[allpro]

Originally Posted by Macbrother

What a fucking pimp.

+1

and he was only 21 or 22 y.o. when that ad was shot

[HKz]

Originally Posted by allpro

segura, kramer, hoad, rosewall, and laver didn't.

I'm not talking about tennis in particular, I'm talking about all of spots in general. Smoking and drinking weren't really seen as detrimental to one's health as they do now.

[allpro]

Originally Posted by HKz

I'm not talking about tennis in particular

well i am talking about tennis.

Smoking and drinking weren't really seen as detrimental to one's health as they do now.

people had common sense back then too, ya know.

[MrMarble]

Originally Posted by Egreen

Sampras is too low on your list. He never won RG but neither did Tilden and Gonzales.

Actually Tilden did win precursor of RG, world hard court championships.

Also I'd like to note about Anthony Wilding, about whom I have researched a lot...Wilding is nowadays the most underrated and forgotten great champion in history of tennis - he should be ranked much much higher.
Wilding's achievements were close to Borg's, or even better. In fact I'd compare him to Borg because of his early death, Wimbledon domination + Nadal-like domination on clay.

About his clay-prowess... I did find from nearly 100 years old newspaper a mention that in 1914 for example he did not lose a single match during his European clay court tour...and he played MANY big tournaments, as you can see from his wiki page.

Wilding won 9 majors, not 6. In addition to his 6 slam titles he won WHCC 2 times (played twice or three times) and WCCC 1 time (played once). He won what would be called the Grand Slam of his day...

I don't think he ever played US Champs(so mentioning him not winning it is unfair)...and he did not play AO every year, he lived in Europe.

Also, I think he is unfairly treated on the list you see at wikipedia about yearly rankings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-n...layer_rankings

Here is a quote of my way back criticism of above mentioned list:

Rankings before 1915

The Concise History of Tennis (2010), by Karoly Mazak seems to be rather opinionated piece and not very reliable...using phrases such as "in a weak field", "narrowly beats", "but nearly beats him" etc...It has been documented that Wilding was a modest man, and thus always praised his opponents. Can you really use his modesty and respect for fellow players for an argument against his achievements? Also lot of judgement seem to be based on what Vaile(whom I found also rather biased, seemed almost disliking Wilding's game) thought about their style of play or "who would have won"-scenarios - rather than their actual achievements - Absurd.

In 1950, Brookes(Wimbledon Champion of 1907 and 1914 etc) ranks Wilding as 4th best player behind Tilden and Dohertys, and ahead of Budge, Kramer, Lacoste and Perry.

I think it has to be noted about Wilding that unlike his biggest rivals he won big grass titles but was very dominant on clay too: won precursor of RG 1913 and 1914(not losing a set), Monte Carlo 5 times(Record broken recently by certain Rafael Nadal) etc big international European clay titles, unlike other top players who won mainly on grass only. Also he won a "Major" on indoor wood too, The World Covered Court Championship(WCCC).

I see Larned holds years 1908, 09, 10 and 11...for doing what exactly???...he won the US National Championships by playing ONE MATCH against whomever got through to play him...in 1908 he beat Beals Wright, 1909 William Clothier, 1910 Tom Bundy and 1911 rising youngster McLaughlin. In addition he beat a handful of British players at Davis Cup eg Dixon etc...look it up at official DC-site. Note1: Larned was 36/37 years old in 1909. Note2: There really were hardly any international players at US Champs during those times.

