Clay Court GOAT

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And I still think it means Triumphant Muscles Forever!

I have given him my TMF copyright....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have given him my TMF copyright....

BobbyOne-That joke is as great as a Rosewall backhand. It's your best joke ever.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

I will second that. Notice that it doesn't bother me that Federer is ahead of a lot of great players. I just wanted some reasonable choices and that's fine with me.

And I think we all are craved for compliments.

I like to see some reasonable choice too, not like Limpin once said Fed doesn't make the list(hoodjem's top 40) of great clay court player. And why does it bothers you when this is a pro Laver forum. I think it bothers other fans of modern players.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

To be honest I'm shocked because you really haven't been open minded...in the past.

Like what?

The height issues playing in today's tennis, or the the depth/talent of the pool are deeper in every decade?

Those are all true.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I am craved for a compliment.

But I AM still impressed with your open-mindedness and objectivity that you would put Laver and Rosewall on your CC GOAT-list. Particularly given your espousal of the concept of tennis as continuous, ascending, evolutionary progress.

Salut to TMF!

I'm fine in giving compliments, even to Nadal who has many annoying fans in the general pro player forum. What i wishes is Federer doesn't get disparage so often in this former pro forum, even if he doesn't gets any compliment.

[kiki]

This thread could open a discussion about the changes in both, number of events and quickness of the surfaces.Let´s pick 1980´s and 2000´s.

Number of Events

Clay and grass keep more or less the same weight on the tour.But Hard is the official ATP current surface while it was indoors in the 80´s.it wouldn´t surprise me if there are so much hc events now as indoors back then and, also, as few indoor events now as hc events in the 80´s

QUICKNESS
Clay and hard have, more or less, similarly.maybe current hard is a little slower and current clay is a little faster but, on the long term, it doesn´t make a big difference to me.

The real differences are on grass and indoors.Nothing to see at all.Speed is absolutely changed.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by kiki

This thread could open a discussion about the changes in both, number of events and quickness of the surfaces.Let´s pick 1980´s and 2000´s.

Number of Events

Clay and grass keep more or less the same weight on the tour.But Hard is the official ATP current surface while it was indoors in the 80´s.it wouldn´t surprise me if there are so much hc events now as indoors back then and, also, as few indoor events now as hc events in the 80´s

QUICKNESS
Clay and hard have, more or less, similarly.maybe current hard is a little slower and current clay is a little faster but, on the long term, it doesn´t make a big difference to me.
The real differences are on grass and indoors.Nothing to see at all.Speed is absolutely changed.

I was watching some Muster from the French Open last night on youtube from 1995.. and if you look at the French Open then and watch some French Open play now.. Its much faster now.. Back then the French was playing like freakin Monte Carlo. No wonder some big hitters today are having more success at RG then they used to

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have given him my TMF copyright....

comparing Laver to Federer is like comparing the Led Zeppelin with Justin Bieber.

The first one had real opposition, now...

[kiki]

The difference between Kodes and Vines is plainly and simply... a great Marketing Agent.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

I like to see some reasonable choice too, not like Limpin once said Fed doesn't make the list (hoodjem's top 40) of great clay court player. And why does it bothers you when this is a pro-Laver forum. I think it bothers other fans of modern players.

Huh?

But Fed does make my list.

He has one FO title, four FO final runner-ups, six Masters 1000 tourney wins (4 Hamburg, 2 Madrid), seven Masters 1000 tourney runners-up (3 Monte Carlo, 2 Rome, 1Hamburg, 1 Madrid), and three minor clay-court titles (Munich, Gstaad, Estoril).

I believe that he comes in the teens. (I'll post it below.)

[hoodjem]

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Santana
15. Bruguera
16. Pietrangeli
17. Courier
18. Muster
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Emerson
23. Nastase
25. Trabert
26. Orantes
27. Panatta
28. Agassi
29. Connors
30. Nusslein
31. Tilden
32. Gimeno
33. Frank Parker
34. Roche
35. Sven Davidson
36. Jack Crawford
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Segura

[robow7]

Probably a very complete list and I sure can't evaluate those older players from more than 60 years ago but were they really that much better than Vilas and Muster? Because those two iimo should seem to be higher.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Santana
15. Bruguera
16. Pietrangeli
17. Courier
18. Muster
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Emerson
23. Nastase
25. Trabert
26. Orantes
27. Panatta
28. Agassi
29. Connors
30. Nusslein
31. Tilden
32. Gimeno
33. Frank Parker
34. Roche
35. Sven Davidson
36. Jack Crawford
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Segura

Great list. I especially appreciate that Wilding (the owner of the longest clay run of victories and winner of the most clay tournaments) is placed appropriately high up.

I wonder where Karel Koželuh should be? He was the seven time winner of the Bristol Cup &/or World Pro. Championship. This was placed on clay in France. It was the most prestigous Pro tournament of the 1920's. He also won 2 US Pro Championships on clay (1932/1937) and a French Pro (1930). That is 10 Major clay tournaments.

