Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Like I said , as far as # of titles go, its an apples and oranges comparison. Quite a few more smaller titles, split fields making it easier to win titles. something which fail to acknowledge.

    And like I said , because of the GS and him winning the most important HC events . But it wasn't the highest level. Like I said, borg of 79-80, mac of 84, federer of 04-06 and djokovic of 11 were higher.

    It'd be like if federer won the GS in 2007, if he had beaten nadal at RG. It wasn't his highest level, but just being good and clutch enough to take all the 4.


    the bold part is BS. federer has every shot in the book that Laver had and even more. Laver had no weaknesses ? umm. how about blowing hot and cold , even in his prime years ? you see federer getting upset by drysdale in a GS at his prime ( like Laver did in 68 ?). I don't. He didn't.

    Serve was good , but not elite.

    He wasn't arguably the greatest athlete to step on a tennis court. Only you seem to think that. That would be Borg.

    yeah, maybe because umm, he was 4 years older than Laver . Rosewall's career in majors after 69 blows Laver's out of the water.

    Just because Laver failed and cared less about Wimbledon/USO after 69 does not make them less prestigious/important at that time.
     
    krosero and NatF like this.
  2. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Perhaps, but my point still stands. Surely you don't agree with him all the time? :eek:
     
  3. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Those are your unsupported opinions. I don't agree with any of them, and I have demonstrated that your conclusions are unsupported by the record.
     
  4. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    what unsupported opinions ?

    The more # of smaller titles in that era ?
    The split fields across the events ?
    Laver getting upset by someone like drysdale in 68 ?
    Federer not getting upset by someone like that in his prime years ? 2004-09 ?
    That Rosewall's career in majors after 69 blows Laver's out of the water.

    ^^ these are facts.

    That Laver being battled hardened in the pros helped him when the Open era esp vs Newk, Roche, Ashe etc ?
    Just because Laver failed and cared less about Wimbledon/USO after 69 does not make them less prestigious/important at that time.

    ^^ No, that's reality ..


    You can argue about the peak level all you want ...But someone who goes 5 sets vs crealy and goes down 2 sets to love vs Lall shows fallibility.

    I pointed out the similarity to federer 07. But wait, he wasn't even close to losing 2 sets in a single match before the final in a GS that year.

    What is unsupported is your statement that Laver was arguably the greatest athlete ever or that federer doesn't have the shots that he does.
     
  5. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    More unsupported opinions. I don't agree with any of them. You haven't disputed any of my premises, and you are now misrepresenting my comments.
     
  6. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Clearly higher peak level on grass, fast HC and indoors.
    Djokovic also had the advantage of homogenization. Granted, he's more versatile than Sampras surface wise, but it wouldn't be that big a surprise if he went slamless at wimbledon in other eras, would it ?

    Records are not going to tell you that.

    Novak would arguably be on the same level as Borg if he won one more major, but he would need 2 to surpass him.
    Similarly for Sampras, 2 to be on level and 3 to be better.
     
  7. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    The more # of smaller titles in that era ?
    The split fields across the events ?
    Laver getting upset by someone like drysdale in 68 ?
    Federer not getting upset by someone like that in his prime years ? 2004-09 ?
    That Rosewall's career in majors after 69 blows Laver's out of the water.
    Federer 07 - he wasn't even close to losing 2 sets in a single match before the final in a GS that year.

    ^^ F-A-C-T-S

    facts !

    and not facts that misrepresent reality like you comparing # of titles across different eras when its apples and oranges.
     
  8. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    As did Federer and Nadal. Anyway I don't think it's really an advantage cos it just means more players adapt their games to playing at a high level on all surfaces so it kind of equals out in the end.
     