Let's look at results only - and forget whose game looked "nice", who was probably better etc subjective statements. (I've listed majors in order of perceived international importance):

1908
Gore WIM(whole draw)
Larned US(1 match)(+Boston)
Alexander(USA) wins AO but loses his DC final matches to Wilding and Brookes
Decugis French
#1 GORE and Larned



1909
Gore WIM(1 match)
Larned US(1 match)(+Boston)
Wilding AO + beats **Brookes at Perth + 5-0 DC final against USA
Decugis French
#1 WILDING, #2 Gore or Larned



1910
Wilding WIM(whole draw) + wins lots of tournamets in Europe eg Queens, Brussels, Riviera, Paris?
Larned US(1 match)(+Boston)
Heath wins AO
Germot French
#1 WILDING, #2 Larned



1911
Larned US(1 match, d. McLoughlin)
Wilding WIM(1 match)(+Queens) + Monte Carlo(d. Decugis), Nice, Cannes, Lyon, Riviera...
Brookes AO(d. Heath) + DC(d. McLoughlin)
Gobert French
#1 WILDING and BROOKES



1912
Wilding WIM(1 match, d. Gore)(+Queens+MC)
McLoughlin US(Whole draw, Larned retired from tennis 1911)
Froitzheim WHCC (Word Hard Court Championship, RG predecessor)
Parke AO
Decugis French
#1 WILDING, #2 McLoughlin



1913
Wilding WIM(1 match) + WHCC + WCCC + other European titles(basically a Grand Slam plus a great clay-swing)
McLoughlin US(Whole draw) + DC
Parker AO
Decugis French
#1 WILDING!, #2 McLoughlin



1914
Brookes WIM(whole draw, d Wilding)
Wilding WHCC(without losing a set) + perfect clay swing beating Brookes twice and later on grass practice match
Williams US(whole draw)
O'Hara Wood won AO
Decugis French
McLoughlin beat Wilding in 4 and Brookes in 3 at DC in New York - Yet "Antipodes" won the the Davis Cup. I don't think that's enough for #1, he didn't have any important titles that year did he...
#1 WILDING and BROOKES

That's my suggestion...phew

So yes, I'd probably place Wilding in top 10.

Norman Brookes, a player of Wilding's time ranked Wilding as 4th best player behind Tilden and Dohertys, and ahead of Budge, Kramer, Lacoste and Perry.

Speaking of which...Lacoste is also way too low on your list.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by allpro

+1

and he was only 21 or 22 y.o. when that ad was shot

+2

[Macbrother]

Originally Posted by Shinoj

And what makes others more qualified than Saberg to comment on it ? All you have is some collection of videos and everybody is commenting upon seeing them. Nobody has an extra source of information like watching it from their eyes. Very few like thrust actually did.

Some are affirming that those Players cannot be compared. But my question is if they cant be compared why are they on the list? if they are on the list they are comparable. And if they are comparable then they can be judged upon. And if they can be judged upon they can be judged either negatively or positively. And if most of them are judging it positively then you should accomodate Saberg's or mine view. Thats my two cents

There is a profound difference between compiling lists of data, reports/opinions from players who played during that time period, reports from media who played that time period, doing actual research about the period in question and watching film/videos on the period in question, then making a qualified guestimate about their place in history, and having done none of that and instead saying "everyone back then sucks." If you can't see a clear delineation between the two perhaps this thread isn't for you.

[Arakasi]

Originally Posted by thrust

Yes, today's game is more physical but the older pro players played with heavier rackets that were much smaller than today. They also played many more tournaments and played doubles. In the end it all evens out as to the physical effort put into the game.

The racket issue is irrelevant because all of them played with those rackets. It was a level playing field.

You're right they did play more tournaments as well as doubles but that still doesn't compensate for the difference in physicality. In particular, less physicality means there was less of a premium on explosiveness and reaction time which are the two most important things players lose as they age.

This is a simplistic example but perhaps this can illustrate my point:

Let's assume that player X and player Y are completely equal in tennis ability. They both win 25% of the slams they play in while at the top.

Scenario 1 - player X plays in the 60s/70s. Spends 10 years in the top 4 before falling out of the top 10. That's 40 slam opportunities while he was still a contender (ignoring pro/amateur split).

Scenario 2 - player Y plays today. Spends 7 years in the top 4 before physically breaking down and falling out of the top 10. 28 slam oppportunites.

