Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
NatF is pretty cool about stuff.
Does this clay-courter make anyone's top 10?
FYI, the ATP didn't exist for the first 5 years of the open era, and then, only as a players union and a computer ranking system, not a circuit. The two main pro circuits were the Grand Prix and the WCT. The international circuit was administered by the ILTF. The ATP Tour started in 1990. Connors and others won many important non-ATP events in their careers, many of which the current ATP doesn't keep track of. For example, I've read sources that have Lendl, Rosewall and Gonzalez winning more than 130 titles, each. In addition to all of that, the ATP website is notoriously unreliable and incomplete, especially data that predates its existence.
Well, I have had the privilege of seeing him play, live, several times in his prime. In my view, he is about as talented as anyone. His return game, second only to Agassi's in my opinion, is testament to that.
Brett69, In open era Connors won about 150 titles. ATP did not count many of them.
NatF, I'm glad I finally can agree. But you and I and all others should try to avoid the word "silly". I concede it's sometimes difficult to do so...
Limpin, I agree.
He/she didnt say that was their rankings, just their likelihood to be GOAT. I doubt he/she would rank Sampras 10th, just that he is that unlikely to have any GOAT argument. Which I can understand since Sampras achievement and career wise is basically just a poorer version of Federer. His career is most similar to Federer than anyone else, and he is behind Federer in everything, so how could he possibly be GOAT, whether you think Federer is or not. Gonzales atleast is very tough to compare to Federer and many others due to the era he played, was #1 as long or longer than Laver, so has possible avenues to argue him as the GOAT. Not that i would but you could atleast try much easier than Sampras who is just a poorer Federer career about 10 years earlier in modern days.
As for all time rankings I would put Gonzales over Sampras easily.
1. He was #1 for 8 straight years. Sampras only 6. 6 is still mighty impressive, but this is one of the easiest points of comparision and one of the strongest points of both, and Gonzales wins comfortably.
2. He was better on clay than Sampras by a significant margin, even if both are very weak for great standards. His equivalent is better than having only 3 good clay tournaments your whole career (Roland Garros 96, Davis Cup final, Rome 1994) and losing early rounds of Roland Garros to nobodies most years of your prime.
3. He just was a more dominant and overbearing player at this best. Sampras never won 3 slams in the same year in an era all 4 are fully valued.
Clearly the best clay court player of all time. No doubt.
Because both are judged under the circumstances of their eras. As far as I now, clay was simply not a common surfaces on the pro tour, which explain why Gonzalez didn't won many importants tournaments on clay. He was none the less one of the top players on clay of his time. Disqualiying Gonzalez because of lack of clay results is pretty similar to disqualify Federer for lack of carpet results.
Sampras too is judged under the 90's circumstances, but he was outachieved on clay by many of his contemporary, many of them much lesser player than him overall.
I think Gonzalez would have made more than a single FO SF in his career if there had been open tennis...
Separate names with a comma.