Dream match ups

[JohnThomas1]

I'm not going back too far (Wood)as i don't believe it would be competitive All past players in their prime of course

Wimbledon

Johnny Mac vs Pete Sampras - i don't feel John would have dealt with Pete's serve. Pete would have had near as much trouble breaking Mac too. I think i would make Pete a slight fave here.

Roger Federer vs Boris Becker - a tough one. Fed handled the massive Roddick and Flipper serves easily in 2003. It would be interesting watching how Becker would go with Federer staying back a lot, Boris would sure be looking to get in. I'd have to look at even money or Fed a slight fave.

Stefan Edberg vs Andy Roddick - another tough one to envision. Staying back a lot wouldn't help Andy but could Stefan return enough Serves to take advantage? Stefan would sure hammer his backhand on serve. Pick em.

US Open

Pete Sampras vs Ivan Lendl - Don't count old Ivan out here, he was a helluva player. Sampras edged him out in their one meeting here when they were both going in different directions. With Ivan at his peak i would make Pete a very slim favourite.

Roger Federer vs Boris Becker - What a matchup! Two all court supremo's toe to toe. Becker could play with any man alive when hot, and at worst i would make him even money here. Remember his five setter against Pete in 94.

Andre Agassi vs Mats Wilander - Battle of the baseliners. Agassi's heavier shots and more agressive attitude makes him fave, but Wilanders dour baselining would either trouble him a lot or not at all i feel.

French Open

Ivan Lendl vs Guga - I'm taking Ivan against anyone on clay, i feel he was the best ever on this surface.

Mats Wilander vs Coria - Coria to me is the new modern day Wilander, especially on clay. New and improved for mine, his extra variety would make him a favourite for sure.

Sampras vs McEnroe - gotta have a chuckle in here somewhere. Mac should have won in 84 i think it was. Playing like he did that year i'd back him in as a firm fave to beat Pete comfortable.


I firmly believe racquets don't come into ANY of these dream matchups, Sampras used the same stick as Edberg did his whole career pretty much, and he won the last tourney he ever played with it. Neither Petes nor Roger's sticks are really any more powerful than those used by others here. But here's one to stir the brain cells, where racquets would maybe matter.


Don Budge vs Serena Williams - just how far has or hasn't tennis come? No disrespect here either, just an interesting matchup.

Any picks in the above games?

 

[galain]

Okay Rocky boy - I'll bite!

Wimbledon

Mac v Sampras - in their primes - hmmm. I remember thinking Mac wouldn't be able to handle Becker's serve but he seemed to manage alright there. And what do you say about the Sampras serve that hasn't already been said? I watched when Pete beat Karsten Braasch in straight sets at Wimby, but he didn't do it as easily as the scores suggest. Mac is probably as unconventional and a better player to boot. I think he probably does enough to keep Sampras off balance to take the win. Unless of course Sampras plays like he did against Agassi - but that wasn't really tennis anymore.

Federer v Becker - I go with Boris. Assuming he's playing at his best, he's just as versatile and has more power. Hopefully his ego allows him to stay with his game plan rather thantrying to beat Federer at his.

Edberg v Roddick - Heart says Edberg, head says Roddick. Roddick suprised me this year. His backhand wasn't anything special (and it's almost cruel to stick him on a court with Edberg in that regard), but he was hitting well. I know Edberg killed Courier to win the US, but Courier also gave him sooo many headaches as well - just through sheer power. Roddick is much the same but with more. For sure Edberg would kick it out to Roddick's backhand, but I think Roddick would slice enough back to play himself into the point. Tough one!

US

Sampras v Lendl - Lendl. Too strong and too conditioned for Pete with just as much firepower.

Federer v Becker - even. Can't pick them. Would love to see the match though.

Agassi v Wilander - on a hardcourt, Agassi would be all over Wilander. As much as I love Mats, and as much I don't give a rats about Agassi, I think Agassi is too agressive in New York.

French

Lendl v Guga - Ice and Fire this one. Gotta go with Lendl. He'd keep pace with Guga and he hit a heavier ball.

Wilander v Coria - Wilander would keep him out there for awhile but he wouldn't win.

Sampras v Mac - Mac must still have nightmares about 1984. He'd slice and dice Sampras pretty quickly I think.

I have only hazy recollections of seeing footage of Budge - can't comment.

How about Vilas vs Nalbandian?

