Why isn't agassi G.O.A.T

[jjames]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Agassi was to Sampras what Rosewall was to Laver and what Connors was to Borg.

aren't u forgetting, as borg was to mcenroe, and mcenroe to lendl, and lendl to sampras as well? differerence is connors was #1 for 5 consecutive years.

[jjames]

Originally Posted by superman1

Again, I'm not dissing the players themselves. I know they had loads of talent and could have hit the ball great with modern racquets and dominate a lot of the guys out there today. That backhand passing shot by Nastase was sick, though I've seen Nadal hit a million of those.

BUT, the game they played, with their small, weak racquets, was an easier game than today's game. That's it. That's all I'm trying to say. If they had modern racquets back then, they would have made tennis as high level as it is today. But they didn't, so instead they played more of a running game. Today it is a sprinting and hitting game.

It is easier to hit the ball today with modern racquets, but it's a hell of a lot harder playing the actual sport of tennis because guys keep hitting harder and harder and your reflexes and footspeed are constantly being tested. It's a constant pounding on the body. Agassi has been playing since the 80's and he has said many times that the game is getting more and more physical. You go out there and you throw yourself side to side and stretch out as wide as you can. Sure, you can hit the racquet a lot harder with your Babolat then those guys could in the 60's with their sticks, but the guy on the other side of the net can hit just as hard and the ball is coming that much faster at you.

the thing is the larger racquets have allowed more players in the pro game that didn't have the precision to play a hgh level of tennis with small 70's era equipment. thus, more bigger and stronger athletes are now playing pro tennis.

[superman1]

Which is why it is harder to play, because you've got a big guy on the other side of the net going for broke on every shot. What is harder, running or sprinting? That's the comparison. Plus the courts are slower and balls are heavier, so the points are longer.

[AJK1]

Agassi isn't GOAT because he has a 2hbh.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by superman1

Which is why it is harder to play, because you've got a big guy on the other side of the net going for broke on every shot. What is harder, running or sprinting? That's the comparison. Plus the courts are slower and balls are heavier, so the points are longer.

Well, history wouldn't support your theory. Matches were longer in the 70s by far. Borg and Vilas had one point on clay that probably lasted longer than some games today. Grass court points were also longer. Ivan Lendl, a guy who knows a thing or two about tennis, said that the difference between tennis then and now is that then the top guys were like marathoners and now they're like sprinters. The balls used at the French were pressureless which means they were rocks compared to the balls of today.

As to today's courts, they have been slowed down. During the wood age grass courts were faster and clay courts (as mentioned above) were slower. Let me ask you a question. Would it then be harder to play on a slower clay court and then have to go to a faster grass court or to play a series of matches on clay that was speeded up and grass that was slowed down so they played like each other? Hard courts have always been more tunable with the amount of sand that's put in them.

With regard to equipment I have to say, as someone who not long ago played a year with wood, that the game is harder with wood. I also think the game is more rewarding when played with wood. Why? Because it takes more effort & practice to accomplish the same thing. You have to learn technique and patiently progress. Today's frames are technologically vastly superior. That gives beginners a tremendous edge and advanced players like myself can hit harder and more consistently. Is it better? I don't think so and the declining numbers of both viewership and participation at the grass roots level might very well bear me out.

Differences in equipment
Head size
This is the most obvious difference in yesterday's equipment. Head sizes then averaged around 66 sq in. Jimmy Connors' T2000 was smaller as were some Yamaha frames. Because of this, there were two axioms of tennis 1) to win you had to be more consistent than your opponent and 2) percentage tennis meant net play.

If you watched the WTT match from '78, or better yet, if you get a chance to see it again, look closely at Virginia Wade's Dunlop Maxply Fort. You'll see a spot on her strings that is discolored and just a little bigger than a tennis ball. That spot is dead center in her racket face. Now, that's not ink, that's were the ball hits. Pros back then had to hit the ball in the center of the racket every time to get the most out of the smaller heads. In order to do this, they had to have a controlled swing. Today's frames aren't as demanding in this respect. Players routinely hit outside of the center of the stringbed. Does that make them any less than their predecssors? No, but the point of this is to demonstrate how the game was harder then.

Balance
Today's frames come in a myriad of balances. World class pros have their frames tuned by racket technicians who were unheard of in the wood days. Wood rackets, because of the very nature of their construction, were balanced more evenly. The sheer weight of the material made the racket head speed you refer to very hard to get. A topspin backhand required more preparation and more effort with a wood frame. One of the rights of passage from being a beginner to an advanced player was the ability to hit a topspin backhand. Many advanced players back then couldn't hit a consistent topspin backhand (see Martina Navratilova).

