Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix,

Longevity is yet a significant measure of greatness.

Rosewall dominated at majors for four years.

In Tilden's prime there was no French championship for foreigners. He did win the World's Hardcourt Championships on clay.

We should also mention that Tilden didn't travel to Europe in 1922 and 1923 for the WHCC or Wimbledon, and I can't say that I blame him considering all the travelling by boat he would have had to do every year, while he wasn't earning a dime for playing tennis (as he was an amateur). Tilden was clearly seen as the world's best player in the first half of the 1920s, and he expected his biggest challengers from other continents to go to him. The French Musketeers (Lacoste, Cochet, Borotra) certainly answered that call with a lot of success in 1926 and the years following. Tilden started getting his own back in 1930 and then as a professional from 1931 onwards. Tilden had Cochet's number in the professional game.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I'm British, I don't follow US sports, so I can't answer the above examples.

But no, I don't think it's especially important in terms of tennis majors, sorry.



Are you talking about the likes of Rosewall/Gonzales etc. because if so, I account for their pro achievements in my ranking. But that would be titles, not percentages.



What nonsense. In his best 5 year spell (1993-97), he won 9 slams. This is more than the entire careers of Connors and Lendl.




I never denied Fed > Sampras.



Sampras, because he played in a much tougher era.

And also, please stop using hypotheticals ("he probably would have done this") as a way to boost someone's status. What happened, happened and we cannot award people phantom majors.

It's the same thing with Borg: let's say he had chosen never to play the US Open. People here would be writing that he undoubtedly would have won a few of them (or more), but we all know he didn't. Also, if he had chosen to play the Australian, he may have been physically burnt out by the middle of the season and thus may have lost some of those epically close matches at Wimbledon which he was renowned for winning. We simply don't know.



No, it's not.

You're basically saying it's better to dominate for a few years and burn out, rather than pace your career better, win over a longer period of time against many different generations and end up with better numbers.



Fact is, he demanded to play fewer tournaments because he couldn't hack playing a full season any longer. Whether the authorities were right or wrong not to accede to his demand is a matter for debate. However, it's fair to say he was no longer in top shape to dominate majors, certainly psychologically.

Phoenix,

I am not saying that. I am saying you have to account for both. Incidentally I was thinking of Sampras from 94 to 98 instead of 93 to 97 so I was off by one major.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It's not that simple. Connors only played at the Australian Open in 1974 and 1975. He also missed the French Open in his prime years from 1974-1978 (being banned against his will in 1974).

From 1974 to 1978 (5 year period), Connors entered a total of 12 majors, won 5 of them, was runner-up in 6, and a quarter final loser in the other. Connors also won the 1977 WCT Dallas title, and the January 1978 Masters title.

I'm well aware of all this.

Here's something that people often ignore about Connors: after his first year of dominance (1974), he then went 1-6 in his next 7 Grand Slam finals. And he wasn't just being dominated by a single opponent either, he was losing against everybody he faced;

1975 Aus - lost vs. Newcombe
1975 Wim - lost vs. Ashe
1975 US - lost vs. Orantes
1976 US - won vs. Borg
1977 Wim - lost vs. Borg
1977 US - lost vs. Vilas
1978 Wim - lost vs. Borg

And this was Connors' supposedly "dominant" period, when he was ranked No 1 for most of the time!

Given that red clay was his worst surface and Borg was winning most of the FOs in this period, it is highly unlikely he would have added an FO title. As shown above, he was largely incapable of winning the majors played on his favourite venues and surfaces.

So no, don't compare Connors' best 5 year spell to that of Sampras please.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I'm well aware of all this.

Here's something that people often ignore about Connors: after his first year of dominance (1974), he then went 1-6 in his next 7 Grand Slam finals. And he wasn't just being dominated by a single opponent either, he was losing against everybody he faced;

1975 Aus - lost vs. Newcombe
1975 Wim - lost vs. Ashe
1975 US - lost vs. Orantes
1976 US - won vs. Borg
1977 Wim - lost vs. Borg
1977 US - lost vs. Vilas
1978 Wim - lost vs. Borg

And this was Connors' supposedly "dominant" period, when he was ranked No 1 for most of the time!

Given that red clay was his worst surface and Borg was winning most of the FOs in this period, it is highly unlikely he would have added an FO title. As shown above, he was largely incapable of winning the majors played on his favourite venues and surfaces.

So no, don't compare Connors' best 5 year spell to that of Sampras please.

