Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Most majors won including Pro, Open and Amateur
1. Rosewall-23
2. Laver-19 or 20 depending on whether you include the Wimbledon Pro in 1967
3. Federer-17
4. Gonzalez-15
5. Pete Sampras-14
5. Tilden-14
6. Emerson-12
7. Borg-11
8. Budge-10
9. Connors-8
9. Agassi-8
9. Lendl-8

Most total tournaments won
Laver-200
Tilden-160+
Connors-149
Lendl-146
Rosewall-136
Gonzalez-130+
Borg-106
Federer-76
Sampras-64
Agassi-60

There are a number of other players on the list for total tournaments won but I figured I just put in some of the more well known names.

Percentage of majors won
Laver-34.5 or 35.7
Tilden-33.33
Connors-13.8
Lendl-14.0
Rosewall-33.3
Gonzalez-32.6
Borg-41.7
Federer-31.5
Sampras-26.9
Agassi-13.1
Budge-35.7

Grand Slams won
Laver-2
Budge-1

Most MAJOR head to head tours won-perhaps a greater feat than a major
Pancho Gonzalez-7
Ellsworth Vines-5
Jack Kramer-4
Bill Tilden-3
Don Budge-3

Clearly Pancho Gonzalez has easily the best tour record in history.


Leaders are in bold.

Here's some of the numbers, check it out.
Notice that guys like Pete Sampras who was once the all time official leader in classic majors won with 14 actually has a mediocre percentage of winning majors with just over 26%. He played 52 majors and won 14. In baseball they give awards for best battling average, not for most hits. The volume of majors played by Sampras obviously helped him win 14 majors. Of course he was a great player but it certainly helps to play a lot of majors. The players of the past didn't have the opportunity to play the majors.

Most top players have excellent percentage of winning majors in their top years. It's only in the early and later years where the percentages decline.

Ellsworth Vines' percentage of winning majors may be second only to Borg but I have to check the percentages just to make sure.

Incidentally in looking at the total numbers, can anyone really put Andre Agassi LOGICALLY ahead of Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl? I'm stunned that people do that. It's not remotely close.

pc1, You have Rosewall as leader of the majors list. I just hope you will not become a Rosewall fanatic as BobbyOne is...

[Pete M.]

Why do some people not count the Laver's Wimbledon pro in 67?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by urban

Now, if i read some of the posts here, it seems that Hoad and Rosewall lost only, when they were old, injured, tired, had bad nights before, or when they didn't try in meaningless exhibitions. I wonder how they got their impressive records together. They are too good for excuses. In Hoad's case i have the assumption, that he simply hadn't the greatest stamina, and was a bit too heavy muscled like Cash, Becker or Flipper later, to string real streaks of continued wins together . In Rosewall's case, he always had the habit of looking depressed and tired in a match. Often enough this outlook gave the opponent a false sense of security, often enough Rosewall woke up from the dead and won the match in five.

Yes, now that you mention it, Rosewall had always that face like if he was bored, frustrated or noninterested, something like nonchalance...it is true, looking at him it was like he was being roundly beaten.I think that was just facial expression, after all...Laver was a bit like that, but Laver´s eyes were always burning.

One funny thing I remember about Rosewall is that, after hitting that marvelous BH and having the crowd standing and getting nuts, he looked like it be mere routine, almost like he didn´t give a damn.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NikeWilson

For fun, I've added on beyond my list of Top 10.
(No offense to the players before the late 70s - I'm not too familiar with their game so I left them off my list: Emerson, Rosewall, Tilden, Ashe, Budge, Newcombe, Perry, etc.. god bless your souls.)

1. Federer (17)
2. Sampras (14)
3. Nadal (11)
4. Laver (11)
5. Borg (11)
6. Lendl (8 )
7. Agassi (8 )
8. Connors (8 )
9. McEnroe (7)
10. Djokovic (5)

11. Edberg (6)
12. Becker (6)
13. Wilander (7)
14. Courier (4)
15. Kuerten (3)
16. Rafter (2)
17. Kafelnikov (2)
18. Hewitt (2)
19. Safin (2)

...and Nastase,Smith,Kodes....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, You have Rosewall as leader of the majors list. I just hope you will not become a Rosewall fanatic as BobbyOne is...

While not meaning to be Laver fanatic,when you get the picture behind those nice stats, it is really impressive what Laver did get.

