Most fierce competitor of all time

[TMF]

This is not about accomplishment/talent but strictly about a fierce competitor.


I would Nadal on the men side and Seles on the women side. Some of you might say Connors which is fine. McEnroe once said if he wants to increases the competitiveness level, he emulate Connors since he think no one wanted more than him.

I would say Serena for the women. No women has ever won as many big slam matches from the brink of defeat or saved as many match points against her. King, Evert, Graf, and Seles would be my honorable mentions with King probably taking runner up. I might have picked Seles but her poor comeback from the stabbing was not the stuff of the toughest competitor.

For men I would say Connors. Honorable mentions to Nadal, Sampras, Muster, Chang, and Hewitt.

[kiki]

Wrong.Being cocky or agressive is a genetic question but there are many different ways to be competitive and absolutely nothing to do with behaviour tham inner strength and resilience
Were cold champs like Laver,Rosewall,Lacoste,Borg,Lendl,Wilander,Kodes,S edgman,Kramer,Sampras i,Newcombe,Smith or Federer less competitive than hot extroverts like Tildem,Perry,Budge,Hoad,Gonzales,Nastase,Connors,A gassi,Becker or Nadal?
I do not think so.All of them have made history cause they were all ferocious competitors and it had nothing to do with personaluty

[kiki]

How could I forget mentioning Edberg and Emerson as cold champs and Kue
rten,Djokovic,Vines and Mc Enroe as red hoted ones?

[pc1]

Being a top competitor is almost impossible to measure. Kiki does have some excellent points in his above posts.

I guess you would want a top competitor playing for you if the fate of the world is at stake.

Without picking any one myself but many have picked Pancho Gonzalez when this was asked and some Jimmy Connors. Others have picked Lew Hoad.

Look at Djokovic in recent years, he's won a lot of matches from match point down. The man refused to give up. Same with Nadal in refusing to give up.

[hoodjem]

González, Ricardo Alonso

1969 Wimbledon First Round against Charlie Pasarell:
22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9
(Pancho was aged 41; Pasarell was 25.)



You don't go that far to win in the first round of a tournament against someone 16 years younger without being a fierce competitor!

[forzamilan90]

gonna throw in Younes El Aynaoui's performance vs Roddick 2003 Aussie Open

[mikeler]

Michael Chang coming through at the French Open while cramping is etched in my memory. Man he wanted to win that match and did against the great Lendl in 5.

[Jeepers]

Ferrer !

[Devilito]

Connor’s run in 91 was all competitiveness and will to win. His tennis skills had zero impact on those results. You can be younger, more technical, faster and stronger but there is nothing that can replace the heart and mind of a champion. Connor’s is someone I would go to war with.

[President]

This is one department Federer is nowhere near the top of the list in

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Being a top competitor is almost impossible to measure. Kiki does have some excellent points in his above posts.

I guess you would want a top competitor playing for you if the fate of the world is at stake.

Without picking any one myself but many have picked Pancho Gonzalez when this was asked and some Jimmy Connors. Others have picked Lew Hoad.

Look at Djokovic in recent years, he's won a lot of matches from match point down. The man refused to give up. Same with Nadal in refusing to give up.

I´d always pick Borg over Connors if my life was at stake.

If my life was at stake with my opponent serving at 5-4, 40-0 in the fifth set, I´d have no doubt: Rod Laver.

[mikeler]

Connors run in 91 was all heart.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

I´d always pick Borg over Connors if my life was at stake.

Of course. Being fierce doesn't make up for talent and I think Borg was every bit the competitor that Connors was. While Connors is super talented, Borg was arguably the greatest talent (with Laver, Hoad and a number of others) in tennis history.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course. Being fierce doesn't make up for talent and I think Borg was every bit the competitor that Connors was. While Connors is super talented, Borg was arguably the greatest talent (with Laver, Hoad and a number of others) in tennis history.

Define talent. With Borg it was more about fitness, mental strength and consistency than great skill, if I am not mistaken.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Define talent. With Borg it was more about fitness, mental strength and consistency than great skill, if I am not mistaken.

Mate, no offence but you seem to be peddling your BS in every thread.

Name me one other player who would win the FO by grinding and then 2 weeks later win SW19 by serving and volleying. If that doesn't need talent, then what does?

The only players who you can't knock for not being able to do the above would be players post 2000 because grass was slowed down.

All other players pre-2000 had the opportunity to do what BORG did but none of them were able to do so and that includes sampras,llendl, agassi, mcenroe, connors, becker, edberg. Thats the who's who of the tennis world unable to do what Borg did 3 times. That shows an immense range of talent.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Define talent. With Borg it was more about fitness, mental strength and consistency than great skill, if I am not mistaken.

It's all opinion of course but Borg was arguably the fastest player that ever lived. He was renown for his great stamina. Many thought he had the best reflexes in tennis. Another person may think he's an untalented bum.

[boredone3456]

I'll give a mention to Navratilova. 4-22 against Evert and worked her tail off to turn it around and have a winning h2h against her..plus she was the first to win majors and make multiple major finals in 3 different decades, and be in the top 5 in 3 decade's as well I think.

Not that I necessarily pick her outright...but she deserves some credit for not giving up especially against Evert.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Mate, no offence but you seem to be peddling your BS in every thread.

Name me one other player who would win the FO by grinding and then 2 weeks later win SW19 by serving and volleying. If that doesn't need talent, then what does?

The only players who you can't knock for not being able to do the above would be players post 2000 because grass was slowed down.

All other players pre-2000 had the opportunity to do what BORG did but none of them were able to do so and that includes sampras,llendl, agassi, mcenroe, connors, becker, edberg. Thats the who's who of the tennis world unable to do what Borg did 3 times. That shows an immense range of talent.

Good post...but Laver did that too as well as Hoad

[Gizo]

The problem is in a discussion like this, is that the elite players that won grand slam titles will receive most of the nominations. However in any generation, many of the lower ranked players are just as fierce competitors as the big guns, it's just that they are not as talented.

For instance Nicolas Lapentti (who won 16 matches in his career that he faced match points in) was just as big as fighter as Nadal has been. It's only that Nadal is the considerably more talented player. While Nadal has been displaying his fighting spirit in grand slam semi-finals, masters series finals etc, Lapentti was more often displaying his fighting spirit in smaller ATP events.

Similarly Felix Mantilla in the 90s was just as big a fighter as well reknowned warriors and grand slam champions like Muster and Chang. I mean the guy twice won matches that he saved 9 match points in.

That same logic is true as you go further and further down the rankings.