In his best five years he won 5 of 12 majors for 41.7%. In Sampras' won he won 9 of 20 from 1993 to 1997 for 45%. In his best winning percentage years Sampras won 8 of 20 for 40%. It is comparable. Don't forget Connors won WCT in 1977 during that period which really was a major.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

In his best five years he won 5 of 12 majors for 41.7%. In Sampras' won he won 9 of 20 from 1993 to 1997 for 45%. In his best winning percentage years Sampras won 8 of 20 for 40%. It is comparable. Don't forget Connors won WCT in 1977 during that period which really was a major.

Not going to bother arguing - I don't believe in this percentages bullsh*t.

Edit: just to say, thankfully, most tennis critics/historians/fans agree with me - that numbers of titles matter, not percentages. Sampras will be ranked well above Connors by most and deservedly so.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Not going to bother arguing - I don't believe in this percentages bullsh*t.

Edit: just to say, thankfully, most tennis critics/historians/fans agree with me - that numbers of titles matter, not percentages. Sampras will be ranked well above Connors by most and deservedly so.

Whatever you want. Let's me ask you a question. Let's say I shoot free throws in basketball and I make 99 free throws. Let's say another person makes 98 free throws. Looks like I'm better, doesn't it? What happens if you found out that I made 99 out of 200 free throws and the other guy made 98 of 100? By your logic I'm better in free throw shooting.

No more mention of this from me.

Incidentally I never wrote Connors was better than Sampras.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Whatever you want. Let's me ask you a question. Let's say I shoot free throws in basketball and I make 99 free throws. Let's say another person makes 98 free throws. Looks like I'm better, doesn't it? What happens if you found out that I made 99 out of 200 free throws and the other guy made 98 of 100? By your logic I'm better in free throw shooting.

No more mention of this from me.

Incidentally I never wrote Connors was better than Sampras.

What you are both ignoring is the question of opposition.

If I win 99% of my matches, and the opponents are Arkinstall, Palafox, Cawthorn, Bonetti, Huber, Worthington, Bottke, Fiala, Pero, Morton, Pottinger, Balestra, Lavanchy (all of whom were respected professionals from the early 1960's), and compare it to someone else's record of 70% against Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Anderson, Cooper, Rose, Giammalva, Hartwig, McGregor, I would claim that the 70% is better than the 99% record.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

What you are both ignoring is the question of opposition.

If I win 99% of my matches, and the opponents are Arkinstall, Palafox, Cawthorn, Bonetti, Huber, Worthington, Bottke, Fiala, Pero, Morton, Pottinger, Balestra, Lavanchy (all of whom were respected professionals from the early 1960's), and compare it to someone else's record of 70% against Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Anderson, Cooper, Rose, Giammalva, Hartwig, McGregor, I would claim that the 70% is better than the 99% record.

I think you're right in the example you use Dan. However with Sampras and Connors the opponents were pretty strong. Connors had Borg, Ashe, Orantes, Tanner, Lendl, Edberg, Newcombe, Rosewall, Okker, Kodes, Vilas, Ramirez, Panatta, Stockton, Vijay Amritraj, Smith, McEnroe, Gerulaitis among others as the players Connors faced in majors. There were other greats like Nastase and Laver who Connors didn't face in majors.

Sampras faced Agassi, Goran, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Chang, Martin, Henman, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Pioline, Korda, Rafter, Kucera, Bjorkman, McEnroe, Lendl among others in majors.

I'm sure there were a number of other top players Sampras didn't face in majors.

It's subjective so the people can look and decide if either one had tougher competition.

Obviously level of play in the Open Era cannot remain the same. Some eras just have to be better than others but there is no way of measuring it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think you're right in the example you use Dan. However with Sampras and Connors the opponents were pretty strong. Connors had Borg, Ashe, Orantes, Tanner, Lendl, Edberg, Newcombe, Rosewall, Okker, Kodes, Vilas, Ramirez, Panatta, Stockton, Vijay Amritraj, Smith, McEnroe, Gerulaitis among others as the players Connors faced in majors. There were other greats like Nastase and Laver who Connors didn't face in majors.

Sampras faced Agassi, Goran, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Chang, Martin, Henman, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Pioline, Korda, Rafter, Kucera, Bjorkman, McEnroe, Lendl among others in majors.

I'm sure there were a number of other top players Sampras didn't face in majors.

It's subjective so the people can look and decide if either one had tougher competition.

