PDA

View Full Version : ATP "Legends" Section Contains Disputable Choices


noeledmonds
02-01-2008, 08:24 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/legends/default.asp

Has anyone else been suprised by some of the choices by the ATP in their legends section? While the majority of players chosen seem fairly straightforward there are also some unexpected omissions and inclusions.

Why for example is Roche included among the legends? Roche won a single grand slam singles title as an amateur. Roche had a strong Davis Cup record and strong doubles record but he is the only doubles player to be in this so called "legends" section. Rafter is also a slightly suprising choice. I do admire Rafter but I would not rank his back-back US Open titles and 2 Wimbledon finals as legendary.

Perhaps more surprisingly is the ommision of Courier from the list of players. Why would Nastase, Ashe and Vilas get a mention while Courier's name is conspiculously absent? Courier with his 4 grand slam titles and 5 masters series titles should certainly make the cut if these players do. Riggs also surely deserves a mention. After all Riggs was considered by some of his contempories (such as Kramer) do be one of the greatest players of all time. While I disagree with this I do think that Riggs ranks ahead of some of the other candidates nominated as "legends".

urban
02-01-2008, 08:51 AM
Noel, i think the excerpts of the ATP section are from Bud Collins book Total tennis. I think, he goes for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. I don't know about Courier, is he in the Hall of Fame? But its certainly an omission.

noeledmonds
02-01-2008, 01:01 PM
Noel, i think the excerpts of the ATP section are from Bud Collins book Total tennis. I think, he goes for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. I don't know about Courier, is he in the Hall of Fame? But its certainly an omission.

Urban, the biography information does appear to be written by Bud Collins. However I do not think that the players choosen are based on The Hall of Famers. Courier was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2005. There are many other Hall of Famers missing also such as Noah.

Agassi however, who is included in the "legends" section, has yet to be inducted into the Hall of Fame as he was an active player on the ATP tour too recently.

CyBorg
02-01-2008, 09:42 PM
I can't believe Stolle's on the list, but Gimeno isn't. Santana also wasn't better than Gimeno.

Where is Frank Sedgman? Pancho Segura? Bobby freaking Riggs? Ellsworth Vines? They include Borotra but not Lacoste?

Ashe was a good player, but is he more of a legend than the aforementioned omissions? No bloody way. Vilas is also overrated.

Wuornos
02-02-2008, 06:27 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/legends/default.asp

Has anyone else been suprised by some of the choices by the ATP in their legends section? While the majority of players chosen seem fairly straightforward there are also some unexpected omissions and inclusions.

Why for example is Roche included among the legends? Roche won a single grand slam singles title as an amateur. Roche had a strong Davis Cup record and strong doubles record but he is the only doubles player to be in this so called "legends" section. Rafter is also a slightly suprising choice. I do admire Rafter but I would not rank his back-back US Open titles and 2 Wimbledon finals as legendary.

Perhaps more surprisingly is the ommision of Courier from the list of players. Why would Nastase, Ashe and Vilas get a mention while Courier's name is conspiculously absent? Courier with his 4 grand slam titles and 5 masters series titles should certainly make the cut if these players do. Riggs also surely deserves a mention. After all Riggs was considered by some of his contempories (such as Kramer) do be one of the greatest players of all time. While I disagree with this I do think that Riggs ranks ahead of some of the other candidates nominated as "legends".

I suppose it all depends on what you consider the criteria is for a legend. If it's purely the standard of play then some of the choices do seem strange. I suspect though that some people take into account other factors.

I agree with all the points you have made if the standard of tennis is the sole criteria.

Take care

Tim :)

AndrewD
02-02-2008, 04:12 PM
noel,

It's the ATP we're talking about, not an organisation known for making intelligent, reasoned choices. As a result, the list can't be looked at as anything more than a grab-bag of names that attempts to fill the alphabet while recognising as many different nations as possible. My guess is that some low-level ATP flunky, or possibly the current work-experience kid, who doesn't know very much about the game itself (not a requirement at the ATP) picked the names out of Collins' book to fit the very basic criteria.

Best to look at it as a list of 'names', not a consideration of who the ATP really thinks (if they do) is a 'legend'.

Tennis old man
03-06-2008, 07:04 AM
Agree with Andrew

llgc8080
03-06-2008, 02:05 PM
Minly Errors About Titles Winners!!!

Tennis old man
03-11-2008, 12:46 PM
Please remember, it's Bud Collins choice, not an "absolute true"...

Tony Sideway
07-21-2008, 03:42 AM
Bud is well know cuase his "mistakes" on data... just like ATP!!!!

Heyford Price
07-25-2008, 01:15 PM
Bud is well know cuase his "mistakes" on data... just like ATP!!!!

YEAH, THE OLD MAN IS LOSING MEMORY............... :evil: