Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time (Men)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by ATPballkid, May 14, 2007.

  1. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,032
    Great list, man. I like.

    Here is mine:
    1] Nastase
    2] Noah
    3] Newcombe
    4] Guga
    5] Rostagno. Derrick Rostagno. Just edging out the pre-broom closet Boris Becker.
     
    #51
  2. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row. Remember that.
     
    #52
  3. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    To flatly claim that Wilt was not arguably stronger indicates that you are either being disingenuous or absolutely, positively, unequivocally never saw Wilt play. The league through the referees absolutely allowed smaller teams to assault Chamberlain in games, so much so that it looked like two opponents were doing chin-ups on Wilt's arms when he went to the hoop and he still scored. Wilt also never carried the body fat that Shaq did/does. Wilt was a physical specimen and a fit one at 300+ pounds.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2007
    #53
  4. keithchircop

    keithchircop Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,333
    Location:
    Malta, Europe
    To me, and only me it seems, the GOAT is not someone who wins grand slams on all surfaces but someone who wins the most grand slams on both the fastest and the slowest surfaces ie. grass and clay. Decoturf, plexicushion and rebound ace are all in between when it comes to speed. should i really care who won most slams on the medium speed surfaces?

    borg won 5 wimbledons and 6 french opens. he's the open-era greatest for all i care.
     
    #54
  5. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Its hard for me to imagine Shaq doing what he does in even the 80s. The way the game was called back then, he would foul out by halftime in every game. And get called for traveling. Tennis isn't the only sport where its hard to compare, since conditions are never the same in most sports.

    Laver beat Borg twice in '74(the year Borg won his 1st French), despite a 15 year age difference. Most consider Borg to be the best athlete tennis has ever seen. Laver would hold his own with anyone.
     
    #55
  6. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Laver is Laver. But Pancho is Pancho.

    Can you imagine Pancho today? Federer would **** his pants.
     
    #56
  7. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    Gonzales was one of the greatest athletes tennis has seen as well - and almost certainly its greatest competitor. The footage I have seen of his game is simply astounding. Bruce Jenkins wrote last year that he thought Gonzales would beat Federer by the sheer force of his will.
     
    #57
  8. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The man gets no love anymore. The mainstream media consistently rolls out the all-time grand slam leaders as the indicators of all-time greatness and Pancho is never in the conversation.

    Of course, thank goodness for boards like this. ;)
     
    #58
  9. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    Harder for the media to put Pancho in easily comparable terms for the masses without doing an entire profile on the man. For the lay person, the majors, the Grand Slam and even the Davis Cup are recognizable, measurable and comparable. Pancho's career is harder to display in a dumbed down simple tv graphic or to describe in a short sound bite.

    But they also usually overlook Emerson as well who has all those numbers but has become a relative mainstream media footnote to tennis.

    Open tennis was easier for the mainstream media to distill tennis' history down to and package it for the masses.
     
    #59
  10. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Bud Collins always puts Pancho in his top 5, if you consider him part of the mainstream media.
     
    #60
  11. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260

    I agree with him but would not put Collins in what I'd describe as the mainstream media. He has been reduced to an amusement by the mainstream media.
     
    #61
  12. Roger_Federer.

    Roger_Federer. Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    680

    Are you ok?
     
    #62
  13. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    He's the token clown of the mainstream media. When he includes Pancho Gonzalez in his greatest players list it's considered 'cute'.
     
    #63
  14. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Yes, you are entirely correct, although Emerson is obviously a factor to the conversation at all times with his 12 slams, regardless of how dumbed-down the conversation gets.
     
    #64
  15. stormholloway

    stormholloway Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,832
    Location:
    New York City
    It's not about arguability. It's either true or it's not. Wilt was not stronger than Shaq. They had to redesign the basket due to Shaq's strength. Did you watch Shaq out of college? He wasn't fat at all. To this day, when he's healthy, Shaq can simply overpower players.
     
    #65
  16. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    Name anyone he has faced in the NBA, forget the NCAA, who matches Wilt.
    I'll answer it for you. There is no one. Shaq can get away with being out of shape and has for years because no one is near his height a bulk. Wilt was and was in shape his entire career. And I'll restate my premise as ridiculously as you stated yours: Wilt is clearly stronger than Shaq. Now what?