 

[JohnThomas1]

Wow galain what a super response!!! Thanks

Oooooook, Mac would indeed have a chance against Pete i think. His hand eye speed and reflexes on the return on fast courts actually used to allow him to return better than much more reknowned groudstrokers. His serve at it's best gave everyone fits too.

Boris would also be very much a live opponent against Fed. As you say he had a heckuva lot of power too.

Roddicks power would also give Stefan fits as you say, i don't know that Stefan's serve had enough on it to stop him teeing off.

Your choice of Ivan over Petebrings a smile to my face, be a hard task but he was one heckuva player. I seriously think a prime Lendl was better than Agassi.

Becker - Fed's tough yeah, they'd split a few i think.

I agree Agassi's aggression would cave Wilander too.

Lendl, Coria and Mac for the clay, totally agree. I think Nalbandian would beat Vilas easy, the players today are trained to flatten out on high midcourt balls and go for winners or forcing shots, which they do amazingly well. I think David's pace on near every shot would test him too.

Thanks heaps for the opinions mate

 

[laurie]

this is great stuff! These are mine

US Open:

Sampras v Federer - More interesting than a grass matchup because Pete played a better brand of tennis on hardcourt. Remember, Sampras v Becker classics took place on indoor carpet & hardcourts. I make Pete slight favourite simply because he always found a way to win.

Becker v Federer - The one big difference people here should realise is the serve. Think of a great fast bowler in cricket. Great tennis servers manipulate the ball with spin, not just pace. That is the key to keep a good returner off balance. Thats why I give Becker a slight edge. Thats where Roddick fails.

Wimbledon:

Sampras v Edberg - Amazingly despite the US Open final and numerous Masters matchups and super nines, they never played eachother at Wimbledon! Edberg seemed to know how to keep Sampras at bay. That could have been a classic.

Sharapova v Graf - That would have been very interesting!

French Open - Coria v Courier, power vs finesse & versatlilty. I like that.

 

[joe sch]

Don Budge vs Serena Williams - just how far has or hasn't tennis come? No disrespect here either, just an interesting matchup.

Just considering this a matchup is total disrespect. Don Budge was the best in the world at his prime and could be the best of all time !

 

[Camilio Pascual]

French Open

Ivan Lendl vs Guga - I'm taking Ivan against anyone on clay, i feel he was the best ever on this surface.

I'd take Borg over anybody on clay.

 

[Datacipher]

Wimbledon:

Mac vs. Sampras- Pure genius vs pure greatness. Sampras had the greater record here but he never faced anything like prime Mac. Mac had an instinct to play on the grass like no other. I liked the way, that he could sometimes work his way into net while the other guy was at net! He would essentially take away the net from the other guy with chips, drives, half volleys played to perfection until he either drove the other guy back while moving forward or outvolleyed the other player while they both were at net. Sampras also didn't like lefty serves and he would have hated John's slider on the grass. Pete's best chance would be simply to be unbreakable on serve(which we know he basically was capable of doing) but I give the edge to Mac here. Mac in 5 sets.

Fed vs Becker. Fed is quicker, more agile, has better anticipation, better groundstokes, more touch. Becker has a better serve and is physically stronger. At his best Becker was able to psychologically/physically impose himself on opponents at Wimbledon. Possibly Becker plays the big points better(too early to judge Fed on this...) Fed in 4 sets.

Edberg vs Roddick. Roddick comes out blasting, his first service games are easy. Edberg stays the course as he did so often against big servers and waits for a game when he can chip a couple first serves back. Roddick's second serve is so big that Edberg can't get into his usual flow forward even on the second serve however Roddick's backhand while greatly improved over his worst days still cannot handle the assault of one of the greatest volleyers and movers of all time. Edberg relentlessly attacks and eventually Roddick coughs up a few crucial backhand errors. Roddick's confidence is slightly shaken, umpire whining follows. Roddick's explosive strokes become a bit more stilted and overanxious trying to generate even more power, Edberg energized after the 1st break seems to be floating all over the court. Roddick breaks once in the 3rd set but it's not enough. Edberg 6-4, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3

USO

Sampras vs Lendl, Pete hides behind the safety of his amazing serve. Mixing up his serve and volley with baseline play, Sampras controls the early match. It isn't easy for Pete though, Lendl searching for a winning game works his way into points and into the match, calmly and slowly. Lendl shifts his serve up a gear as well. When Pete stays back, Lendl runs him. While neither is particularly dominant from the back, Pete does not want to play this way as Lendl patiently wins more of the points and dictates play hammering the Sampras backhand with inside out forehands. Unlike some baseliners, Ivan is not afraid once the court is opened up to smack down the line shots (to the Sampras running forehand) with either his forehand or his backhand. Lendl makes sure that these shots are so deep and heavy that even Sampras has trouble consistently getting to the running forehand or hitting winners though he burns Lendl now and then. Sampras, while not a fast player is not used to the very lengthy time Lendl is taking between points. A tiny bit of frustration and weariness settles in.