Obviously level of play in the Open Era cannot remain the same. Some eras just have to be better than others but there is no way of measuring it.

But what were the percentages against these great players? Not 99%.
In the early rounds of majors, they played some cannon fodder.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Whatever you want. Let's me ask you a question. Let's say I shoot free throws in basketball and I make 99 free throws. Let's say another person makes 98 free throws. Looks like I'm better, doesn't it? What happens if you found out that I made 99 out of 200 free throws and the other guy made 98 of 100? By your logic I'm better in free throw shooting.

No more mention of this from me.

Depends how much you value hypotheticals, I don't value them at all. We don't know if the other guy would have kept on scoring virtually every time, or on his 101st attempt would have fallen over and injured himself, thus leaving him stranded at 98 forever.

Oh and of course the situation is not analogous to tennis majors at all: doesn't account for different surfaces (most of Connors' missed majors were at the French, on his worst surface, so unsure why you are assuming he would have added to his title count there), the impact of age (Borg could not be expected to go on dominating into his late 20s etc.), and quite simply the fact that winning a tennis major one more time is not as easy as getting the ball in a basketball net one more time.

Bottom line is Sampras > Borg, and Sampras >> Connors.

However I also do not wish to discuss this any more...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

But what were the percentages against these great players? Not 99%.
In the early rounds of majors, they played some cannon fodder.

That's also hard to examine as is level of play, Because for example the John McEnroe that Pete Sampras faced in the 1990 US Open wasn't the same as the John McEnroe that Borg and Connors faces in the 1970's and early to mid 1980's. Same with Lendl.

Kodes faced Newcombe in the first round of 1971 US Open I believe. Newcombe was top seed and Kodes was unseeded. But we know in retrospect that was a first round match that would be good for a major final. In fact that was the US Open final in 1973. Kodes went all the way to the final before losing to Stan Smith at his peak. Kodes probably should have been one of the top few seeds.

I think we have to look at what players were at the top of their games.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

What you are both ignoring is the question of opposition.

If I win 99% of my matches, and the opponents are Arkinstall, Palafox, Cawthorn, Bonetti, Huber, Worthington, Bottke, Fiala, Pero, Morton, Pottinger, Balestra, Lavanchy (all of whom were respected professionals from the early 1960's), and compare it to someone else's record of 70% against Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Anderson, Cooper, Rose, Giammalva, Hartwig, McGregor, I would claim that the 70% is better than the 99% record.

Dan, Your first list is demagogy. The pros usually did NOT play against Bottke, Fiala etc.....As always you try to belittle the early 1960s, probably to diminish Rosewall's achievements. I have already shown that Rosewall beat 15 very STRONG pros in his fantastic run 1960 to 1963 at pro majors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Not going to bother arguing - I don't believe in this percentages bullsh*t.

Edit: just to say, thankfully, most tennis critics/historians/fans agree with me - that numbers of titles matter, not percentages. Sampras will be ranked well above Connors by most and deservedly so.

Phoenix, Why so harsh towards pc1? pc1 is a Sir and you seem to be a rowdy...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

In his best five years he won 5 of 12 majors for 41.7%. In Sampras' won he won 9 of 20 from 1993 to 1997 for 45%. In his best winning percentage years Sampras won 8 of 20 for 40%. It is comparable. Don't forget Connors won WCT in 1977 during that period which really was a major.

eh, only connors didn't play RG, his weakest slam ... he most probably wouldn't have won that given the field of borg, panatta,vilas, orantes, ramirez, solomon etc ...

take out RG for sampras , you have him at 9/16 (56.25%)

I'll easily take that over 5/12 for Connors in his best 5 years inspite of the fact that connors faced tougher competition ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Look, the dude had opportunities to win the US Open on three surfaces and couldn't. Stop with this "he would probably have won many". There's no reason to believe that whatsoever.

74 , it was on grass, surely you wouldn't expect him to win there at that age ?

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

From what I know of the two players, I agree. And Borg proved it in Wimbledon finals. But couldn't handle the atmosphere of winning the US Open against a home favourite, thus lost. This is a psychological flaw in his makeup which I feel you are ignoring.

again, it had nothing to do with home favorite ... (pc1 already has given the example of panntta and rome 78 )

he didn't have a problem in shredding connors' game to pieces in USO 1981 - dominated him winning in straights .. ( connors took the winner mac to a close 5-setter in 1980 in the semis and would go onto win 82 and 83 USOs )

also FYI, he defeated stockton in 79 USO & tanner in 80 & 81 USO

connors was better than him on har-tru in 75 clearly and a bit better in 76 ... borg was injured in 77 and had to retire ... it was one set all when he retired ...so its not like he retired because he was losing or anything like that

had injury in 78 final as well ...though I don't agree with pc1 that borg would've comprehensively beaten him if he wasn't injured ....