    Your analogy sucked from the first go round which was the point.
     
    #66
  17. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    All,

    Hope you dont mind me turning the thread back to the tennis GOATs ...
    I really found the threads very interesting and was motivated to create a summary webpage that I also included the GOATs by decade. Let me know if any body has corrections or objections. I am also willing to give any credit due or add references.
    Looking for more tennis GOAT feedback on this webpage and my arrangement of the listing:

    http://www.woodtennis.com/goat.htm

    Best regards,
    Joe
     
    #67
  18. stormholloway

    stormholloway Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,832
    Location:
    New York City
    What analogy?

    All I know is Shaq in his prime was the same height and weighed more. You can talk about Shaq being fat all you want. When he came into the league he was a muscular beast. And yes, he was stronger than Wilt.
     
    #68
  19. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    OK, it's probably the 573462756345th thread about "Who's the G.O.A.T.?" but it seems I'll never get tired of them...

    Good post, joe, but you evoke quite a large group of players as possible GOATs. I doubt anyone would ever give the nod to Cochet or Agassi...

    Just another thing: you sometimes talk about doubles. I think we have to be clear about what we're talking about. If we have a 'classic' discussion, we're only talking about the G.O.A.T in singles tennis. If you want to discuss about the most complete player in tennis in general, it's very interesting too, but it also has to change your list. For example, Sedgman would DEFINITELY have to be on it. McEnroe would go right up, while Fed, Sampras, Borg, are not contenders anymore...

    A quick list:


    Laurie Doherty: 4 Wimbledons, 4 Davis Cup, 1 US Championships, 6 British Indoors, many many Nice, Monte-Carlo and other clay tournaments. Very dominant on every surface, and the first player to actually compete with opponents from the whole world thanks to the Davis Cup.

    Tilden: late bloomer but a very long career. 2 Wimbledon-US doubles. One 'Slam' in 1921 by winning Wimbledon, the US, Paris World Clay and the Davis Cup. 7 Davis Cup, won every one of his singles from 1920 to 1926. 6-straight-times N°1 (1920-26). Great pro career in 1931-32. Won around 140 tournaments.

    Budge: to me, the weakest of all the GOAT contenders, but mainly because of bad luck (bad injuries, and WW2). First Grand Slammer, but in quite a depleted field for this time (he would never have won the French, on his weakest surface, had former champs Perry and Von Cramm been around). Totally dominated the pros in 1939 and 1940. Was injured in '41, went on to dominate again in '42 but in a very small pro tour because of the war. Probably the best player in the world in 1937-1940 and 1942, and could have been the best ever if he hadn't had his best years during WW2.

    Pancho Gonzales: an astounding career. Great amateur years in '48-'49, wining back-to-back Forest Hills, plus many big tournaments (PSW Los Angeles, US Indoors, Newport,...). One of the main pros right from his debut year in 1950, winning Wembley and and the US Pro indoors. Arguably the n°1 in 1952 when Kramer semi-retired (though Sedgman came up very strong too). Maybe the best again in 1953, but we'll never know since Kramer didn't allow him to compete in his tour. A clear n°1 from 1954 to 1959, six straight years. He retired several times in the 60s, but incredibly had each time amazing come-backs, winning the US Pro Indoors in 1964 over Laver, the BBC2 Wembley event over Rosewall and Laver in 1966, the Las Vegas Open in 1969, and the PSW Los Angeles in 1969 and 1971!!! In terms of will-power, probably the greatest ever. Only drawback: his main achievements were on very fast surfaces, and he never did as well outside of the US than inside.

    Ken Rosewall: Won the Davis Cup, the Australian and Roland Garros when he was 19! He turned pro in 1957 and quickly showed he was second only to Gonzales. In 1960, with Pancho semi-retired, he became the n°1. 1962 and 1963 were extremely dominant, "Grand Slam-like" years. Became n°2 to Laver from 1964 on. Had a great come-back during Open tennis, beating Laver in RG 1968, winning the US in 1970 and 2 more Australian Open. Reached Wimbledon and Forest Hills finals in 1974, aged 40! Probably won around 120 tournaments.
    Will be forever the best player never to have won Wimbledon. He's the best all-court player of all-time, being able to beat all-time greats such as Hoad or Laver on wood or grass, and being the clear-cut n°1 on clay throughout the 60s.

