had it easier in some ways but it is really impossible to know to what ratio the more 'lax' tour of the 50's and 60's affected the competition and levels of talent... unless there are some on here who watched many matches of the time

Good argument, mountaindewslave, but I gotta disagree with a bit of it.

In the 60's, the pro tour was grueling. Less so than the 50's when Gonzales played. They would tour around the USA and sometimes Europe, playing a new city every night, best of 5, sometimes doubles too. Every night. Then they packed up the court and traveled to the next city. Must have been pretty taxing physically, I believe. I think the success of Rosewall and Gonzales in the early 70's just tells of how great they were, not that the field was weak. I don't believe in weak era or strong era this or that. Every era was strong.

WHo was questioning Laver in the first place? Its Rosewall and co which i had pointed out.

Rosewall never had a decent Baseline Forehand and Backhand. And i am not talking about the Slices.

So this is particularly an assault on Rosewall? I see. Tennis is not all about big shots and heavy topspin, good sir.

I've been guilty of making stupid and not so funny references of Tilden. But it's just my really crappy sense of humor. Anyway I admire the history of the game and said it before that if Nadal had to wear sweaters and long trousers and play with a wooden racquet on a grass court from the 30's, he'd be in deep shit even against Bill "Little Bill" Johnston.

To answer the question about the title if they had it easy, I'd say that Tilden actually had it somewhat easy. Today he would get the "Jerry Sandusky"-treatment. And we are so lucky that our sport had its own perv so long ago and not during these hectic times, when the media really has a field day with everything. That being said, it's a pretty safe bet that the USTA won't be naming any courts after Tilden. If I remember correctly there is only one picture of him at Forest Hills.

I think we all enjoy a good Tilden joke here or there. And in the afterlife, Big Bill would have a laugh as he reads MTF and sips brandy between games, playing a match with Suzanne Lenglen.

As for Nadal in the 30's, I am still of the opinion that he'd be a top 10 player at least. Champions are champions in any era. I'd like to see Nadal serve and volleying, slice approach, arranging his water bottles. He might be the first to bring grunting into the game :yeah:

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 05:15 PM
I,for one, would judge a player good only if i have seen his play.

For me Laver was great, Borg was great,MC Enroe was great. Because i had seen their videos.

I dont want to read a wikipedia and come here out blabbering saying This is great,That is great having no idea about how the person played at first place.

You my friend are NAIVE.

When you really study the game and you read for example Jack Kramer or other experts from that time describing these guys and how they play, you get an idea what you see. And when you match apples to apples statistically, like Roland Garros 2007 vs. Roland Garros 1927, and count every slam equally, you can have something resembling a comparison between eras.

Shinoj
12-30-2011, 05:20 PM
When you really study the game and you read for example Jack Kramer or other experts from that time describing these guys and how they play, you get an idea what you see. And when you match apples to apples statistically, like Roland Garros 2007 vs. Roland Garros 1927, and count every slam equally, you can have something resembling a comparison between eras.

Studying the game :lol:.. There is a difference between watching for yourself and studying the game.

Those commentators are never gonna tell you how much weaker the competition it was. they are only going to paint the good things.

v-money
12-30-2011, 05:56 PM
This thread is really getting out of hand.

I admit that I haven't seen much play from that era, but I think it's unfair to say they had it easy. In fact all of these era debates (and even the GOAT debate) are meaningless and based completely on arbitrary criteria, which make an era "great" "weak" or "easy." The game, especially in that period was just completely different and so much more technical, while some of today's players just get a large and light racquet, run around like maniacs, and swing away with heavy topspin. When looking at it this way, the current era seems to have it easy. The superstars of today's tennis are physically gifted men and may not be able to do much with a small wooden racquet. I would say that today's brand of tennis is tougher on the body and players now have to leave the game earlier. Still, these older players players played a less physically demanding style for a longer season and longer careers.

The only advantage I see in today's game having on the game of the past, in terms of a stronger field, is that it is a more global game and more players pursue the sport. Still, all of these debates about a current WTA player beating one of these old generation guys or vise versa is just complete nonsense. Even, if you were to build one of these magical time traveling machines that MTF seems to love, I think it still wouldn't prove much because the two eras played with such different styles (styles that are necessary to utilize in order to do well with the given equipment and courts). Today's WTA players can't even hit a volley with a 100 sq. inch racquet. Put them on some old grass courts with some wooden racquets and they would probably be clueless. Put an old-timer in todays game and he will probably be overpowered and maybe even outrun by a WTA player.