In scenario 1 he ends up with 10 slams. In scenario 2 he ends up with 7. How do you compare these two players knowing that they're equal in ability? They've both made equal use of their opportunities. I know this is a very crude example and ignores many things, and I'm not suggesting it was easier for older players to win slams or they had less competition. My point is that they had longer careers because of the nature of the game and thus more opportunities to win slams.

Rosewall made a slam final at 37. If Djokovic makes a slam final at 37 are those accomplishments equal? I always see people compensating for other factors like different rackets, different surfaces, the pro/amateur split, but they never seem to be compensating for mileage. Granted it's more difficult to do but even so it shouldn't be ignored.

[Shinoj]

Thats exactly the reason Pancho could survive in those days drinking and smoking cigarettes while playing. You can imagine what less physically demanding the sport would have been. It makes my conviction even stronger that you did not need to be as physical as it is today.

My Bet Tsonga could take half of them down today.

Originally Posted by Macbrother

There is a profound difference between compiling lists of data, reports/opinions from players who played during that time period, reports from media who played that time period, doing actual research about the period in question and watching film/videos on the period in question, then making a qualified guestimate about their place in history, and having done none of that and instead saying "everyone back then sucks." If you can't see a clear delineation between the two perhaps this thread isn't for you.

BTW not every one of them is doing what you have pointed out , compiling lists of data, reports etc. Most of them are commenting on the basis of what little research they are doing. Either side of the fence.

[Saberq]

Tsonga would win 5 Calendar Grand Slams in a row in that pathetic era

[DLobb]

Originally Posted by Shinoj

Thats exactly the reason Pancho could survive in those days drinking and smoking cigarettes while playing. You can imagine what less physically demanding the sport would have been. It makes my conviction even stronger that you did not need to be as physical as it is today.

My Bet Tsonga could take half of them down today.




BTW not every one of them is doing what you have pointed out , compiling lists of data, reports etc. Most of them are commenting on the basis of what little research they are doing. Either side of the fence.

If you would examine the training regimens of the great players of the 1950's and 1960's, you would find that most of them were in superior shape to today's players. They learned to do rigourous weight-lifting schedules, five-mile runs, track sprints, much of which was introduced by Harry Hopman, Hoad's back broke down by doing pushups with fifty-pound weights on his back.
There was one player who could grab the front legs of a chair while someone was sitting in it, and lift the person up to eye level. (Hoad did this once in a bar to an obnoxious heckler.)
These players did not have tie-breakers, and would play extended five-setters until someone became weary.
On the old pro circuit, with only six or eight of the world's best players, you had to play a tough match every time out. Imagine if the top eight players today spent all year playing no one but each other, and played about two hundred matches each. This would give you some idea of the old pro circuit.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by DLobb

If you would examine the training regimens of the great players of the 1950's and 1960's, you would find that most of them were in superior shape to today's players. They learned to do rigourous weight-lifting schedules, five-mile runs, track sprints, much of which was introduced by Harry Hopman, Hoad's back broke down by doing pushups with fifty-pound weights on his back.
There was one player who could grab the front legs of a chair while someone was sitting in it, and lift the person up to eye level. (Hoad did this once in a bar to an obnoxious heckler.)
These players did not have tie-breakers, and would play extended five-setters until someone became weary.
On the old pro circuit, with only six or eight of the world's best players, you had to play a tough match every time out. Imagine if the top eight players today spent all year playing no one but each other, and played about two hundred matches each. This would give you some idea of the old pro circuit.

Overall, a great post, but I would not say the older players were in better shape than today's players. Due to better weight training techniques, today's players are stronger. The older players, especially the Aussies, were mostly in great shape for the cardio aspect of the game. Rosewall resisted the weight traing portion of the fitness program, but excelled in the cardio aspect of the game, which is one of the reasons he lasted so long at the top of the game. Ken was called muscles, because he had none.