    Rod Laver: 1 Grand Slam in a depleted amateur field, another in 1969 in a field packed with great players, the only 'true' Grand Slam in history. He turned pro in 1963. Was n°1 from 1964 to 1969, 5 straight years. He never played well at a Slam anymore after 1969, but was arguably still the best player around in 1970-1971, as he won plenty of big tournaments, was the prize money leader by far, and regularly trounced the slam winners, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe, in other tournaments.
    Was at his best on grass and indoor, but showed he could be an all-court player by winning the French Pro agains Newcombe in 1968, RG against Rosewall in 1969, and Rome in 1971 against Kodes (who would win RG later).
    Won around 20 'True Grand Slam', around 40 big 'Super 9-like' tournaments (by my count), and at least 180 events over all !!!!

    Borg: the best clay-courter ever (maybe tied with Rosewall). Won 6 RG, losing to only 1 player in all his career. After passing in 1977, came back in 1978, and destroyed the whole field, losing only 32 games and 0 sets, embarassing defending champ Vilas in the final. He was able to adapt his game to grass, and won 5 straight Wimbledon, including 3 RG-Wim doubles. Lost 4 US finals. Was N°1 for 3 or 4 years. He retired at 26. Some more years on the tour and a US victory, and he could be THE G.o.a.t..

    Sampras: 14 Grand Slam titles, 5 Masters. A Renshaw-tying 7 Wimbledon. 6 straight years as N°1.

    Federer* :still playing. If he retires today, he doesn't make the list, but I assume he keeps his current pace for a few years. 6 or 7 more Slam titles, 10 or 12 more Masters series definitely put him high on the list. 1 or 2 RG titles and 3 or 4 more years as N°1 would make him the GOAT and pretty much close the debate...but he doesn't have a lock on this!

    Jon
     
    #69
  20. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,812
    Location:
    shiran
    This poll is not well-designed. It does not include the greatest ball-striker of all times - Marat Safin.
     
    #70
  21. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Good points Jonathan, all very well rounded. Laurie will thank you in heaven for including him. By the way, there is a nice article on Brookes and the globalisation of Wimbledon in 1907 this week on the telegraph online or the times online. And its everytime nice to read Your wonderful webside, Joe.
     
    #71
  22. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    Jonathan, I know this is asking a lot - and it's OK if you can't answer - but do you have any sense of what the head-to-head record of Brookes and Wilding would have looked like? You're the only person I can think of who might know.
     
    #72
  23. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA

    Jon, Awesome points and info ! I will update my list.

    Its actually a Greatest of all time players list attempting to rank order.
    I think singles should be the main focus but I like to also consider doubles for differentiating some of the players, like Mac vs Lendl. I agree that nothing in the future is a lock, anything can happen ... probably will remove the lock term regarding Federer. I will update with lots of your comments ...

    Thanks,
    Joe
     
    #73
  24. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    Wow, this is really a hard one, chaog! I'm sorry, I have to pass on this one. The data for their time is way too vague to get such information. I'm happy to have a decent list of tournament winners for these years, so head-to-head records is a bit too much...sorry!
    Actually, I'm not even able to guess wich one had the edge. The only data I have, apart from the Slams, is about Wilding beating Brookes twice on the Riviera in 1914.
    Actually they probably didn't play so many times, as Brookes really chose his tournaments. He played the Slams, Davis cup, and not much more...well, of course I can't really say because I don't have complete draws, but he shows up so rarely in my list of tournament winners, that I have to guess this.
    On the opposite, Wilding won 92 tournaments, by my count, which is huge for the time and makes him a distant first for the pre-WW1 era, in terms of events won (even more impressive considering he passed away in 1915, sadly).

    That's all I have for you, I'm afraid...