Don't you people have something better to talk about that all of this, A is greater than B garbage.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2011, 06:17 PM
Studying the game :lol:.. There is a difference between watching for yourself and studying the game.

Those commentators are never gonna tell you how much weaker the competition it was. they are only going to paint the good things.

According to MTF, every era was weak.

This thread is really getting out of hand.

I admit that I haven't seen much play from that era, but I think it's unfair to say they had it easy. In fact all of these era debates (and even the GOAT debate) are meaningless and based completely on arbitrary criteria, which make an era "great" "weak" or "easy." The game, especially in that period was just completely different and so much more technical, while some of today's players just get a large and light racquet, run around like maniacs, and swing away with heavy topspin. When looking at it this way, the current era seems to have it easy. The superstars of today's tennis are physically gifted men and may not be able to do much with a small wooden racquet. I would say that today's brand of tennis is tougher on the body and players now have to leave the game earlier. Still, these older players players played a less physically demanding style for a longer season and longer careers.

The only advantage I see in today's game having on the game of the past, in terms of a stronger field, is that it is a more global game and more players pursue the sport. Still, all of these debates about a current WTA player beating one of these old generation guys or vise versa is just complete nonsense. Even, if you were to build one of these magical time traveling machines that MTF seems to love, I think it still wouldn't prove much because the two eras played with such different styles (styles that are necessary to utilize in order to do well with the given equipment and courts). Today's WTA players can't even hit a volley with a 100 sq. inch racquet. Put them on some old grass courts with some wooden racquets and they would probably be clueless. Put an old-timer in todays game and he will probably be overpowered and maybe even outrun by a WTA player.

Don't you people have something better to talk about that all of this, A is greater than B garbage.

Off season for just a few more days :shrug:

MatchFederer
12-30-2011, 06:26 PM
Good troll thread and a nice touch to include a comparison to particularly football given how the pace of the game back then was tremendously slow and relaxed.

4 out of 5 stars.

MatchFederer
12-30-2011, 06:30 PM
Would love to get a hold of those 2 early 70's YEChamp Finals played between Laver and Rosewall. Rosewall got the better of Laver on both occasions but at least one of those matches was an epic 5 setter. Rosewall had staggering longevity and a game which was brilliantly built for the era and conditions of his time, as effective as Laver's far more modern game.

thrust
12-30-2011, 08:18 PM
WHo was questioning Laver in the first place? Its Rosewall and co which i had pointed out.

Rosewall never had a decent Baseline Forehand and Backhand. And i am not talking about the Slices.

In an article I read some years ago, Arthur Ashe was describing the various types of backhands he used in different situations. He then said,"But Rosewall had just one backhand shot and it was perfect." Rosewall's backhand was considered the best of his time and one of the greatest of alltime. This from other great players. You need to read more, and not just look at videos. One does not win as many tournaments, against some of the greatest players of all-time, without a great game of his own.

Dougie
12-30-2011, 09:12 PM
Studying the game :lol:.. There is a difference between watching for yourself and studying the game.

Those commentators are never gonna tell you how much weaker the competition it was. they are only going to paint the good things.

Itīs not Rosewallīs fault thereīs very little material of that era. But anyone who has eyes, has played tennis and has a healthy respect for past greats can easily see the immense touch and shotmaking those guys were capable of. Rosewall had a great backhand, on one hand a slice, on the other hand so much more. He could do anything with it, and letīs not forget thet sweetspot was the size of a peanut in those racquets. Great stuff, calling Rosewall a mug because he lost to Connors 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 is ridicilous,canīt see a 39 year-old Sampras having done much better against a young Djokovic, for example.

Impossible to comment any further, this thread makes me angry.:( Shinoj, stop embarrassing yourself, tennis didnīt start in 2000.

masterclass
12-31-2011, 12:07 AM
At Age 22 defending a player who you have never ever seen properly. This is called Gloryhunting.

