PDA

View Full Version : TENNIS-X TOP 10 OPEN ERA No. 1s


sseemiller
03-07-2004, 01:33 PM
TENNIS-X TOP 10 OPEN ERA No. 1s.

This is from http://www.tennis-x.com, and I thought some of you may enjoy it. :lol:

Compiled by the Tennis-X staff, here is the definitive Top 10 all-time list of No. 1 ranked players, finally putting to rest who's the best. The list was compiled from criteria including number of slams won, weeks at No. 1, year-end No. 1 rankings, overall titles won, winning percentage in finals, records vs. other No. 1s in their era, ability to break things, and other "intangibles." Discuss:

1. PETE SAMPRAS -- Six consecutive year-end No. 1 finishes will never be touched
2. BJORN BORG -- 6 French, 5-straight Wimbledon, won roughly 2/3 of finals
3. JOHN MCENROE -- Singles and doubles virtuoso, won 75% of singles finals
4. IVAN LENDL -- 8 straight US Open finals, 94 career titles, the Lendl-nator
5. ANDRE AGASSI -- Did all four slams against best-era competition
6. JIMMY CONNORS -- Dominated by other No. 1s, 109 titles padded by "Connors Tour" wins
7. STEFAN EDBERG -- Year-end No. 1 in 1990-91, 72 weeks at the top,
8. MATS WILANDER -- 1988 year-end No. 1, 20 weeks at No. 1, won three slams in '88
9. BORIS BECKER -- No year-end No. 1, only 12 weeks at the top, 7 Wimbledon finals
10. JOHN NEWCOMBE -- Two-time year-end No. 2, 5 Open Era and 2 pre-Open Era slams

Ballmachine
03-07-2004, 03:49 PM
Sorry, but I don't think that list puts anything to rest. How can you have an all-time list without Rod Laver or Don Budge? The only two players I agree with on that list is Pete Sampras at (1) and Bjorn Borg at (2). Putting McEnroe at (3) is ridiculous. The point of my post, is that whatever numbers were used to create that list must be put into context. Everyone will have his or her own idea of who truly was the best, and unfortunately we can't put all of these players together, in their prime, with the same racquet technology, balls, or training and conditioning techniques. Therefore, you will never have one universal list of the best players in history that everyone will agree upon. My personal opinion is that Pete Sampras would beat any player, during any era, with any type of racquet, on the big stage more often than not. But that is just my humble opinion.

Grimjack
03-07-2004, 04:23 PM
Sorry, but I don't think that list puts anything to rest. How can you have an all-time list without Rod Laver or Don Budge? The only two players I agree with on that list is Pete Sampras at (1) and Bjorn Borg at (2). Putting McEnroe at (3) is ridiculous. The point of my post, is that whatever numbers were used to create that list must be put into context. Everyone will have his or her own idea of who truly was the best, and unfortunately we can't put all of these players together, in their prime, with the same racquet technology, balls, or training and conditioning techniques. Therefore, you will never have one universal list of the best players in history that everyone will agree upon. My personal opinion is that Pete Sampras would beat any player, during any era, with any type of racquet, on the big stage more often than not. But that is just my humble opinion.

Note that it does specify "open era," which nixes Budge altogether, and cuts out the bulk of Laver's best work.

That said, I still don't agree completely with the list, and Laver probably still merits a spot.

AAAA
03-07-2004, 04:33 PM
There's no such thing as a definitive list in this context. What are the measuring criteria? Who decides the weighting and importance of each criteria? Were players from the 70's and early 80's under the same pressure from sponsors, agents and TV to play as many tournaments as players from the 90's to the present day?