    Jonathan
     
    #74
  25. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    No worries, Jon. Thank you.
     
    #75
  26. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    Jon,

    I incorporated your comments and made some more additions like adding some relevent champion statistics in a section for each of the GOAT contenders. Would like to round out with more of the signifcants wins. Let me know if you have any more suggestions.

    urban,

    Would also appreciate any feedback you have on improvements or corrections.

    all,

    Im open to all suggestions, would like to have this webpage be as accurate as possible for presenting the cases for tennis GOATs

    latest updates now at:

    http://www.woodtennis.com/goat.htm

    Joe
     
    #76
  27. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    Jonathan has inspired me to reread my books about pre-WWI tennis, and I think he is absolutely right - the younger Doherty must be included in these discussions. His becoming the first person to win the two major national championships (Wimbledon and U.S. - both singles and doubles!) in the same year must stand as the greatest performance to that time. He won more singles and doubles titles at Wimbledon than any other player, and with his brother formed the first truly great Davis Cup team, and one of the most succcessful of all. Paul Metzler, whom I often cite here, considered Doherty the brightest of all British stars - a greater champion even than Perry. I am fortunate to have a copy of the Dohertys' book on lawn tennis, which demonstrates that they were astute analysts of the game as well. Too many fans, even the more knowledgeable ones, treat Tilden as the first true giant of the game, but the Dohertys deserve considerable respect. Brookes and Wilding must also belong among the all-time greats, though I have much trouble choosing between them... any thoughts on the relative merits of these two would be greatly appreciated.

    I am also thinking a great deal about the Four Musketeers, and especially Lacoste and Cochet. Al Laney, in my favorite tennis book, strongly felt that Lacoste was ultimately the greatest player of the four. (Laney also felt that both were greater than Rosewall or Hoad.) Though at least one, Gene Scott, has agreed, most critics have always chosen Cochet as the preeminent one. I had long taken the majority view, but I am increasingly seeing the case for Lacoste: he was the only one to win two major titles in the same season on multiple occasions, the first to win multiple French, Wimbledon, and U.S. championships, and he was unquestionably the leader and master tactician of their Davis Cup squad - which was of course the most important event at that time. His short career hurts his legacy, but his contributions off the court deserve mention, as he was is credited with the invention of that now-famous shirt, the steel racquet, and - I believe - the ball machine. Any further thoughts on how to choose one of these two as the French "ambassador" to the G.O.A.T. competition?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2007
    #77
  28. jnd28

    jnd28 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    That would be Lew Hoad
     
    #78
  29. jnd28

    jnd28 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Not sure why Emmo is not anyones list. If you are saying tennis player rather than singles player I could understand, but still not agree with the omission. If you are talking tennis players here you have to include him. 28 grand slam titles gets you in the discussion. BTW he is the only male player to have won all grand slam titles in both singles and doubles.

    JN
     
    #79
  30. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    You forgot the necessary addendum. Yes, Emerson accomplished all these things... against a severely depleted amateur field that lacked all of the top pros (Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, etc.) who were, and are, almost universally considered greater players than Emerson. Emerson was a very fine player, but the numbers here are highly deceiving, and if you investigate closely I don't think you will find a very good case for including Emerson in the top 10. To his credit, the great writer Allison Danzig ranked Emerson #10 on his list in 1969, though allowing for the number of superior players since then (Borg, Sampras, Federer, etc.), Emerson surely must now have slipped out of the top 10 even in such a generous assessment as Danzig's.
     
    #80
  31. fgbowen33

    fgbowen33 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    different eras and equipment

    you can't compare them
     
    #81
  32. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    Yes you can. Greatness is the same regardless of what generation you were in, but you do have to account for those that survived in different generations, like what Agassi did, which was starting out with wood racquets and gut as a kid and retiring with graphite and Luxilon. Playing Connors and Lendl starting out and then playing Federer and Nadal at the end. That's what closes the gap between him and Borg, the guy who quit when the going got tough.

    For me, it's:

    1. Sampras
    2. Laver
    3. Borg
    4. Federer
    5. Agassi

    If I saw more of Laver, I might be inclined to put him at #1. I've only seen 4 minutes of him playing at age 40 and I'm convinced of his greatness.
     