Lendl looks like he wants to play all night. Deep into the 5th set, just after the 5 hr mark, Lendl while soaked down with several layers of sweat is still moving and hitting with the same precision as the 1st game of the match. Sampras is slightly flat footed at the back, hitting mostly slice and loopers now, as soon as he sees any opening he nails a flat winner. The iron will and fitness of Lendl sees the 8 time consecutive finalist through in a very tough 5 setter.

Federer vs Becker: Becker's power is overwhelming but Federer has all the answers. Blunting Becker's blasts and turning his power back against him. The champion's spirit Becker didn't always show is on full display and it wins him one set, but the outcome is not in doubt. The light on his feet Federer beats the heavy footed Becker in 4 again.

Agassi vs. Wilander: Agassi either dominates play taking the ball earlier and hitting harder than Wilander but at other time his concentration goes off just the slightest and the wily Swede takes full advantage with occasional net forays and smart consistent tennis. Wilander extends it to 5 sets, it is here the younger Agassi would have folded but the older, super conditioned Agassi is able to refocus and win it in 5. 6-2, 7-6, 6-7.3-6,6-3


French Open
Lendl vs Guga:

Though Guga shows suprising stamina given his bone rack physique and stays with Lendl through 5 sets, Lendl's ability to sometimes step in and take the ball a bit earlier gives him a slight aggresive edge. Guga hits his share of winners as well with his long levered strokes but he hits them from 7 feet behind the baseline. Lendl in 5.

Wilander vs Coria: Coria does show more flash than Wilander, but the solid Swede is not overly impressed. Both run down everything , Coria is slightly more flustered by this than the placid Wilander who does little more than blow on his fingers. Coria has more power and even a bit more quickness than Wilander but he doesn't have the mind that made Mats a FO champion at 17. Mats drops the 1st set but takes the next 2 sets, suddenly Coria calls the trainer saying he has pulled his left hamstring, his right groin and has a sprained pinky finger. The trainer and Doctor also diagnose acute appendicitis. Mats takes the 4th easily. (just seeing if anyone is still reading this...)

Sampras vs Mac: Even money. The power and heaviness of Sampras groundstrokes help him here, but Mac calls on the all court magic he had in 84....I gave Wimbledon to Mac so I'm gonna give this round to Pete out of respect lol. Pete goes on to consecutive wins over Chang, Muster, and Ferrero then falls to Horst Dumbkopf in the quarters in straight sets.

 

[speedofpain88]

I see a bunch of people had Pete losing all the match-ups suggested. I found that interesting. The only one I think he would lose is the one against Mac on clay. All the others I'd say he'd be a clear favorite. Just my take on it.

BTW I thought we meant with modern equipment ...

 

[AndyC]

can't compare Mac Vs Sampras.. their eras were too different. with modern equipment I'd take Sampras any day. with wooden rackets or the early graphite ones I'd take Mac over Pete.

fed against becker? fed in 3 or 4 sets. becker would try to live with fed in some baseline rallies (the boris ego here) and would get massacred.

edberg v roddick? edberg in straight sets.. at his best edberg was very very effective on grass. I just don't think Andy has the all round game necessary to beat the very best of the grass courters yet

agassi vs wilander.. agassi again.. at his best I'd take Andre over any other baseliner in the game. those laser guided groundshots..

lendl v kuerten.. this is a hard one.. the heart says guga.. but Ivan is the second greatest on clay (behind Borg in my book).. factor in his sheer determination.. I have to pick lendl.

 

[Datacipher]

I see a bunch of people had Pete losing all the match-ups suggested. I found that interesting.
quote]

I had Pete losing the 1st 2. But of course it's a tough call because with Mac, Lendl, Sampras all at their absolute best....well that kind of dream tennis is nearly inconceivable because at their best they always won!