Was Laver left off the list because he came out on top after the tennis-x team crunched all the numbers?;-)

AAAA
03-07-2004, 04:36 PM
My bad, forgot bit about open era(rough night) but still I stand by what I wrote.

footfault
03-07-2004, 05:56 PM
:lol: Becker went to 7 finals @ Wimbledon but how many year end finals did he play in? 8 YEAR END CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!

andreh
03-13-2004, 02:30 AM
Personally, I'd place Edberg higher. His best years were 1988-1992. During that time the concentration of really great players were enormously high. Becker, Lendl, Wilander are all on "the list" no matter who makes it, Agassi had some extremely good years around that time, Courier came along big time in 1991 and of course Peter Sampras himself. Goran Ivanisevic was there. Edberg still managed to win multiple slams and be no. 1 for 72 weeks. The rest of the time he basically no.2 or no.3.

Edberg beat these people in slam finals: Wilander, Cash, Becker, Becker, Courier, Sampras. That's pretty darn good. Except for Cash all of those are multiple slam winners. He also beat Lendl in a couple of semis.

Just a thought. And, yeah, I know I'm biased.
Well that's my "list" imput for this year.

boris becker 1
03-20-2004, 06:44 PM
becker was much better than edberg. better serve better forehand. Owned him head to head

My Top 10

1. Rod Laver- 2 grand slams enough said

2. Bjorn Bjorg- 5 straight wimbledons

3. pete Sampras

4. Andre agassi- won all 4 slams still going strong at 33

5. John Mc enroe

6. Boris becker

7. Jimmy connors

8 Ivan Lendl

9. Mats wilander

10. stefan edberg

SonicSpeed
03-21-2004, 02:08 AM
boris becker 1, how in the world would Becker rank that high with only 6 majors?? Jimmy and Ivan have much better career accomplishments than Boris.

galahad
07-31-2004, 04:43 PM
its like considering the number of homeruns, and other stats ted williams might have had, if he didn't put fight in two wars.

Rod laver had essentially his best 7 years stripped from him, just because he wanted to earn a living playing tennis. He won the slam in 62, turned pro, then won it again in 69 when pro's were allowed back in.

This implies that he ruled tennis for those 8 years. If he won just two per year during this time, which sound resonible, his total slam record would be approx 25!

Sampras with 14 is a joke. Let's bar him from playing from 1991 to 1998, and see how many he accumulated...

such a joke.

PistolPete
07-31-2004, 05:04 PM
its like considering the number of homeruns, and other stats ted williams might have had, if he didn't put fight in two wars.

Rod laver had essentially his best 7 years stripped from him, just because he wanted to earn a living playing tennis. He won the slam in 62, turned pro, then won it again in 69 when pro's were allowed back in.

This implies that he ruled tennis for those 8 years. If he won just two per year during this time, which sound resonible, his total slam record would be approx 25!

Sampras with 14 is a joke. Let's bar him from playing from 1991 to 1998, and see how many he accumulated...

such a joke.

First off to answer you question, Sampras would have 4 grand slams which is a lot more than most people.

Secondly, Guess what.... Sampras did play from 1991 to 1998 so you can't erase the 10 grand slams he won during that time. You can't erase history because it actually happened.

And even if we do erase those 10 slams, sampras still had one in 1990 and three slam wins after 1998, so according to your Laver theory, this implies that Sampras ruled tennis for those 7 years. If you give Sampras 2 per year like you did Laver, he would have look at that 14 slams + 4, 18 grand slam wins.

jjames
07-31-2004, 08:43 PM
connors 109 wins were not padded by connors tour wins. nor were his 5 year end number 1's. second only to sampras's 6. never understand how agassi rates so high in these lists. never beat sampras when number 1 was on the line or at the us open. his big accomplishment(fittingly) was 5 australian opens. a tournament that many of the great skipped. mcenroe was a has been at 27, borg quit prematurely and never won the us open. many of these never played each other in there prime. not to mention the equipment changes over the years. so you can only compare them statistically.