[NikeWilson]

Originally Posted by pc1

Most majors won including Pro, Open and Amateur
1. Rosewall-23
2. Laver-19 or 20 depending on whether you include the Wimbledon Pro in 1967
3. Federer-17
4. Gonzalez-15
5. Pete Sampras-14
5. Tilden-14
6. Emerson-12
7. Borg-11
8. Budge-10
9. Connors-8
9. Agassi-8
9. Lendl-8

Most total tournaments won
Laver-200
Tilden-160+
Connors-149
Lendl-146
Rosewall-136
Gonzalez-130+
Borg-106
Federer-76
Sampras-64
Agassi-60

There are a number of other players on the list for total tournaments won but I figured I just put in some of the more well known names.

Percentage of majors won
Laver-34.5 or 35.7
Tilden-33.33
Connors-13.8
Lendl-14.0
Rosewall-33.3
Gonzalez-32.6
Borg-41.7
Federer-31.5
Sampras-26.9
Agassi-13.1
Budge-35.7

Grand Slams won
Laver-2
Budge-1

Most MAJOR head to head tours won-perhaps a greater feat than a major
Pancho Gonzalez-7
Ellsworth Vines-5
Jack Kramer-4
Bill Tilden-3
Don Budge-3

Clearly Pancho Gonzalez has easily the best tour record in history.


Leaders are in bold.

Here's some of the numbers, check it out.
Notice that guys like Pete Sampras who was once the all time official leader in classic majors won with 14 actually has a mediocre percentage of winning majors with just over 26%. He played 52 majors and won 14. In baseball they give awards for best battling average, not for most hits. The volume of majors played by Sampras obviously helped him win 14 majors. Of course he was a great player but it certainly helps to play a lot of majors. The players of the past didn't have the opportunity to play the majors.

Most top players have excellent percentage of winning majors in their top years. It's only in the early and later years where the percentages decline.

Ellsworth Vines' percentage of winning majors may be second only to Borg but I have to check the percentages just to make sure.

Incidentally in looking at the total numbers, can anyone really put Andre Agassi LOGICALLY ahead of Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl? I'm stunned that people do that. It's not remotely close.

Why did you leave out Nadal??

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

Why do some people not count the Laver's Wimbledon pro in 67?

Wimbledon 1967 was truly an important event. But still I personally (and some
others like Carlo Colussi if I remember well) don't rank it as a true major because it was held only once. I major should have a bit of tradition and consequence. Therefore I also don't rate the Dallas WCT final in the first years as a major but as a big tournament.

[Pete M.]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Wimbledon 1967 was truly an important event. But still I personally (and some
others like Carlo Colussi if I remember well) don't rank it as a true major because it was held only once. I major should have a bit of tradition and consequence. Therefore I also don't rate the Dallas WCT final as a major but as a big tournament.

I always ranked it as a major but this explanation make sense. Thanks again.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

While not meaning to be Laver fanatic,when you get the picture behind those nice stats, it is really impressive what Laver did get.

Laver's at least 200 tournament wins are fantastic.

I just would like to mention (as Carlo C. did) that Laver had much more chances to win tourneys than Rosewall had: Firstly Laver turned pro only at 24, winning numerous events in his last few years as an amateur when Rocket was already extremely strong while Rosewall turned pro already at 22 and did not face many pro tournaments in several years! When Laver played as a pro and at his peak there was a large schedule of pro tournaments.

But even saying that I doubt if Muscles could have reached 200 tournament wins. In fact he has won "only" 137 or a bit more...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

I always ranked it as a major but this explanation make sense. Thanks again.

I should concede that WCT finals did have a certain tradition but not in the first two years when Rosewall won it. I don't hesitate to say this.

As true majors I only rate the traditional Grand Slam tournaments (amateur and open era) plus their pro equivalents French Pro, Wembley and US Pro.

I also omit Australian Pro because it was held only three times and not generally regarded as a pro major.

[Mustard]

I count the Tournament of Champions and the Wimbledon Pro as majors, on top of the traditional 3 (French, Wembley, US).

[NikeWilson]

Well, to Agassi's credit, he did win all 4 Slams.
Whereas Lendl and Connors did not.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NikeWilson

Why did you leave out Nadal??

Simply forgot. I'll change it and put in him there.

See post 375 below.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I count the Tournament of Champions and the Wimbledon Pro as majors, on top of the traditional 3 (French, Wembley, US).

Then why not count the Masters r.r. from 1957 to 1959 plus 1964 which had the same tough field as ToC had?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NikeWilson

Why did you leave out Nadal??

Corrected. See below.