I gave Lendl the match only because the one of the closest thing Sampras had to a weakness was questionable stamina which play into an absolute Lendl strength. Of course on grass, Sampras all the way. I would have picked Sampras over Mac on hard court(a little too much power for Mac)...but I just think Mac's slice and dice and versatility was made for grass...

 

[speedofpain88]

it's a tough call because with Mac, Lendl, Sampras all at their absolute best....well that kind of dream tennis is nearly inconceivable because at their best they always won!

This is true.

 

[WW Volley]

Mac has been very open about saying that Sampras was a better player than him. I remember he said on Letterman that Sampras would beat him.

From the mouth of Mac. Now who knows how it would have went, but Mac considers Sampras the greatest from what I understand. Just something to think about in your debate.

 

[galain]

Anyone want to take me up on Monica vs Coria's serve in the French final??

 

[JohnThomas1]

Wow i can't wait to read all the replies properly, i'll come back to this properly when i have the time to give all your replies the respect they deserve. I will say to joe sch however that i could have nominated someone saying JUST THAT which is why i made my no disrespect statement. There's always one spoilsport.

 

[JohnThomas1]

@Laurie, hard to argue with your statements, and i'll take Coria over Courier

@Camilio Pascual, fair call. Most would agree. The reason i go for Ivan is because he gave Borg one heckuva match in the one French Open final they played while Borg was near his prime and Lendl was still a pup. Lendl improved immensely well after this match, and it was also before Lendl went on his famous fitness and diet stint, ushering in a new level of professionalism and dedication to tennis. He also improved his backhand out of sight amongst other things. Just an opinion tho, Borg was one amazing tennis player and could not be counted out of anything

Ah Data, the classy standard of reply i've come to expect of you yet again. Thoroughly enjoyed the read


@speedofpain88, Sampras could have won every match above, your opinion is certainly taken seriously.

@AndyC, i'll further elaborate on my racquet chapter. Mac in his prime years used a Max 200G. Steffi later used it thru most of her career. It was used by many top pro's. Now to Pete. Would you believe that the stick he used thru his pro career actually come out in about 1986? Edberg used it too most of his career. Sampras won the USO with it in his last tournament. Connors used the same racquet against McEnroe in quite a few big matches too, from memory a USO semi being one, when Mac was using the 200G. The difference between Johnny's racquet and Pete's is pretty much zilch. Both were out at a similar time and offer about the same power while weighing about the same as well. The fact that Pete could kick the butts of the top players of the 90's with their "new and improved gear" and early 2000's while using a stick dated back to the 80's makes me think these matchup's are valid and comparable. The big improvements in racquets has been in the hacker stakes, where players like me can buy an off the shelf game improvement stick that just blows anything old out of the water, thank god lol. The pro's are still using heavier less powerful sticks comparable to those Mac and co used.

Let me know if i've rambled

 

[Datacipher]

@Camilio Pascual, fair call. Most would agree. The reason i go for Ivan is because he gave Borg one heckuva match in the one French Open final they played while Borg was near his prime and Lendl was still a pup. Lendl improved immensely well after this match, and it was also before Lendl went on his famous fitness and diet stint, ushering in a new level of professionalism and dedication to tennis. He also improved his backhand out of sight amongst other things. Just an opinion tho, Borg was one amazing tennis player and could not be counted out of anything

Also interesting to note that when Borg in his prime was asked which young players he thought were promising he said that he thought Ivan Lendl will be very good.

 

[JohnThomas1]

A very good call by Borg, but Lendl's promise was only too obvious too. Where do you think he stands historically on a player vs player no intangibles involved Data?

 

[laurie]

John Thomas, I think as Sampras said in 2003, his game matches with anyone. I feel and I'm sure Lendl feels the same. Lendl's game matches up with anyone and is happy to take on allcomers.

One interesting point, the Sampras v Lendl 1990 US open quarterfinal and Federer v Sampras match from 2001 has very many similarities. The sad difference for me is that Sampras & Lendl played eachother 9 times including 1992 Cincinnati final (great match) plus ATP world Championships. Sampras played Federer only once. It would have been lovely to see the resurgent Sampras at 2001 or 2002 US Open play Federer. The matches Pete played aginst Rafter & Agassi in 2001 & Haas, Schalken & Agassi in 2002 reminded everyone he had all the shots in the book.