Knowledge can come from many sources. Being limited to only that which one has seen personally would make for a rather isolated, limited, poor and sad education. Video and the like in the grand scheme of things is quite a recent invention. Before that there were other things like books, newspapers, periodicals, film, and other means of preserving the historical record. Sadly, in today's world of instant internet gratification, many people appear to be incapable of picking up a book and learning more than just what one sees in the headlines. Knowledge is built on others knowledge, not only on one's own vision of current events or the recent past.

Groove gets his facts straight and provides us with interesting information (Thanks Groove!). One need not be of a certain age to gain or reveal knowledge, and it's certainly true in Groove's case.

But if you need to hear from someone who has "seen properly", then it's true that I did watch the great Gonzalez play and beat the great Rod Laver not once, but twice in 1970 as I related previously, when Gonzalez was already well past his prime (age 42), a year after Laver won his second CYGS. Even though the memory has faded a bit, it hasn't faded so much as to not have remain impressed. Does this diminish Laver in any way? No, Gonzalez was simply still good enough to beat him on that day. Did I have to personally watch Gonzalez 15-20 years earlier to know that he was a great player in his prime? No, simple logic tells me that he must have been. To gain more detailed knowledge, I sought out information from various sources. I read books, and various articles, and talked with my dad and others, who personally saw him play during the late 1940's and 50's. Even players that didn't like Gonzalez for one reason or another still respected him. He was great in his era and extended his greatness into the next (In 1969 he was ranked 6th in the world at 41 years of age), and in no way had it easy.

In addition to watching video clips, I encourage you to pick up a good book or two.

-masterclass (fyi, that's my moniker in MTF)

Shinoj
12-31-2011, 02:03 PM
Itīs not Rosewallīs fault thereīs very little material of that era. But anyone who has eyes, has played tennis and has a healthy respect for past greats can easily see the immense touch and shotmaking those guys were capable of. Rosewall had a great backhand, on one hand a slice, on the other hand so much more. He could do anything with it, and letīs not forget thet sweetspot was the size of a peanut in those racquets. Great stuff, calling Rosewall a mug because he lost to Connors 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 is ridicilous,canīt see a 39 year-old Sampras having done much better against a young Djokovic, for example.

Impossible to comment any further, this thread makes me angry.:( Shinoj, stop embarrassing yourself, tennis didnīt start in 2000.

Thats really there was. Touches and volleys. He was really a limited player who was helped immensely by the circumstances.There might be more like him. Although havent digged up their videos.

To me Laver was great. And i saw Tony Roche's game he was pretty formidable as well. But Rosewall to me got very very lucky.

Shinoj
12-31-2011, 02:06 PM
Knowledge can come from many sources. Being limited to only that which one has seen personally would make for a rather isolated, limited, poor and sad education. Video and the like in the grand scheme of things is quite a recent invention. Before that there were other things like books, newspapers, periodicals, film, and other means of preserving the historical record. Sadly, in today's world of instant internet gratification, many people appear to be incapable of picking up a book and learning more than just what one sees in the headlines. Knowledge is built on others knowledge, not only on one's own vision of current events or the recent past.

Groove gets his facts straight and provides us with interesting information (Thanks Groove!). One need not be of a certain age to gain or reveal knowledge, and it's certainly true in Groove's case.

But if you need to hear from someone who has "seen properly", then it's true that I did watch the great Gonzalez play and beat the great Rod Laver not once, but twice in 1970 as I related previously, when Gonzalez was already well past his prime (age 42), a year after Laver won his second CYGS. Even though the memory has faded a bit, it hasn't faded so much as to not have remain impressed. Does this diminish Laver in any way? No, Gonzalez was simply still good enough to beat him on that day. Did I have to personally watch Gonzalez 15-20 years earlier to know that he was a great player in his prime? No, simple logic tells me that he must have been. To gain more detailed knowledge, I sought out information from various sources. I read books, and various articles, and talked with my dad and others, who personally saw him play during the late 1940's and 50's. Even players that didn't like Gonzalez for one reason or another still respected him. He was great in his era and extended his greatness into the next (In 1969 he was ranked 6th in the world at 41 years of age), and in no way had it easy.

In addition to watching video clips, I encourage you to pick up a good book or two.

-masterclass (fyi, that's my moniker in MTF)


Knowledge is best when it is experienced.. And i am not the kind of one who picks and propagates knowledge through books. To me it is secondary and even an unverifiable one.