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Those are more accurately characterized as de minimis, immaterial facts. Reproduced below are the material, relevant facts:

    In my view, your arguments consist of a lot of conjecture and fail to acknowledge the actual record, and the actual peak level of play. In 1969, Laver won the Grand Slam, 18 total events, and 106 matches, in my view, the greatest year in the history of tennis, and arguably the highest level of play ever played. By comparison, in 1984, McEnroe won 3 of 4 Majors, 13 total titles and won 82 total matches. In 2004-2007, Federer came close to the Grand Slam 3 times, but came up short every time. In his best year, 2006, he won a total of 12 titles and had 92 total match wins. Further, in those 4 years, 2004-2007, Federer's absolute peak, he won a total of 42 titles. Compare Laver's 3 years of 68', 69, and 70', in which he won 43 titles. In 2011, Djokovic won 3 of 4 majors, 10 total titles, and had 70 total match wins.

    Further, Federer's game, as great as it is, he is a genuine tier 1 GOAT candidate, is lopsided and one dimensional compared to Laver. Unlike Federer, Laver had no weaknesses. In addition to being, arguably, the greatest athlete to ever step on a tennis court, Laver had an all time great forehand, an all time great backhand (perhaps the greatest 1 handed backhand of all time), an all time great ground game, all time great volleys and an all time great net game, and one of the best under 6' serves ever.

    You correctly point out that Rosewall also went for the money as did Laver. But, as great as Rosewall was, he played more open majors than Laver and won fewer despite having a much longer and healthier open era career than Laver.
     
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Those are very relevant facts as the split fields and smaller titles directly affect the comparison across eras.

    that upset by Drsydale in 68 and 5-setters in 69 vs crealy/Lall show Laver's fallibility.

    Read and weep ...

     
  11. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    More unsupported opinions. I don't agree with any of them.
     
  12. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Really ? So why were djokovic and nadal whining when asked to adopt to blue clay - they were still whining as the tournament was going on ?

    Gimme a break. It takes time and skill to adjust to different surfaces/different styles of play. Even the very best have their problems with that.

    Nadal of course is a beneficiary. That's one major reason why I have sampras over him .

    As far as federer is concerned, yes and no.

    Yes because , it helped him avoid upsets in Bo3 in his best years. I think he was too strong in a Bo5 to get upset in his peak years.

    No, because, it helped Nadal-Djokovic more than it did him and hence deprived him of more slams.

    Looking at it overall, I think it hurt him more than it helped him.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
  13. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    I pointed out a lot of facts. But you don't care about them.

    You couldn't even address one of them, let alone multiple.

    But I'm sure other posters around here do.
     
  14. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Ah, so it's the homogenization of the surfaces that automatically gives Pete an extra Slam over Nadal and Djokovic IYO. Well I think that's deeply unfair since players can only compete in the conditions afforded to them at the time and it doesn't seem right to penalize Nadovic because of this.
     
  15. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    You pointed out immaterial, de minimis facts, and ignored the much more relevant and material facts.
    You can have your own opinions, but, you can't have your own facts.
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    I think Borg winning the YECs in 79 and 80 makes a difference. It was the 4th biggest tournament at that time after all.

    You could add 78 as well I guess.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    I didn't. I explained major part of reason why Laver had more titles in 68-70 is because of the split fields in those events, him playing quite a few smaller events. But you failed to answer that at all.
    How about you answer that one before going to any of the others.
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    You fail to understand what I think. I'm not automatically giving Pete an extra slam. Its not about just the counting of slams/other events. But taking the whole picture into account.

    I wouldn't penalize Nadalovic if they had not shown certain amount of vulnerability while adapting to certain conditions/styles of play even with the less variety that we have now. But they have.

    I'm also cutting Pete some slack (though not too much because he wasn't that great on clay) because he had to adjust quite a bit more in his era.

    Why do you think I give Borg that much respect ?

    He was slugging it out vs Vilas/Solomon/Dibbs etc on clay at RG and 2 weeks later , he was SnVing on the lawns of Wimbledon - because he had to.

    If you had watched quite a few matches of that era, you would understand. It isn't just about 11 majors + 2 YECs and a WCT.


    That's why Djokovic needs more majors to compensate.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
  19. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Yes, you did. Further, Laver played in the environment that was available to him and created a record that has never been surpassed before, during, or since. Apparently, you fail to understand that.
     