1. sampras-etc, etc
2.connors-5 us opens, 5 year end #1's, 109 tournament wins, help put tennis on the map. etc, etc
3.lendl-second most tournament wins,4 years at #1
4.mcenroe-lousy talk show host.
5.borg-never won us open, retired prematurely

speedofpain88
07-31-2004, 10:09 PM
This list is pretty decent for the Open Era. Even if it was for all times Pete should still be in front of Rod Laver - Rod Laver himself has said that Pete is the best player ever, better than him. You can't count what could have or might have happened if Rod Laver had played those years. He also might have gotten injured the very next year and not been able to play tennis.

I don't know if I agree with Mac being 3rd though. It'd be interesting to see what their list would look like if it was for all time.

Chanchai
07-31-2004, 10:43 PM
It's a fun site to check out, but the last thing any list of Tennis-X is, is definitive.

However, these lists are always fun because of the discussions they bring up :)

galahad
08-01-2004, 08:06 AM
I think you misunderstood:

First off to answer you question, Sampras would have 4 grand slams which is a lot more than most people.

Confused - Sampras was permitted to play every event, and never won a Grand Slam. A grand slam is defined as winning all 4 majors in one calender year. LAver did this in 62 and 69. Pete, zero times


Secondly, Guess what.... Sampras did play from 1991 to 1998 so you can't erase the 10 grand slams he won during that time. You can't erase history because it actually happened.

I understand Sampras played during his peak years. I was asking you to consider his results IF HE HAD BEEN BANNED during those years, as Laver had been


And even if we do erase those 10 slams, sampras still had one in 1990 and three slam wins after 1998, so according to your Laver theory, this implies that Sampras ruled tennis for those 7 years. If you give Sampras 2 per year like you did Laver, he would have look at that 14 slams + 4, 18 grand slam wins.


Laver is too humble to ever say he was better, and Pete often calls Laver his idol. Its clear from a domination standpoint, that no one ever domintated like Laver. Of course there are players now better than Laver.

I would think #100 in the world today could beat laver in his prime.
But that is the nature of sports, people get better.

Laver was better in his era, than Pete was in his. or anyone else was in theirs.

period

NoBadMojo
08-01-2004, 09:03 AM
laver had some really poorly played matches too and could be really off at times but i agree that he was perhaps the most talented player to come along until samps..and now we have federer who is a better player than anyone has ever been IMO..he just hasnt built as much history yet. so i think he is the best ever if you dont consider longevity..as far as physical abilities go and coupled w. a great tennis mindset. agree that borg should be up there, but putting mac there is ridiculous IMO unless you consider the dubs.ed

speedofpain88
08-01-2004, 09:31 AM
I think you misunderstood:

First off to answer you question, Sampras would have 4 grand slams which is a lot more than most people.

Confused - Sampras was permitted to play every event, and never won a Grand Slam. A grand slam is defined as winning all 4 majors in one calender year. LAver did this in 62 and 69. Pete, zero times

Actually he never said that Pete would have 4 "Grand Slams," a grand slam is also defined as a slam event (which he would have had: 1 in 90 and 3 after 98.)

I agree with you that eras should not be mixed. Both are great champions. Still, history has to count for something and we can't base comparisons on what if.

galahad
08-01-2004, 10:53 AM
Is there a pro yet who hasn't played a poor match?
Sampras losing in straights to Safin, then to Hewitt at successive opens.
Years before I think he lost to Jaimi Yzaga. and then that one year he lost to some 200 ranked guy at wimbledon.

Laver dominated his era more than any other. IMO, its not really about talent.
I still think that 1966 open winner Clark Graebner, is obviously a worse player than say Robbie ginepri, who will probably never win a major.

so level of talen shouldn't enter the question.

NoBadMojo
08-01-2004, 11:08 AM
level of talent has nothing to do w. who the best players are???

jjames
08-01-2004, 12:20 PM
funny-did sampras ever even see laver play? how could he have idolized laver when he was being born about the time lavers carrer was winding down.