One more matchup. Jana Novotna v Serena at Wimbledon. Would she pulled off what Muresmo couldn't with her attacking style? I wish there were more women serve & volleyers.

 

[Datacipher]

A very good call by Borg, but Lendl's promise was only too obvious too. Where do you think he stands historically on a player vs player no intangibles involved Data?

Not quite sure what you're asking John?

 

[AndyC]

John.. the rackets may not have been all that different between Mac's 200G and Sampras's 86 graphite model. However the evolution in the game style makes it a million miles away. By the time Sampras came into his prime, u had players like Becker/Lendl as well as a young Agassi hitting winners from the back court with power and precision.

Look at the matches Mac played in his prime.. there are very few rallies won with a forcing shot from the back without there being an opening made first.

That's a huge difference in game play. Mac born 15 years later may still have been number 1 in the world.. but I really don't think he would have got that with the same deft touch and feel game he dominated his era with.

 

[DesiSmith]

how about a prime guga and a current coria?

 

[sarpmas]

I may be a little bias here. I believe an important factor when comparing Pete against Mac is the Pace of Play. There's no doubt about Mac's talent. However I felt that Mac was able to display all his deft touches against opponents in his era was because the pace of play is RELATIVELY slower than Pete's era. If the pace of play was anything like those in Pete's era, I don't think Mac will be able to showcase his genius as easily. So, if racket is not a factor and on fast surfaces like hardcourt and grass, I'll give the edge to Pete.

Same reasoning for Pete vs Lendl. I think it's agreeable to say that Lendl is like Agassi. Both are like killing machines at the baseline with similar style of play. When pit against each other, I'll still give a slight edge to Agassi. So, if Pete is able to handle Agassi on fast surfaces, based on the pace of their play, I think Pete will edge out Lendl as well.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Sorry Data, where do you rank Lendl historically. As in head to head with the exact equipment the players used.

 

[JohnThomas1]

No worries Andy. I do think you are seeing Mac as a little more prehistoric than he was maybe. Let's not forget his amazing 1987 battle against Becker, 4-6 15-13 8-10 6-2 6-2 won by Boris, who was at that time playing great tennis. An old Mac was also 2-2 against a green Agassi. Until Lendl hit prime form and Mac declined in 1985 he was also dominant. Lendl hit as hard then as he ever did. I think Mac would have handled it, but this is the fun, we don't really know

Hey sarpmas thanks for the reply Did you get a typo mixed in your name? I think i know what you wanted it to be hehehe. A prime then aging Lendl was 6-2 over an Agassi that was of course short of his best. I think a prime Lendl vs Agassi is one of the best baseline matchups of all time. At least one tour player was heard to have said Agassi dod not hit the ball as hard as Lendl, and this was when Agassi used to belt the thing as hard as he could. What a match

 

[sarpmas]

My pleasure JohnT! It's a very interesting thread. Sampras IS my idol, I hope to play like him. Unfortunately I played exactly the opposite style as him (strictly baseliner), so my handle is spelled backwards. What can I say!

 

[JohnThomas1]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh now i know the riddle!!! I must say i regard Pete as the finest player i have ever watched. I may not pick him in all my matches but he's still the best overall i've seen. I'm glad quite a few are enjoying the thread, i luv this stuff

 

[garland]

My pleasure JohnT! It's a very interesting thread. Sampras IS my idol, I hope to play like him. Unfortunately I played exactly the opposite style as him (strictly baseliner), so my handle is spelled backwards. What can I say!

Hey, this feels familiar. I grew up idolizing Borg and his steady, almost implacable baseline game. Not surprisingly, then, I have ended up as a serve and volleyer more in the mold of Mac than Bjorn--though now I think I want to be more like Rafter or Edberg .

BTW, on the dream matchup front, I'd say that Pete vs. Borg would be one of my dream Wimbledon matchups--the consummate puncher vs. the best counterpuncher I've ever seen. I think Pete's serve would probably win out over 5 sets, as it very rarely broke down. Plus, I think Pete played the big points at least as well as Borg did in his prime.