I have a couple of rackets I bought from TW that were custom built for Vitas Gerulaitis. The differences? Well, there's more wood at the throat (which makes them heavier) and the grips are 4 3/4 or larger. It's a chunk.

Flex
Wood rackets were noodles compared to today's frames. An average frame today is in the mid 60s in flex or higher. Wood frames were in the 30s - 40s.

When you hit the ball hard, a wood racket absorbed much of the impact. Today's frames transmit more of that shock to your arm. In the days of wood, elbow braces were far less common than today.

String Pattern
Wood rackets had much denser patterns, 20X22 wasn't uncommon. This was in a 66 sq in head. However, wood frames generate spin easier. The desnser patterns leant themselves to control.


Because of the smaller heads, there were some shots that were harder to hit. In my opinion, the hardest to hit effectively was the second serve. Today's frames give you much more room for error. In the days of wood, there was a distinct difference between first and second serves. You were more than welcome to hit a big first serve. Many players reined in their first delivery to up their percentages because a second serve was harder to hit. Another tougher shot was volleys. You really had to focus on your volleys and use more technique when volleying. That said, because of the smaller head, angles were easier to generate due to the longer axis from the handle to the head of the frame. Overheads also presented a challenge. It's a daunting task indeed to hit a series of overheads with a wood frame.

I think that the 70s boom was directly attributable to the personalities who played the game then. Equipment and the challenge of learning a game which was hard also helped tennis. I've said if before, they've figured tennis out now. They've taken equipment and really perfected it, they've changed tactics. So now, everyone plays the same game. Is tennis better? Well, at our level it is. We can play a higher level than with wood. At the pro level? I don't think so. When 99/100 of the top pros play the same game, which truly does represent ping pong with the combatants standing on the table, I don't think it's as good as before. Tennis with wood meant that you had a Virginia Wade playing S/V against Chris Evert playing baseline. Tennis with wood gave us the great contrast of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Tennis with wood promoted net play and finesse and shot making.

If you like power tennis, then today's game is what you enjoy. However, there has to be something lacking when Roger Federer who plays with variety is deemed a genius. Had he played in the 70s, he'd have been a top player for sure, but his game and tactics would have been more in line with the majority of players on tour, not the minority. My point is that Federer is set apart from the rest of the tour because of his game but his game is an advancement of what used to be common on tour. Federer sets himself apart from the Academy tennis that dominates the tour by using tactics from the days of wood.

And you may have seen Nads hit 100 shots like the one Nastase pulled off, but you've only seen Nastase in a one set match. I remember watching him hit unbelievable shots time and time again, shots behind his back, gets that no one else could make. Your comment, unintentional as it was, still trivialized his ability. Trust me, Nastase has hit shots that would marvel anyone. What everyone here is telling you is that you can't watch one match and make a generalization about an entire era of tennis. Much like members of these boards can't take one match between Federer and Sampras an extrapolate who was better. And, Nastase hit the ball you saw with a wood racket on the dead run strung with nylon.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by jjames

aren't u forgetting, as borg was to mcenroe, and mcenroe to lendl, and lendl to sampras as well? differerence is connors was #1 for 5 consecutive years.

No, the players you mentioned did not dominate the other like the ones I mentioned. McEnroe won two matches off Borg which sent him into retirement. McEnroe and Lendl were basically 7 matches different head to head and that difference was pretty much the last 7 they played against each other when McEnroe was walking retired. Lendl/Sampras is not a fair comparison since Lendl was #1 and Sampras was 19 and coming out. Plus, Sampras went on career wise to eclipse Lendl.

[jjames]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

No, the players you mentioned did not dominate the other like the ones I mentioned. McEnroe won two matches off Borg which sent him into retirement. McEnroe and Lendl were basically 7 matches different head to head and that difference was pretty much the last 7 they played against each other when McEnroe was walking retired. Lendl/Sampras is not a fair comparison since Lendl was #1 and Sampras was 19 and coming out. Plus, Sampras went on career wise to eclipse Lendl.

connors, borg were only 10-7, with borg being 4 years younger, and retiring before connors could regain the edge. most of borgs wins were after connors had his reign and entered married life. connors was number #1, 5 years, borg only 2. mcenroe had beaten borg in 3 straight slam finals prior to borg saying "no mas". think if borg had kept playing.

lendl, mac only 7 matches different? lol. lendl dominated from 1985 on.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by jjames

lendl, mac only 7 matches different? lol. lendl dominated from 1985 on.

