|
|
|
|
|
We all know abou the Sampras/Federer debate, and since I don't like 2 compare eras, I'm curious 2 how players (pre open era) would stack up.
I put Laver in the Open Era class, and maybe Rosewall as well.
I've never seen these player, just seen pics and read about them.
Vines, Tilden, Budge, Perry, Hoad and Gonzales.
From what I've read I'd go.....
1. Pancho Gonzales
2. Lew Hoad
3. Don Budge
4. Ellsworth Vines
5. Bill Tilden
6. Fred Perry
But it's not accurate, just from things I've read, and their #'s I've processed. Bear in mind I don't have all the info. So my list is subject 2 change.
| |
| | |
Challenger Qualifier
Posts: 135
Location: Chicago
|
I rank Jack Kramer ahead of Gonzales, for several reasons. First, both he and Gonzales distinguished themselves as masters of the grind of the pro tours for many years -- however Kramer was the more accomplished tournament player, as evidenced by his Wimbledon victory of 1947, still probably the most dominant run to the title in Wimbledon history. Second, Kramer was the superior ballstriker. Both had huge serves, and while Gonzales's was slightly bigger, Kramer had perfect placement and was the better volleyer, up their with McEnroe as one of the two best net players of all time. But the real clincher is Kramer's superior groundstrokes, especially the forehand, which Kramer learned from Vines and perfected -- an incredibly powerful, flat stroke hit with sidespin, like a snake slithering on the grass. Kramer demolished the young Gonzales in their only major series. Gonzales fans like to point out that their man improved later, but it is equally true that Kramer began to decline around 1952, as he was plagued by back injuries and began devoting much of his attention to his duties as tour promotor. Kramer was the more popular player as well, and certainly the more influential on the sport, perhaps the most influential player after Tilden. Kramer is credited with inventing the Big Game, modern serve-and-volley, the style that dominated grass-court tennis for three decades. He is my choice for No. 1, both before and after the Open Era.
Second is probably either Budge or Gonzales. Here though we have a distinct contrast in styles: Budge by far the superior baseliner, Gonzales the ferocious serve-and-volleyer. Both had big serves, again Gonzales's was slightly bigger, though many players of that era have said that even into the '50s no one hit a "heavier" serve than Don Budge. I give Budge the edge over Gonzales on the strength of his achievements -- six consecutive majors including the Grand Slam in '38, a dominant stretch stopped only by World War II -- as well as his technique. I am certain Gonzales could not beat Budge from the baseline, but I am not sure what the outcome would be at net. Budge was a more-than-competent volleyer, but he could win points easily from the baseline and had no need to play the percentage. I think a stroke-by-stroke analysis ultimately favors Budge at No. 2, with Gonzales a very close No. 3.
Tilden must come in no lower than No. 4. The first true complete, all-surface player, Tilden had perhaps the greatest shot selection of any player in history (it was said that Hoad came close in this regard). Many would argue Tilden could find a way to beat anybody from any era. Yet Tilden, still playing well in the early '30s, was no match for the sustained power hitting of Vines, and himself stood in awe of Budge's game. Like Budge, Tilden had no real weakness, but I believe he would lose to the superior firepower of Kramer, Budge, and Gonzales.
Finally I would list Vines and Hoad, in my opinion the two most talented players of all time, though neither reached their full potential. Vines had perhaps the greatest serve ever seen, alongside Gonzales's and Sampras's. He was the dominant player for several years in the '30s before falling to Budge, who was more complete and consistent than Vines. Like Borg, after falling from the top Vines lost interest in the sport and turned his attention to golf, becoming one of the top ten pros in that sport as well -- an incredible feat! Vines was tall and thin, his power derived from the fluidity of his swing. Hoad, by contrast, was about 5'8" but strong as an ox, and he hit the tennis ball harder than anyone ever has or ever will. He had a complete, all-surface game, but like Vines his game alternated between perfection and error-filled disaster. Hoad nearly pulled off the Grand Slam in 1956, then made one of the most dominant runs to the Wimbledon title in '57 before turning pro. He was the only pro to give Gonzales a run for his money in his prime, though after leading Gonzales early in their series he succombed to a bad back (it is also argued that Gonzales successfully changed his backhand in order to beat Hoad). If forced to choose, I would rank Hoad slightly ahead of Vines, because he was the better player on clay. Yet that is a very difficult call, and in a match between the two at their peaks, I might have to choose Vines -- on the strength of that colossal serve.
| |
| |
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | |
|
|
|