[HKz]

Originally Posted by DLobb

If you would examine the training regimens of the great players of the 1950's and 1960's, you would find that most of them were in superior shape to today's players. They learned to do rigourous weight-lifting schedules, five-mile runs, track sprints, much of which was introduced by Harry Hopman, Hoad's back broke down by doing pushups with fifty-pound weights on his back.
There was one player who could grab the front legs of a chair while someone was sitting in it, and lift the person up to eye level. (Hoad did this once in a bar to an obnoxious heckler.)
These players did not have tie-breakers, and would play extended five-setters until someone became weary.
On the old pro circuit, with only six or eight of the world's best players, you had to play a tough match every time out. Imagine if the top eight players today spent all year playing no one but each other, and played about two hundred matches each. This would give you some idea of the old pro circuit.

That is such a misnomer though. Matches were not as long as they are now even without the tiebreaker.

[DLobb]

Originally Posted by thrust

Overall, a great post, but I would not say the older players were in better shape than today's players. Due to better weight training techniques, today's players are stronger. The older players, especially the Aussies, were mostly in great shape for the cardio aspect of the game. Rosewall resisted the weight traing portion of the fitness program, but excelled in the cardio aspect of the game, which is one of the reasons he lasted so long at the top of the game. Ken was called muscles, because he had none.

By today's "weight training techniques" should we include substances such as growth hormones, steroids, oxygenating fluids, etc.?
The use of these "techniques", plus "recreational" drugs (especially cocaine) probably accounts for the physical deterioration of some of the best players of recent dacades at an early age. The short careers of the dominant players from the seventies and eighties has been attributed to some of these factors.
On the other hand, Hoad, Newcombe and some other Aussies were famous for all-night beer bashes, which may have shortened some of their careers.

[DLobb]

Originally Posted by HKz

That is such a misnomer though. Matches were not as long as they are now even without the tiebreaker.

Players then did not walk around, grimace, bounce the ball about twenty times before serving, play talking games with the crowd, clown around, but they did their business and did not unnecessarily extend the match.
Further, no one held a stop watch on the players in the old pro tour to measure the length of matches, but I suspect that some of the longer matches, especially the five-set matches, contained more points and strokes than today's.

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by Groove Dude

With all of the GOAT discussions going on, I have decided to search the history of the game. I've narrowed it down to the top 55, with the top 25 receiving a somewhat more detailed explanation. I was going to do a detailed top 100, but that would have driven me to a mental institution.

Feel free to disagree, express your own opinions, and have some fun, dammit.

This is where I got my #1 info from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-n...layer_rankings

You can also search wikipedia for any and all other slam results.

Without further ado, here is the list:

55- Jan Kodes: 3 slams from 5 finals, career high rank of #4, 8 career titles. http://web.kodes-tennis.com/images/w...973_finale.jpg

54- Patrick Rafter: 2 slams from 4 finals, 11 career titles, briefly World #1. http://www.all-about-tennis.com/imag...ick-rafter.jpg

53- Marat Safin: 2 slams including the awesome 2005 Aussie Open, 15 career titles, briefly World #1. Playboy. http://askmeany.com/wp-content/uploa...n-askmeany.jpg

52- Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 2 slams, Olympic Gold in 2000, 26 career titles, briefly World #1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...kafelnikov.jpg

51- Gottfried Von Cramm: 2 slams from 7 finals, played the Greatest Match Ever in the 1937 Davis Cup final vs. Don Budge, after getting a phone call from Hitler minutes before the match. http://estadium.ya.com/daviscup/imag...d_vonCramm.jpg

50- Maurice McLoughlin: 2 slams from 6 finals, played in the 1910's, World #1 for 1 year, twice was year end World #2. http://www.hickoksports.com/images/m...in_maurice.jpg

49- Jean Borotra: 5 slams from 11 finals, bronze medalist in the 1924 Olympics, one of the French Musketeers, never world #1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...an_Borotra.jpg

48- Hans Nusslein: 5 slams from 9 finals, never world #1. http://media3.corbisimages.com/Corbi...08/VV12245.jpg