NoBadMojo
08-01-2004, 12:30 PM
samps watched all kinds of laver videos repeatidly. one of the reasons laver was his hero because the rocket exudes class and is a true sportsman. ed

galahad
08-01-2004, 04:38 PM
I think everyone understands that Roger Federer would kick the hind-quarters of every body pre 1990 with ease. Have you ever watched classsic sports channel broadcasts? I recently wathed the Borg-Mc wimbledon final of 1980(or was it 81), with the great tie-break.
They were hitting the ball slower than Elena Dementieva.

It is assumed that the skills of athletes have progressed over time.

Consider Carmello Anthony playing for a 1960's Celtic team. But this increase is even more dramatic when technology effects the sport.
I mean that Randy Johnson probably pitches harder than Walter Johnson did, but the only reason would be his own anatomy.
A reason Bill Tilden didn't hit as hard as Lendl did was because he was using a broomhandle.

I know Sampras picked up a Maxply in 2003 and still could hit 125 with it. But he was used to hitting hard, regularly with his wilson.

Talent has little to do with greatness. ITs relative talent. By how much did one player reign supreme over his contemporaries.
Bill Russell, supreme. Rod laver, Supreme. Wayne Gretzky Supreme.
Sugar ray Robinson, supreme.

PistolPete
08-01-2004, 06:56 PM
I think you misunderstood:

First off to answer you question, Sampras would have 4 grand slams which is a lot more than most people.

Confused - Sampras was permitted to play every event, and never won a Grand Slam. A grand slam is defined as winning all 4 majors in one calender year. LAver did this in 62 and 69. Pete, zero times

[/b]

I know what a Grand Slam is, winning all four grand slam events.

PistolPete
08-01-2004, 06:59 PM
Pete Sampras, supreme.

galahad
08-01-2004, 07:54 PM
Lets count how many French open's pete won....

Let's consider the decline in men's tennis which occurred during his
"supremacy"

Pete did absolutely nothing for Tennis except win tons of cash for himself.

He has the personality of a brick, and as much flare as a cow in a coma

StupidCupid
08-01-2004, 08:08 PM
I am not sure if I agree with the list, especially with J. Mac at #3. Anyway, I think Federer already made the top 10 even at this point in time, if I were the one to compile the list.

galahad
08-01-2004, 08:18 PM
Again, if you want to talk pure talent, Federer is clearly on the list.
If you want to talk accomplishments in the game, he has done about what Mats Wilander did.

PistolPete
08-02-2004, 01:45 PM
galahad.........

This list is not a list of the top 10 players that did the most for the game. It is a list of the top 10 players of the Open Era. You cannot dispute that Pete Sampras was one of the best players of the Open Era. Laver was barely in the Open Era at all. Besides, how can you blame the decline in Men's tennis on Pete Sampras. You want to fault him for being good? That's just stupid. Sure, Pete was not the most outgoing player or best ambassador for tennis but he was still one of the, if not the greatest player that ever lived. You cannot dispute his record.

speedofpain88
08-02-2004, 02:51 PM
Pete Sampras IS the greatest player of all time. Let's talk about this so-called decline in men's tennis. You're right, it's pretty sad: Pete continually upped his level and his opponents could never keep up. And you say that talent is how much a player reigned supreme over his contemporaries ... are 14 grandslams and countless records not reigning over your contemporaries? Look at the facts.

galahad
08-02-2004, 03:17 PM
When did tennis have more fans? IN 1995 or in 1980???

What did Sampras do. he lost to George Bastl at Wimbledon...excellent.

This all started when I pointed out that 14 grand slam tournaments would be dwarfed by laver if he had been allowed to play during his peak. Lets cut out Sampras from age 23 to 30, and see what his records would have been like.

Its silly to compare the two, particularly if you consider what Laver would have accomplished had he been allowed to make his $50,000 a year and still play the slams.

pete essentially had Andre...and thats it.
Remember Brad Gilbert was in the top 10...As was Michael Chang...
Please....

AndyC
08-02-2004, 03:22 PM
Again, if you want to talk pure talent, Federer is clearly on the list.
If you want to talk accomplishments in the game, he has done about what Mats Wilander did.