 

[AndyC]

actually I attribute Mac's downfall from 1984 to two things.. one his sabbatical (which lead to him being out of step with a game that was evolving very rapidly with the advent of new technology) but also to a game from a different era. For all his competitiveness against Becker/Agassi and others from 1986 (or was it 87) onwards I don't believe his game of touch and feel would have lead to the same domination he had between 1981 and 1984.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Interesting Andy. I've always blamed Macs decline in 85 with the domination of Lendl. Lendl made a massive committment to improve, Tony Roche, intensive training etc and overtook Mac. Mac was too lazy/uninspired or whatever to rise to the challenge and go with him. Mac never really played his best tennis again after the 85 USO.

 

[Datacipher]

No worries Andy. I do think you are seeing Mac as a little more prehistoric than he was maybe. Let's not forget his amazing 1987 battle against Becker, 4-6 15-13 8-10 6-2 6-2 won by Boris, who was at that time playing great tennis. An old Mac was also 2-2 against a green Agassi.
quote]

Hey! Don't forget 4th round Australian 1992! Mac beat Becker 6-4. 6-3,7-5 in what was to be his last year on tour!

 

[JohnThomas1]

I nearly mentioned that actually champ, but couldn't remember if it was during Beckers big slump?

 

[Datacipher]

Hey! Don't forget 4th round Australian 1992! Mac beat Becker 6-4. 6-3,7-5 in what was to be his last year on tour!

Also looking back at his last year, a few interesting wins against modern opponents who were extremely powerful:

3-6 7-5 6-2 over Krajicek indoors!

5-7 7-5 7-5 over Ivanisevic hard court. (followed by close loss 7-6. 6-4 to Krajicek..)

6-1, 6-2 over Alberto Mancini on CLAY! (poor Alberto...promising he was for a while)

6-2, 7-6, 6-3 over Guy Forget at Wimbledon (Mac of course made semis before one sided loss to champ Agassi)

6-0, 6-2 over Jonathan Stark on hard court. I remember Mac's interview before this match, he commented that Stark was the kind of young guy who would try to blow him off the court with power because they know they can't beat his touch...

Mac ended the year with a 6-3 4-6 2-6 loss to Goran at the Grand Slam cup...

 

[JohnThomas1]

Well you've just said it all! Crikey i didn't know he went THAT well that late. That is actually one hell of a year. McEnroe in 1984 i think it was was simply untouchable.

 

[Datacipher]

I nearly mentioned that actually champ, but couldn't remember if it was during Beckers big slump?

Well, I dont' think 92 was any kind of stand out year for Becker especially in the slams. However, after Australia, Boris lost a 5 set match on clay in the 1st round but then won an indoor tournament in early February beating Edberg in the semis and Courier in the finals and I'm sure he won other tournaments that year, so I don't think you could say he was at his worst....and he did win his Australian Open matches in straight sets leading up to the Mac match.

 

[Datacipher]

Yep John, I think the match evidence alone indicates that Mac and Lendl at their best would at the least be competitive with the best today.

Now the game has changed and continues to change so I dont' believe that a straight out of the time Machine Jack Kramer would have much of a chance against any of the guys out there! However, I think Mac and Lendl were of recent enough vintage and of high enough caliber(all time greats) that it's not at all unreasonable to put them in against anybody. I actually think that even though the overall game level has increased, a peak Mac/Lendl would beat the majority of the pack today. Even though today's "pack" would beat the 80's "pack". The greatest champions had those special gifts of talent, competitiveness and dicipline both mental and physical that allowed them to own a tennis court and give the best players in the world tennis lessons...in any generation only a handful will rise to that rarified level.

On the subject of Lendl, his power would still be respected today even though it might not particularly stand out anymore(and that's saying something!) as everyone is trying to bash it as hard as they can. But, I think he would be right at home, trading power baseline strokes and he would still be one of the fittest today if not the fittest. Again, at his best, his consistency, cool demeanor, big strokes and super fitness would be a good match up against anybody who has ever played in my opinion.

As for Mac, his game would be tougher to play today undoubtedly. Now there is even MORE power in general than before. Nevertheless, his results proved he could be effective against the current guys. I dont' think his game could be dominant for extended lengths of time as playing his artistic game against this kind of power would be like walking a high wire. Still, take the confident, zoned, 84 Mac and put him in against any other great past or present and the other guy better play his best or Mac will slice and dice him to pieces. I like an analogy I once read of Mac which likened him at his best to a street fighter punk with a razor blade....smaller than the other guys but confident, quicker, bolder and more cunning, he'd dance around his bigger opponents nicking and cutting them until they bled to death...lol.