I was wrong, they are only 6 matches different. Lendl won the last 6 encounters from 1989 - 1992. Prior to that they were tied at 15 - 15.

And in 1983 and 1984, McEnroe was 10 - 2 with Lendl. After '84, McEnroe was not the same player and basically going through the motions. To be fair after the '84 French, Lendl forever the bridesmaid of Grand Slams and never the bride, was a different player as well. Difference was, he found motivation to play and McEnroe lost his. McEnroe basically played tennis because he was 26 and had nothing else to do.

Anyway, my point is that the players I referenced paralleled the experience of Sampras/Agassi. They were rivalries and while one was better in the head to head, both were great players. One was just a little better than the other. Connors was never going to get the edge back on Borg, Borg was eating Connors' lunch.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by Ruud

We are al talking about Sampras Federer Borg sometimes Nadal as futer G.O.A.T.

Why don't we (including myself) see agassi as G.O.A.T, he won every Grand Slam, still plays on a high level and we still see him win the US open this year with al little bit of luck.


So why isn't agassi the G.O.A.T?

Becasue tennis is fickle and America is superficial, we as American's don't have a idea about true achievments, only instant gratifiction.

People don't work for things anymore, they just want to be a millionair all of a sudden with no work.

We used to be a country based on hard high quality work for life at all costs.

AA is amazing, I have a feeling he will achieve legendary status as time goes on, more people know him and his accomplishments.

[Steve Dykstra]

Originally Posted by superman1

Which is why it is harder to play, because you've got a big guy on the other side of the net going for broke on every shot. What is harder, running or sprinting? That's the comparison.

You are precisely correct when you say that the game is harder because your opponent can hit tougher shots and can hit them more often. This makes the game harder now. However, it is also true that you can hit tougher shots and you can hit them more often. This makes the game easier. In the end it is exactly even.

[Arafel]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

I was wrong, they are only 6 matches different. Lendl won the last 6 encounters from 1989 - 1992. Prior to that they were tied at 15 - 15.

And in 1983 and 1984, McEnroe was 10 - 2 with Lendl. After '84, McEnroe was not the same player and basically going through the motions. To be fair after the '84 French, Lendl forever the bridesmaid of Grand Slams and never the bride, was a different player as well. Difference was, he found motivation to play and McEnroe lost his. McEnroe basically played tennis because he was 26 and had nothing else to do.

Anyway, my point is that the players I referenced paralleled the experience of Sampras/Agassi. They were rivalries and while one was better in the head to head, both were great players. One was just a little better than the other. Connors was never going to get the edge back on Borg, Borg was eating Connors' lunch.

For a while, yes. But Connors took Borg to 5 at Wimbledon in 81. Don't forget that Connors had a resurrection in 82. He started playing more aggressively, attacking the net behind his serves. I think he might have taken Borg in that year and turned the tables again.

[jjames]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Connors was never going to get the edge back on Borg, Borg was eating Connors' lunch.

connors was beating borg in exhibitions just prior to borgs retirements. i actually got to see them play in one. connors also went on to regain the #1 ranking and beat lendl and mcenroe at the uso and wimby. had connors retired at 26, i guess he'd a never has a losing record to anyone either.

and my point is connors and borgs carreers were not parallel wth borg being 4 years younger, there primes did not coincide. agassi and sampras were basically the same age. agassi never beat pete in any match for #1 or at the us open. while connors did beat borg in 2 us open finals where #1 was on the line.

[Moose Malloy]

Rabbit, props for post 85, great stuff.

I like this part, "What everyone here is telling you is that you can't watch one match and make a generalization about an entire era of tennis."

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Rabbit, props for post 85, great stuff.

I like this part, "What everyone here is telling you is that you can't watch one match and make a generalization about an entire era of tennis."

Thanks. My dorsal fin does go up when I read some of the stuff that folks write based on seeing one set of singles or the results from one match. Nastase was about as talented as they come. He had great hands, a set of wheels that would make Chang envious, and above all anticipation and court sense.

Originally Posted by jjames

connors was beating borg in exhibitions just prior to borgs retirements.

Read what you just wrote. Borg, after the 81 US Open final, was done. Borg was 13 - 8 against Connors and won the last 8 including a straight set semi over Connors at the Open.

Originally Posted by jjames

i actually got to see them play in one. connors also went on to regain the #1 ranking and beat lendl and mcenroe at the uso and wimby. had connors retired at 26, i guess he'd a never has a losing record to anyone either.