If it had remained on har-tru, he would've easily have won more than one USO IMO ...

he was good enough to win atleast one on fast HC as well ... just that he was unlucky there ...just as he got lucky to win wimby 5 times in a row ...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's also hard to examine as is level of play, Because for example the John McEnroe that Pete Sampras faced in the 1990 US Open wasn't the same as the John McEnroe that Borg and Connors faces in the 1970's and early to mid 1980's. Same with Lendl.

Kodes faced Newcombe in the first round of 1971 US Open I believe. Newcombe was top seed and Kodes was unseeded. But we know in retrospect that was a first round match that would be good for a major final. In fact that was the US Open final in 1973. Kodes went all the way to the final before losing to Stan Smith at his peak. Kodes probably should have been one of the top few seeds.

I think we have to look at what players were at the top of their games.

Thanks for mentioning what a great champ Kodes was
Coming back to Borg, it is false he wasn' t great on hard just because of his unluckiness at Flushing Meadows
The next two best HC events of that time were Las Vegas and Toronto
In 79 Borg demolished Lendl & Mac in the semis and final of CO
That same year he demolished Connors to win Vegas and in 1980 he outgunned Vitas for another Vegas title
He completely destroyed the 4 best hardcourters of his time in two consecutive yrs

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Your first list is demagogy. The pros usually did NOT play against Bottke, Fiala etc.....As always you try to belittle the early 1960s, probably to diminish Rosewall's achievements. I have already shown that Rosewall beat 15 very STRONG pros in his fantastic run 1960 to 1963 at pro majors.

No, nothing against Rosewall.
My point was that you cannot compare the winning percentages of, for example, Borg and Federer, about 95-99% winning record, to the old pro percentages because the more recent champions have faced minimal opposition most of the time. Certainly in the early rounds of tournaments.
In the old pro days, there was a tough opponent every day, and a winning percentage of 70% was great.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Your first list is demagogy. The pros usually did NOT play against Bottke, Fiala etc.....As always you try to belittle the early 1960s, probably to diminish Rosewall's achievements. I have already shown that Rosewall beat 15 very STRONG pros in his fantastic run 1960 to 1963 at pro majors.

I would not call them VERY strong. Perhaps a little long in the tooth.
Rosewall certainly did well in 1963 Stade Coubertin against Laver, who, in his own words, played the greatest tennis of his life in that match.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Thanks for mentioning what a great champ Kodes was
Coming back to Borg, it is false he wasn' t great on hard just because of his unluckiness at Flushing Meadows
The next two best HC events of that time were Las Vegas and Toronto
In 79 Borg demolished Lendl & Mac in the semis and final of CO
That same year he demolished Connors to win Vegas and in 1980 he outgunned Vitas for another Vegas title
He completely destroyed the 4 best hardcourters of his time in two consecutive yrs

Kodes was an excellent player and frankly he was the perfect example of how it's tough to judge the strength of a player by early round matches in those days. The seeding committee could be very off in their judgements sometimes.

Next year Kodes were one of the top seeds.

When you judge great players we have to judge them on how great they were on all surfaces, not this recent nonsense that a great HAS to have won all the majors. That's recent stuff to promote players like Agassi for example who was a great player but I believe they wanted to push him more. Sure to win all the majors is good but it's not the end all.

Rosewall not winning Wimbledon doesn't not eliminate him from greatness. It's the circumstances of the times. It's not hypothetical but fact that Rosewall wasn't allowed to play all the majors for many years. These were years in which he probably would have won many classic majors.

Borg also was great on all surfaces.

Some players can't win on some surfaces like grass or red clay. It shows that they couldn't adapt and perhaps, just perhaps there was a flaw in their style of play or perhaps physically. I don't think that was a problem with Borg and Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, nothing against Rosewall.
My point was that you cannot compare the winning percentages of, for example, Borg and Federer, about 95-99% winning record, to the old pro percentages because the more recent champions have faced minimal opposition most of the time. Certainly in the early rounds of tournaments.
In the old pro days, there was a tough opponent every day, and a winning percentage of 70% was great.

Dan, Thanks for the clarification. I agree.