What next i would open a thread saying King Henry was one of the GOAT just because it was written in wikipedia that he plays Tennis. :lol:

Grow up guys.

thrust
12-31-2011, 07:32 PM
Thats really there was. Touches and volleys. He was really a limited player who was helped immensely by the circumstances.There might be more like him. Although havent digged up their videos.

To me Laver was great. And i saw Tony Roche's game he was pretty formidable as well. But Rosewall to me got very very lucky.

I saw Rosewall play several times, in person, at Forest Hills. He was NOT LUCKY. He hit the ball deep and at great angles. He was a great volleyer, had a great drop shot and overhead. He was a great mover who had great anticipation as to where his opponents shots were going. He did not win over 130 tournaments, 23 slams and be a top ten player for 20 years by being Lucky. On the Pro Tour he was beating other all-time greats: Gonzales, Laver, Hoad, Trabert and Segura among other lesser top amateurs who joined the tour. Laver said the Rosewall was definitely his toughest opponent. For me, Ken was a smaller version of Roger Federer as they has similar styles of play and movement.

rocketassist
01-03-2012, 01:51 AM
Going from a technical generation to a physical generation is classed as DEVOLUTION, not evolution.

Saberq
01-03-2012, 02:00 AM
Going from a technical generation to a physical generation is classed as DEVOLUTION, not evolution.

I disagree Fed is better in all aspects than those guys

Topspindoctor
01-03-2012, 02:03 AM
Going from a technical generation to a physical generation is classed as DEVOLUTION, not evolution.

Sorry, but midgets trying to play tennis with wooden racquets, hitting 80kmh shots doesn't compare to today's level of tennis.

2003
01-03-2012, 11:29 AM
Cant believe no ones mentioned as well the volitileness of those times.

I mean your talking about 2 world wars between 1914 and 1945. This was a time when men were men, and you had to worry any time about being sent off to die.

The cold war in the 60's. Many thought nuclear war and WW3 were imminent.

This was a time when tennis (nor any other sport) could be the most important thing to anyone. People were probably so focused on their familes. A time where women didnt have careers and everyone was married younger.

Imagine todays pri madonnas playing anywhere near a good level being worried all the time about being sent to war or never seeing their families again (most of them probably barely saw their families, I doubt they toured with them for example). All that creates worry and stress.

:help: at this thread..seriously..and I have made some silly ones in my time.

thrust
01-03-2012, 02:41 PM
Playing the pro tournaments in the 60's was like playing from the quarter finals on in the amateur tournaments, because most of the pro players were superior to the top amateurs. Therefore just about every match they played was against a top player. There may not have bee the quantity of today, but there was quality of play.

Shinoj
01-03-2012, 03:47 PM
Cant believe no ones mentioned as well the volitileness of those times.

I mean your talking about 2 world wars between 1914 and 1945. This was a time when men were men, and you had to worry any time about being sent off to die.

The cold war in the 60's. Many thought nuclear war and WW3 were imminent.

This was a time when tennis (nor any other sport) could be the most important thing to anyone. People were probably so focused on their familes. A time where women didnt have careers and everyone was married younger.

Imagine todays pri madonnas playing anywhere near a good level being worried all the time about being sent to war or never seeing their families again (most of them probably barely saw their families, I doubt they toured with them for example). All that creates worry and stress.

:help: at this thread..seriously..and I have made some silly ones in my time.


Honestly,Thats a whole bunch of crap. What has any of that to do with what they do on the court is beyond me :banghead:

viruzzz
01-03-2012, 04:02 PM
Shinoj, why the fuck you reply to everyone?

I just wanted to say you're so egocentric and bitchy, you started the thread writing properly and with some kinda respect, and then you blame everyone who disagrees with you.

Internet needs some "Respect-códigos"...

Saberq
01-03-2012, 04:58 PM
Shinoj is right about everything I dont know what is the problem

Shirogane
01-03-2012, 06:49 PM
It was a harder sport with worse equipment, as Wilander would say.

Shinoj
01-04-2012, 09:08 AM
Hey Virus

I might have gone a little overboard with my disagreeing but in my defense thats because i feel strongly about the subject. Thats all. No disrespect to anyone.

Also if you see the posts which i "disrespected" they were the first ones to "disrespect" me. And i am not bitchy at all. Only i have a thing for bitches.