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Again, that's not an answer to what I actually asked. I'm not even talking about Laver's overall record there.
    You can parrotting Laver this , Laver that ...not going to change the the # of titles comparison is an apples to orange comparision. You have nothing to prove otherwise, because that's a fact.
     
  21. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Yes, it is the correct answer. I can't help if you don't like it.
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Your answer to apples to orange comparison is :

    "Laver played in the environment that was available to him and created a record that has never been surpassed before, during, or since"

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Yep, I'm afraid that's exactly what you're doing. And I think you're looking way too deep into it all tbh. Most people just go by the numbers a player accumulated throughout his career, not the conditions he played in to do so. It becomes way too difficult and subjective to compare two players' careers if we take homogenization, different tour structure and even peak level of play into consideration which is why the vast majority of people simply look at the player's overall achievements. At the end of the day the record books don't care one iota about any of that, only the final numbers you post.
     
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    Again, are we talking about the greatest PLAYER of all time, or the player with the greatest RECORDS of all time...two very different concepts.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Well, I'm not "most people".

    And you have to take the context while comparing players.

    You have Laver with 200 titles or Tilden with something like 95 win% across 10 years .

    If you don't understand the eras, how the hell can you compare fairly ?
     
  26. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Oh I realised that a long time ago abmk!!
     
  27. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Well, they are closely related. Haha! But, if Laver and Rosewall can make an exception for Lew Hoad, then who am I to disagree!
     
    PDJ and Dan Lobb like this.
  28. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    I know you did !

    I added to my post btw ..
     
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    I don't think you fully understand my comment. In any event, with this, you have obviously exhausted what little argument you have.
     
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    Oh, I understood your statement very well. I am not interested in having a debate about who had the greatest record - Federer or Laver or Gonzales or anyone else right now.

    What I was talking about was that comparing the # of titles between eras is unfair - given the different environments at different times.

    Read that slowly and let it SINK IN.

    But because you don't have an answer to that, you keep bringing up the same old stuff again.
     
  31. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    No, you didn't fully understand my comment. And you are getting snarky and sarcastic. Maybe we can continue this debate after you calm down.
     
  32. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    as far as being snarky and sarcastic is concerned, that's what evasiveness and BS like some of your posts deserve.

    What part of your statement did I not understand ? That you consider that Laver had the greatest record of them all ...Again, like I said : am not interested in having a debate about who had the greatest record - Federer or Laver or Gonzales or anyone else right now.

    it doesn't change "What I was talking about was that comparing the # of titles between eras is unfair - given the different environments at different times."

    If you had read that slowly, you'd have understood.
     
  33. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,442
    Many good points here, ABMK. And as far as the former pro majors in '68, McCauley hinted in his book that they lost their importance because they were now pro-only events in a sport that was going Open. As of the end of '68, the Grand Slam events had gone open along with other tournaments, but there were still many pro-only events that year. That's the reason that McCauley decided not to stop his history with '67 and to add one more chapter for '68:

    However, as there were so few Open tournaments in 1968, a full circuit of Pro events took place and, for this reason, I have decided to include it as our final chapter.​

    That is the reason that McCauley listed the '68 editions of Wembley/French and US Pro in his results section at the back of his book -- because he made a judgment call about whether to continue his history into '68, not because he he felt that those tournaments still had the same importance as they did on the old pro tour. In his text, as I said, he actually suggests that in a now-Open sport, pro-only events were losing their drawing power.

    Laver noted something similar in his book written with Bud Collins, when he discusses the Tennis Champions Classic of '71.

    There was actually a similar format, between the TCC and some YEC's (don't know if that's the reason you chose this analogy): preliminary rounds, followed by conventional semifinals and a final.

    Laver actually described the TCC as a series of one-night stands, in his book.

    Dan, I believe, said that the TCC was more of a tour than a tournament (despite the formal tournament title), and I almost never agree with Dan but in this case I think he's right on. Dan has looked VERY closely at the schedule of the old pro tours and he probably noticed that on those tours, as on the TCC, the players would do their one-night stands, take a break to play a tournament or two, then resume the tour of one-night stands. The intervening tournament would not count for the standings of the tour, because tournaments were separate from the tour. That's how the TCC was: a series of one-night stands spread out over many weeks, interspersed around tournaments that had nothing to do with it.