Also regarding Nusslein - shouldn't he be higher? He won the world Professional Championship on clay in 1933 and also won the US Pro when it was played on clay in 1934. Plus twice winner of French Pro in 1937/1938. That is 4 major pro titles on clay. He did lose to Von Cramm in the early/mid 1930's in a match however apparently he was ill when that match occurred. In practice matches later in the 1930's apparently he had Von Cramm's number.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

Great list. I especially appreciate that Wilding (the owner of the longest clay run of victories and winner of the most clay tournaments) is placed appropriately high up.

I wonder where Karel Koželuh should be? He was the seven time winner of the Bristol Cup &/or World Pro. Championship. This was placed on clay in France. It was the most prestigous Pro tournament of the 1920's.

Also regarding Nusslein - shouldn't he be higher? He won the world Professional Championship on clay in 1933 and also won the US Pro when it was played on clay in 1934. Plus twice winner of French Pro in 1937/1938. That is 4 major pro titles on clay. He did lose to Von Cramm in the early/mid 1930's in a match however apparently he was ill when that match occurred. In practice matches later in the 1930's apparently he had Von Cramm's number.

Yep. There always seems to be another overlooked player to add somewhere.

Maybe someone on here will offer an opinion as to where.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Yep. There always seems to be another overlooked player to add somewhere.

Maybe someone on here will offer an opinion as to where.

Even if you don't like the Bristol Cup (though you should because it was the defacto World Championship for Professionals in the 1920's) - the fact that Karel also won 3 Pro Slams on Clay should mean a good standing.

Hoodjem - I appreciate the great work you have done on your list.I realise that a lot of hours of reflection have gone into it. When I created this thread a number of years ago I had no idea at the time that it would last so long and have so many entries.

[NadalAgassi]

While I am no Federer fan I wholeheartedly disagree with him being below Vilas on clay, let alone 6 spots lower. Federer has a better French Open record, I believe more Masters level titles, and he was certainly alot more respectable in his matches vs Nadal on clay than Vilas was with Borg, and if Borg is a bad matchup for Vilas, Nadal is likewise a bad matchup for Federer, so that isnt even an excuse. What is Vilas's edge, all those tier 4 titles in South America he won? Having 2 majors on clay is not an edge, he got a chance to win 2 majors on clay a year for a few years right around his peak, Federer would probably have won the 2009 U.S Open on clay too the way Nadal was playing (extremely bad) at the time, and with Del Potro being not as strong on clay as hard courts. Federer did dominate the whole clay field besides Nadal until Djokovic came along. Vilas did not even dominate everyone else on clay besides Vilas, hence why he made the French Open final only 3 times (2 of those with Borg not playing).

[Mustard]

Vilas won 46 titles on clay, including all the big titles. Federer has a lot less titles on clay and doesn't have Monte Carlo or Rome. By the way, Vilas played in 4 French Open finals, beating Gottfried in 1977, losing in 1975 and 1978 to Borg, and losing in 1982 to Wilander.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Vilas won 46 titles on clay, including all the big titles. Federer has a lot less titles on clay and doesn't have Monte Carlo or Rome.

Federer has 6 Masters titles, does Vilas have more than 6 Masters equivalent titles? If Hamburg, Monte Carlo, and Rome were the 3 Masters equivalents then he has only 4. Federer's French Open record is alot better even with both having 1 title, that is for sure. More finals, more semis, more quarters, and his only losses from 2005 onwards were Nadal, Djokovic, and 2 time finalist Soderling.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Federer has 6 Masters titles, does Vilas have more than 6 Masters equivalent titles? If Hamburg, Monte Carlo, and Rome were the 3 Masters equivalents then he has only 4. Federer's French Open record is alot better even with both having 1 title, that is for sure. More finals, more semis, more quarters, and his only losses from 2005 onwards were Nadal, Djokovic, and 2 time finalist Soderling.

Vilas has 5 Masters 1000 equivalent clay titles. On top of the three you mentioned he won Washington DC in 1975 and 1977. It is also worth mentioning that he could have possibly won a 6th as he was playing the Monte Carlo final against Connors in 1981 but it was rained out in the first set.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by timnz

Vilas has 5 Masters 1000 equivalent clay titles. On top of the three you mentioned he won Washington DC in 1975 and 1977. It is also worth mentioning that he could have possibly won a 6th as he was playing the Monte Carlo final against Connors in 1981 but it was rained out in the first set.

Thanks. So Federer still has won more 1000 equivalent clay titles than Vilas, clearly has a superior French Open record. Add to that the huge number of Masters finals Federer has, and Vilas's embarassingly poor showings vs Borg on clay, and I would rank Federer over Vilas in a heartbeat. Vilas's only real advantage is willingess to play alot of obscure tiny clay events, largely in South America, and win them. My rankings of them would probably be roughly opposite to the previous list, Federer in the 13th range and Vilas in the 19th range.