Originally Posted by pc1

Most majors won including Pro, Open and Amateur
1. Rosewall-23
2. Laver-19 or 20 depending on whether you include the Wimbledon Pro in 1967
3. Federer-17
4. Gonzalez-15
5. Pete Sampras-14
5. Tilden-14
6. Emerson-12
7. Borg-11
7. Nadal-11
8. Budge-10
9. Connors-8
9. Agassi-8
9. Lendl-8

Most total tournaments won
Laver-200
Tilden-160+
Connors-149
Lendl-146
Rosewall-136
Gonzalez-130+
Borg-106
Federer-76
Sampras-64
Agassi-60
Nadal-50

There are a number of other players on the list for total tournaments won but I figured I just put in some of the more well known names.

Percentage of majors won
Laver-34.5 or 35.7
Tilden-33.33
Connors-13.8
Lendl-14.0
Rosewall-33.3
Gonzalez-32.6
Borg-41.7
Federer-31.5
Sampras-26.9
Agassi-13.1
Budge-35.7
Nadal-33.3

Grand Slams won and Pro Grand Slams Won
Laver-3
Budge-1

Most MAJOR head to head tours won-perhaps a greater feat than a major
Pancho Gonzalez-7
Ellsworth Vines-5
Jack Kramer-4
Bill Tilden-3
Don Budge-3

Clearly Pancho Gonzalez has easily the best tour record in history.


Leaders are in bold.

Here's some of the numbers, check it out.
Notice that guys like Pete Sampras who was once the all time official leader in classic majors won with 14 actually has a mediocre percentage of winning majors with just over 26%. He played 52 majors and won 14. In baseball they give awards for best battling average, not for most hits. The volume of majors played by Sampras obviously helped him win 14 majors. Of course he was a great player but it certainly helps to play a lot of majors. The players of the past didn't have the opportunity to play the majors.

Most top players have excellent percentage of winning majors in their top years. It's only in the early and later years where the percentages decline.

Ellsworth Vines' percentage of winning majors may be second only to Borg but I have to check the percentages just to make sure.

Incidentally in looking at the total numbers, can anyone really put Andre Agassi LOGICALLY ahead of Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl? I'm stunned that people do that. It's not remotely close.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, You have Rosewall as leader of the majors list. I just hope you will not become a Rosewall fanatic as BobbyOne is...

I am a Rosewall fanatic in the same way I am a fanatic of facts and great players in general. I am also a fanatic with Borg, Gonzalez, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten and the great players of today.

[SoBad]

I have not yet had an opportunity to finalize my top ten list, so here is my top five:

1. Berankis
2. Nishikori
3. Safin
4. Sampras
5. Nadal

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

I am a Rosewall fanatic in the same way I am a fanatic of facts and great players in general. I am also a fanatic with Borg, Gonzalez, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten and the great players of today.

That's good enough.

I try to be an advocate especially to those who are underrated and often not to find on the top places of ranking lists. You will find in any list Laver and Federer among the top five but unfortunatelly not always Rosewall who surely belongs to the top echelon.

In my opinion the most underrated players at all are K.Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Rosewall, Gimeno and Roche. Maybe also Hoad who has a special advocate in Dan Lobb.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

That's good enough.

I try to be an advocate especially to those who are underrated and often not to find on the top places of ranking lists. You will find in any list Laver and Federer among the top five but unfortunatelly not always Rosewall who surely belongs to the top echelon.

In my opinion the most underrated players at all are K.Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Rosewall, Gimeno and Roche. Maybe also Hoad who has a special advocate in Dan Lobb.

That's a good thing to do. It's a pity people forget about this greats. Even Roche's old doubles partner John Newcombe is often forgotten today as is the great Jack Kramer. It's odd to me that people forget Jack Kramer since so many considered him to be the greatest ever.

Decided that the first post of a thread I had comparing Tilden and Federer a few months ago would be appropriate in this thread. I updated the information today on Federer.

Originally Posted by pc1

Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough.

I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read.

Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

Total tournaments won
Tilden-161-est.
Federer-76

Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
Federer-17
We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was.

Percentage of majors won
Tilden-14/42=.333
Federer-17/54=.315

Lifetime winning percentage
Tilden-.660-est
Federer-.817
Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

Grand Slams won
Tilden-0
Federer-0

Percentage of tournaments won
Tilden-.520-est.
Federer-.291

Winning percentage in best five years
Tilden-.980-est.
Federer-.907

Look at the information and discuss.

Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's a good thing to do. It's a pity people forget about this greats. Even Roche's old doubles partner John Newcombe is often forgotten today as is the great Jack Kramer. It's odd to me that people forget Jack Kramer since so many considered him to be the greatest ever.

Decided that the first post of a thread I had comparing Tilden and Federer a few months ago would be appropriate in this thread. I updated the information today on Federer.

It's good that you remind people to the marvellous feats of Tilden who also in underrated now.

If I recall rightly, Tilden did have wins over Perry in their short tour. I guess they embarrassed Perry and he forgot them to mention...