    Here's the excerpt from Laver's book:

    Thus ended a season [1971] that began with the brightest tournament concept yet for pro tennis as well as an event I called “The Rod Laver Benefit.” That’s not what Fred Podesta, the promoter, called it, but he might as well have because Laver was the only one who made any money out of it. The “Benefit” was a $210,000 series of one-night stands across the U.S. actually named the Tennis Champions Classic. Rosewall and I launched the series at Madison Square Garden in New York, and the idea was that the winner would take $10,000, the loser nothing, and at the next stop another pro would appear to challenge the winner. I loved it. I don’t think I ever sent Podesta a thank-you note, but, Fred, here’s a capitalized Thank You in print. Thirteen matches I played and thirteen matches I won, extracting $160,000 of Podesta’s $210,000.

    Getting myself into fantastic shape before the trek began, I found myself back in the old days of one-nighters in varying arenas. I had a good night right away to take care of Rosewall, and then I had a lineup of guys who weren’t quite used to this sort of bounding: Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Ashe, Okker, Ashe, again, Taylor, Okker again, Ralston and Emerson again. Eleven matches--$110,000. Like plucking mangos from the trees at home in Queensland. Nobody was quite sure how Podesta decided who the next opponent would be, but we wound up with a four-man lineup for a semifinal and final at Madison Square Garden. I beat Ralston for $15,000 in one semi and Okker took Emerson in the other. Finally I overwhelmed Tiny Tom, 6-5, 6-2, 6-1 for $35,000 more.

    The year had hardly begun and I had won more than any other player up to that time except Laver. I guess you think I was greedy in playing out the rest of the season. Only Roche had a real chance at me, holding a match point in grimy Boston Garden where I’d made my American pro debut, losing to Barry MacKay eight years before.

    The crowd in Boston told me something: the Tennis Champions Classic was a mistake. Just as when I’d faced MacKay and pro tennis was a zero, there were about 2000 customers in a building holding 15,000. They looked like the same people, left over from 1963 – the hard core you could expect to show up at any tennis event. Tennis was appealing to a wider audience than that hard core, but for the one-nighters only the core corps bothered to stop by. One-nighters were dead, and the Classic couldn’t revive them or anything but my savings account. Regardless of the money involved, the Classic seemed an exhibition. The customers wanted tournaments.​
     
    treblings and Dan Lobb like this.
  34. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    You may find this hard to believe, but, it's not your prerogative to circumscribe the scope of the debate. The thread is about top 10 of all time, and your pics for top 10 in the open era. The record is an integral part of that analysis. Having been shown a strong, fact based, argument why Laver deserves to be in that discussion, you try to change the subject and engage in childish snark and sarcasm, which you admit to. Further, your declamation that comparing # of titles between players of different eras is hypocritical and irreconcilable with your argument that Laver didn't win enough majors in the open era compared to players who played their entire careers in the open era.

    It seems to me that your motivation is to be combative and argumentative for its own sake, not to actually win an argument based on reason, rationality and facts.
     
  35. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    thanks for that info, Krosero. I had it somewhat similar to a YEC because only a select group of players were playing and not a full field and because you could possibly consider it the 5th most prestigious tournament in that year ( like we do for the YECs today )
     
  36. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    If it is about top 10 of all time, I have Laver at #2.

    My point was solely about his career in the open era.

    Like I said before, his career in the open era alone doesn't touch those of : federer, sampras, borg, nadal, djokovic, mcenroe, lendl, connors,agassi.

    You could argue becker, wilander, edberg ...but that would be a stretch ...

    Yes, Laver didn't win enough majors in open era compared to players who played their entire careers in the open era and its not a fair direct comparison. But YOU were the one who insisted on it. So you have to take that on its own merits. Get it ?
     
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,981
    However, we have heard arguments in favour of including the WCT Pro championships on the same level as the slam opens...despite the fact that only a select group of pros were involved in the WCT, not even all the pros.
     