How has Federer done what Wilander did? Wilander won 7 GS titles.. 3 in one year. Fed has done neither of these. About the only thing that Fed has surpassed Wilander in is weeks at no 1 (25 to 20).

Having said that talent wise I'd agree.. Fed is at/near the top of the list.

galahad
08-02-2004, 03:47 PM
I guess he's more along the lines of Pat rafter...or Courier so far.

Its clear that each new decade brings a better talent. Mac was better than Borg, Lendl better than Mac. Edberg better than lendl, Sampras better than Edberg, and so on.

To compare on talen alone is silly.
Federer would never lose to borg...it would be like him playing
Amanda Coetzer.
Its no contest

jjames
08-02-2004, 06:02 PM
there are always exceptions. wilt chamberlain is still greatest center, if not basketball player of all-time, muhammad ali still the greatest boxer, and if todays tennis players played with 70's era racquets, it would very questionable whether they were any better than 70,s era players.

PistolPete
08-02-2004, 06:13 PM
galahad....

your argument changes every time someone talks about Sampras. This indicates that you just don't like him for some reason. If you took out Sampras' prime years, which you can't cause he did have, he would still have 4 grand slam tournament championships, not a complete Grand Slam like you thought I said before, which is still good. Anyways you can't take out his prime though. Laver should not even be in this discussion cause he was not in the open era. The list only included open era players.

And yes, there were more fans in 1980 than in 1995, because the sport had multiple personalities. McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Lendl. These were all different personalities. If Sampras had one or two more rivals or personalities to play against the sport would be more popular in 1995. Just think, Lendl and Borg had McEnroe and Connors. Lendl was kind of like Sampras in the way which he was "boring" or never really showed his emotion. Sampras really only had Agassi who after his comeback is a completely different person than the one who won Wimbledon with a long flowing mane of hair. My point is you can't blame Sampras for the so called decline in tennis just like you can't credit Borg. McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl individually for popularizing tennis. Those four guys popularized tennis as a group. Sampras did not cause a decline in tennis on his own. It was a group of players that he didn't have to play against that brought it down and allowed him to dominate like he did.

galahad
08-02-2004, 06:15 PM
If you took Pete Sampras and transported him back to 1960, and had him grow up taking lessons with harry Hopman, and hitting with conventional strokes, like everyone did. He would get his butt kicked by Laver, just like everyone else did.

You would have a tough time convincing me that there is some phyiscal difference that makes Sampras a stronger tennis player than Pancho, or bill Tilden for that matter.

If he appears stronger, its only because players in the 90's worked out, whereas I bet Laver and roche had beers after they beat each other on the court.

All we can say is Laver had 7 prime years stripped, and we will never know the records he would have had.

You think Wilt is better than Shaq? maybe, but there is little technology in Basketball. You might say Jonny Unitas was better than Peyton Manning...again no technology. But even in football, most players are faster, stronger than they were 30 years ago.

If Butkus had come along now, he would have trained like they do now, and probably done as well

PistolPete
08-02-2004, 06:35 PM
If you took Pete Sampras and transported him back to 1960, and had him grow up taking lessons with harry Hopman, and hitting with conventional strokes, like everyone did. He would get his butt kicked by Laver, just like everyone else did.

All we can say is Laver had 7 prime years stripped, and we will never know the records he would have had.



How do you know Sampras would get his butt kicked by Laver if he grew up during that era? You just assume.

And yes, we will never know the record he would have had. That's exaclty it, we will never know, so stop basing your arguments on assumptions and start basing them on facts.

jjames
08-02-2004, 06:52 PM
if sampras had grown up in laver's era ,he'd probably be selling life insurance.

galahad
08-02-2004, 07:40 PM
I rest my case. Pete is certainly a better player than Laver ever was.

And Federer is in turn better than Pete ever was.

And I'm sure...somewhere..I don't think its Donald Young, and I don't think he's at Chesnut Ridge.. someone will soon play better than Federer.

But Laver would have had more titles..obviously.