47- Richard Sears: 7 slams from 7 finals, won the first 7 US Opens from 1881 to 1887, never world #1. http://www.lalanternadelpopolo.it/Te...rd%20Sears.jpg

46- Stan Smith: 2 slams from 3 finals, Year end World #1 in 1972, co #1 another year, 2 Year End Championships. http://www.all-about-tennis.com/images/stan_smith.jpg

45- Gustavo Kuerten: 3 slams from 3 finals, 1 year end world #1, 1 year as world #2, won year end championship in 2000. 20 career titles. http://fifteenlove.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/guga.jpg

44- Tony Trabert: 7 slams from 9 finals, never world #1, won 3 slams in 1955. http://www.tenniszone1510.com/images..._6-5_seg_3.jpg

43- Arthur Ashe: 3 slams from 7 finals, 1 year end world #1, 1 year as world #2. 33 career titles. http://www.educationalsynthesis.org/...she-trophy.jpg

42- Pancho Segura: 3 slams from 11 finals, 2 years as co #1, 3 years as world #2. http://www.berkeleytennis.com/images...nchosegura.jpg

41- Bill Johnston: 3 slams from 9 finals, 2 years as co #1, 4 years as world #2. http://www.independent.co.uk/multime...25_239053t.jpg

40- Joshua Pim: 2 slams from 4 finals, 3 years as co #1, 2 years as world #1. http://im.in.com/connect/images/prof...ua_Pim_300.jpg

39- Lleyton Hewitt: 2 slams from 3 finals, 2 years as world #1, 1 year as world #2, 2 year end championships. 29 career titles. http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au...ton-Hewitt.jpg

38- Jim Courier: 4 slams from 7 finals, 1 year as world #1, 2 years as world #2, 23 career titles. http://www.all-about-tennis.com/images/jim_courier.jpg

37- Norman Brookes: 3 slams from 5 finals, 1 year as #1, 1 year as co #1, 3 years as #2. http://www.slazenger.com/uploaded/gr...okesnorman.jpg

36- Jack Crawford: 6 slams from 12 finals, 1 year as world #1, nearly won the slam in 1933. http://tennis-champions.findthebest....k_Crawford.jpg

35- Frank Sedgman: 8 slams from 15 finals, 3 years as world #2, never world #1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ck_Sedgman.jpg

34- Roy Emerson: 12 slams from 15 finals, never world #1. http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1263384475

33- Ilie Nastase: 2 slams from 5 finals, 1 year as World #1, 1 year as World #2, 87 career titles, 4 year end championships, nicknamed Nasty Nastase, was Safin before Safin was Safin. http://www.ontennis.com/files/image/...stase-main.jpg

32- Novak Djokovic: 4 slams from 6 finals, just got to #1, 1 year end championship. 28 career titles. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...c_1937584c.jpg

31- Guillermo Vilas: 4 slams from 8 finals, deserved year end #1 in 1977, 68 career titles. http://im.in.com/connect/images/prof..._Vilas_300.jpg

30- Wilfred Baddeley: 3 slams from 6 finals, 1 year at #1, 3 years as co #1, 2 years as #2. http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/19/fu...ch_3650_21.jpg

29- Rene Lacoste: 7 slams from 10 finals, 2 years as #1, 2 years as #2. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...A9_Lacoste.jpg

28- John Newcombe: 7 slams from 10 finals, 68 total titles, 2 years as co #1, 2 years as #2. http://www.netbrawl.com/uploads/af01...b29d6138b7.jpg

27- Reginald Doherty: 4 slams from 6 finals, 4 years as co #1, 2 years as #1, 1 year as #2. http://www.slazenger.com/uploaded/gr...ertyreggie.jpg

26- Lew Hoad: 4 slams from 13 finals. Nearly won all 4 slams in 1956. 3 years as world #2. http://estadium.ya.com/daviscup/imag...20Hoad%202.jpg

You forgot to include yourself in the list.