  38. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Like you said before, several times before. To which I have presented, several times, a compelling, material, fact based argument why Laver's open era career is among the very best. You may not like my conclusions, but, you cannot dispute Laver's actual record, nor his actual game, which surpasses all of those listed in many material respects.

    Your hyperbole doesn't substitute for rational argument.
     
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    I already posted these. But you had no answer, except to call it hyperbole.

    I have given every bit of rational argument. You are frickin' insane to ignore all of them and then ramble about Laver this, Laver that and not address any of those points in reality.

    ---

    Laver had 6 major equivalents and 3 years at #1 in the Open era ( apart from other tournaments )

    Like I said, if you think Laver's overall career in the open era alone surpasses that of the 9 I mentioned, I can only say : DELUSIONAL ..

    Even becker, wilander, edberg is a stretch.

    But hey , continue to ignore Laver's poor performances/non-participation in Wimbledon/USO after 69 just because you worship him even though they were important tournaments ...
    Like I said .."Rosewall's career in majors after 69 blows Laver's out of the water.

    Just because Laver failed and cared less about Wimbledon/USO after 69 does not make them less prestigious/important at that time."
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
  40. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Now, having lost the argument, you misrepresent my previous comments? My actual answers to your first comment above was posted previously and you responded to it. The second comment was directed at someone other than me.
     
  41. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    You ignored the actual points in those posts. Just because you commented on them, doesn't mean you responded to the actual points in those.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
  42. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    I think this debate has jumped the shark. I'm not interested in your snark, sarcasm and multiple misrepresentations of my past comments.
     
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,924
    Location:
    U.S
    You didn't comment on the fragmented fields in the tournaments.

    You didn't comment on the smaller titles that Laver won ( while directly making a comparision with other players as far as overall titles go)

    You didn't comment on Laver's career after 69 in the open era in majors , especially at wimbledon/USO being so unimpressive. This even though Rosewall who also had money in his sights and was 4 years older, had a far better career/performances in majors after 69...oh , that apart from taking the WCT in 71/72 , that Laver coveted the most.

    and the list goes on ..

    If you don't want to respond to these ..then goodbye.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
  44. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,844
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    @abmk Loving the double standards from the Laver fanboy, wants to have his cake and eat it to. Limpinhitter will look at the era's context with regards to major counts but will ignore it when it comes to number of tournament wins. Massive lol at Federer being one dimensional compared to Laver (the greatest athlete in the sports history :D).

    Of course not, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.
     
    krosero and abmk like this.
  45. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    In fairness though mate, I think you were going a little OTT with regards to the total number of titles Borg won in his career. If he did win over a hundred tournaments like you mentioned before I'd imagine a fair number of them were won in draws of only a very select amount of players, most of whom probably weren't among the elite of the game. I think the 64 titles the ATP website credits him with seems like a much more realistic total.
     
  46. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,844
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Yes well I don't count all those titles on a one to one basis, I was just pointing out that arguments can be made. A lot of those tournaments were very small but still featured top opposition. Nine of those tournaments were 8+ player draws, 28 were less than 8.

    I think he won the equivalent of more than 64 for sure, but not the equivalent of 100. I would credit him with more titles than Djokovic though.
     
  47. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,512
    Not necessarily. In my experience, the ATP website is not a very reliable source, and it is especially unreliable for career statistics before the ATP became, in effect, the entire pro circuit including the 70's and 80's. For example, the ATP credits Jimmy Connors with 109 titles. I've read other sources that credit him with over 150 titles. Accord Ivan Lendl.
     
  48. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    27,101
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    But how many of Bjorn's would amount to 47 big ones like Djokovic currently has? ;)
     
  49. metsman

    metsman Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,146
    Djokovic2011 commenting in the former pro section?? LOL I think Trump is more qualified to be president.
     
  50. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,844
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Don't you mean *shudder* tier 1 titles? :p

    I don't have the answer to that, the prestige of events was much fluid in those days. Events sprung up with great prize money and draws. I do know Borg competed in more best of 5 finals ;)
     

Share This Page