    #82
  33. Zets147

    Zets147 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,744
    me period.
     
    #83
  34. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,812
    Location:
    shiran
    OK that's BS cuz you're a pusher...
     
    #84
  35. Zets147

    Zets147 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,744
    I Ain"t A Pusher!!!! Rawr!!!
     
    #85
  36. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,812
    Location:
    shiran
    Then why do you just push every ball? That doesn't make sense then...
     
    #86
  37. Zets147

    Zets147 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,744
    I "Massage" the ball, I don't push!
     
    #87
  38. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,812
    Location:
    shiran
    So you're claiming you're the best masseuse? That just confirms that you are not a good enough pusher to qualify as the greatest player.
     
    #88
  39. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    I wish I could debate on Laver's greatness but I simply can't since
    I hardly ever saw him playing.

    One important factor to consider is the degree of dominance which
    has been key issue on Federer's greatness.

    How dominant Laver was in professional circuit and for how long ?
     
    #89
  40. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    Good points chaog, you're right that 'Little Do', not Tilden, is the first giant of the game, the first who should be included in any GOAT debate. As well as Tilden in 1921, L. Doherty actually had a kind of 'Grand Slam year' in 1903, winning Wimbledon, the US Championships, both his singles in Davis Cup, the Nice tournament (one of the greatest clay tournaments), and the British Indoors Championships (probably the second-best English tournament at the time).

    Brookes and Wilding were also outstanding, no question, but to me they belonged to "Tier II". As the likes of Sedgman, Trabert, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, etc., they are definitely all-time greats, but not GOAT contenders...
    About comparisons between those two, it's hard to tell, as I mentioned earlier in this thread...Wilding has by far the best record, with 90+ tournament wins, including 4 Wimbledon and 3 Davis Cups. He won most of the time's great tournaments several times: the British Indoors, French Indoors, Queen's Indoors, Queen's grasscourt. And he was also prominent on red clay, winning the Paris World Championships in 1913 and Monte-Carlo, Nice, Cannes several times....Then his record speaks for Wilding, yet there was no ATP computer at the time so winning many events was not a good criterion for greatness in this context. I guess that without any head-to-head details between the two, it will always be a matter of subjective opinion...

    As for the Musketeers, I'm from France and have much affection for our last true champions, plus I still think their Davis Cup conquest and subsequent Slam sweep is the biggest epic in tennis. Yet I'm afraid no one of them qualify for the GOAT competition, to me Lacoste and Cochet stay in tier II, with Brookes, Wilding, et al. Neither one matches the achievements of Tilden or Budge. Probably if you took the Musketeers' motto so seriously you considered them as one individual, you'd have a perfect GOAT! :)

    As for Lacoste v Cochet, it's once again a matter of peak vs longevity. Lacoste retired very early for health matters (quite ironically he lived to 95+, passing away in the 90s). Then his record is less impressive than Cochet's. Cochet won many big events, sweeping the European circuit in his best years (1928-1930) and winning big US events (Newport, the PSW Los Angeles).He won around 45 tournaments on the whole, while Lacoste was stuck to 20 or so.
    About which one was the best at his peak, the 'Crocodile' or the 'Magician', it's hard to judge for anyone not living at the time...Lacoste's domination over Tilden in 1926-1927 was impressive, but in 1929, Big Bill told that Henri played 'a tennis he did not know anything of'.
    So to answer you question, I personally think that Lacoste might have been the best as the greates tennis mind of his time (along with Tilden), that Cochet has the best record and a better career overall, that both are among the most interesting personalities in the game, but that their Slams, tournament wins, and dominant years are not numerous enough to put them in the GOAT conversation...

    Jonathan
     
    #90
  41. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    Wonderful post. Thank you.
     
    #91
  42. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Well, I never saw Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano, but I'm pretty sure they were great. At some point results should trump what we "see." John McEnroe is still an important voice in the tennisworld, he ranks him at the top(& he saw plenty of Laver)

    here is a wikepedia article with the (unofficial)#1 players year by year. according to it Laver was #1 seven years in a row, from '64-'70.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...13_.28sorted_by_descending_number_of_years.29

    and another article about his '19' majors(including the important events he won when banned from the grand slams)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis,_male_players_statistics

    Since so many are preoccupied with ages of players & when they peak, it is worth noting that Laver was 31 when he won his 2nd Grand Slam in 1969, he was very likely past his prime(since he was considered the clear #1 when he was at least 26) That speaks volumes about how dominant he was in his prime(many observers say that his best tennis was played from '64 to '67) that he could achieve his biggest feat when arguably past his prime.

    Also Laver was still in the top 10 in 1975 at the age of 37.

    And Laver beat Borg twice in 1974(once on clay!), despite an 18 year age difference. Borg won his 1st FO that year. Also in 1974 he won Philadelphia, a 96 player draw, which was one of the biggest events of the year. That shows how competitive he could be with the new generation.

    Laver never really declined, just cut back his schedule slowly & retired. He was really a freak of nature, supremely fit(the size of his forearms are crazy), athletic & talented, & with inordinate longevity. Its rare to have all those attributes.

    Laver could win on all surfaces, another important factor in his greatness. Besides his FO wins, he won the Italian Open in 1971, which had a better field than the French that year(many top players, including Laver, were banned from the French that year due to politics) Laver beat Kodes in the final of the Italian. Kodes won the French that year.

    In terms of yearly win/loss % records, Federer probably has Laver beat in that aspect. But players weren't as carefull in scheduling back then(nobody would dare withdraw due to 'fatigue' as they sometimes do today, they'd probably be banned for 6 months if they tried something like that. best to show up & tank or retire during the match) they played every almost every week, even when injured, since the prize money was exploding overnight & they had to take advantage of it.
     
    #92
  43. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    McEnroe actually puts Sampras above Laver. I recall him saying that if Sampras played Laver, Sampras would win most of the time. This coming from a guy who grew up idolizing Laver. McEnroe's list is Sampras, Laver, Federer, Borg, Agassi, and then he said rather modestly that he would throw himself somewhere after those guys. He said that he would put Fed at #1 if he won the French.
     
    #93
  44. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Mac changes his mind quite a bit on this topic. He's called laver the best ever several times over the last few years(like at the French this year)

    The who would win argument gets a little silly, since they played with completely different equipment. Robredo, Djokovic, & Ginepri hit with wood racquets recently & they said they couldn't imagine trying to play a match with them, its a completely different game, like trying to compare the steroid era in baseball.
     
    #94
  45. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    I agree, although Sampras' classic style would have worked perfectly with wood, especially considering the racquet he used. And he wouldn't have had to deal with all of those guys with their 98 sq inch racquets and strings designed for hitting passing shots. It's all speculation and BS but my imagination tells me that Sampras would have won more than 14 if he had played in any other era besides his and the current one. His serve and athleticism would have trounced everyone.
     
    #95
  46. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,574
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    McEnroe does change his mind quite often. It usually revolves around whoever is the topic. Just last week, I heard him saying that Laver was the greatest ever. He went on to gush about Laver and his achievements. I don't disagree with Laver being #1 at all. Laver is the one guy McEnroe never knocks.
     
    #96
  47. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Thanks, Moose, for giving us references to
    very imprtant summaries on this GOAT issues, IMHO.

    Mind-boggling achievements of guys like Laver, Rosewelll, Tilden, Gonzales.

    Sampras barely neared their achievements in fully open era and
    look how much rookie Federer is now..(although he is going strong)
     
    #97
  48. Rafa freak

    Rafa freak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    445
    Location:
    Tennis court
    I think it is sampras is the best tennis player of all time.
     
    #98
  49. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,414
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    To settle the Shaq v. Wilt issue: http://www.nickbakay.com/archives/wilt_vs_shaq
     
    #99
  50. prostaff18

    prostaff18 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    USA
    What books are those? I am so interested in the history of tennis; I just find it so hard to find books about tennis in those days. Thanks!

    Also thanks to Jonathan for sharing your knowledge!! Great Stuff!!
     

Share This Page