OK, Borg was notorious for dialing it in at everything except the Grand Slam venues. Borg got his appearance money from exhibitions and couldn've cared less about who won it. There is a story that McEnroe tells about an exhibition he and Borg played in New Orleans. McEnroe went on a tirade and Borg called him to net and said "John, it doesn't matter. It's only a tennis match."

Originally Posted by jjames

and my point is connors and borgs carreers were not parallel wth borg being 4 years younger, there primes did not coincide.

Again, read what you wrote. Connors went on to regain the #1 ranking after Borg retired. Certainly he was in his prime as the #1? I mean he did, according to you, eclipse a peaking Ivan Lendl and John McEnroe (pre-1984) to become number 1. Connors went through several slumps.

With regard to a parallel career, Connors turned professional in 1972. Borg's first match on the ATP was in 1971. It appears he played a full schedule on the ATP in 1973 and won Roland Garros in 1974, arguably Connors' best year. I'd say that's fairly parallel.

Originally Posted by jjames

agassi and sampras were basically the same age. agassi never beat pete in any match for #1 or at the us open. while connors did beat borg in 2 us open finals where #1 was on the line.

No, Borg beat Connors at the US Open in 1981 semis 6-2, 7-5, 6-4

And Connors never beat Borg at Wimbledon and Sampras never beat Agassi at Roland Garros. So what's your point?

The computer rankings were skewed back then. It is inconceivable today that a player like Borg who won two Grand Slams in the same year wouldn't be number one. I don't believe that players defended points then. In other words, the way they calculate #1 has changed. Had they used the same system, Borg would've been number 1.

[jjames]

rabbit-connors beat borg on clay at the us open in 1976. connors destroyed in the 1978 us open final. both matches had the #1 ranking on the line. and when u have a ranking system, u do what it takes to become number 1 based on the current system, not makes ecxuses years later.

and in 1981 connors lost in 5 at the usopen to mcenroe. borg never did beat connors at the us open. so connors and borg faced each in two slam events. connors had the edge at the us open, borg at wimby.

[joesixtoe]

talent wise i would choose agassi, but mentally like i always say, i dont think agassi has it to be the best of all time. he chokes or looses confidence or something a lot when he is on the court.

[Jack the Hack]

Originally Posted by jjames

rabbit-connors beat borg on clay at the us open in 1976. connors destroyed in the 1978 us open final. both matches had the #1 ranking on the line. and when u have a ranking system, u do what it takes to become number 1 based on the current system, not makes ecxuses years later.

and in 1981 connors lost in 5 at the usopen to mcenroe. borg never did beat connors at the us open. so connors and borg faced each in two slam events. connors had the edge at the us open, borg at wimby.

Why do people make arguments based on things that can be easily checked and refuted?

Borg beat Connors in the semifinals of the 1981 US Open 6-2, 7-5, 6-4. Here's there head-to-head if you want to check:

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/player...layernum2=B058

As for whether the #1 ranking was on the line when Connors won the US Open in '76 and '78, how do you know? Do you have the articles or computer printouts that show the point totals at that time?

In '76, I suppose the US Open final could have been for #1. Borg had "only" won 6 tournaments that year, including Wimbledon. Connors won 12 that year. The other two slams were won by Edmonson and Panatta. So Connors winning that final may have been the clincher.

As for '78, Borg had already won the French and Wimbledon titles, along with 7 other titles. Connors won 10 titles that year, but only the one major. Winning 2 of the 4 slams and making the finals of the US Open would seem to have made Borg #1 for the year no matter what happened. If winning that match is what made Connors #1 for that year, I agree that the system was flawed then... especially considering that Connors didn's even play the Australian or French that year. (However, I suspect that there was more to it than that one match.)

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by jjames

rabbit-connors beat borg on clay at the us open in 1976. connors destroyed in the 1978 us open final. both matches had the #1 ranking on the line. and when u have a ranking system, u do what it takes to become number 1 based on the current system, not makes ecxuses years later.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. You're the one who compared today's system featuring Agassi/Sampras to yesterday's and Borg/Connors. I was merely trying to point out the differences which in turn would flaw your argument.

I listened to Connors' commentary on the BBC at Wimbledon this year and he was uncharacteristically very self-effacing regarding Borg. He made it clear that he thought Borg to be the best, possibly ever. Connors has said that he could never pick up anything from Borg's demeanor on court and that was a factor in why Borg held an edge over Connors. The other reason, IMO, was that Connors' game fit into Borg's toward the end of Borg's playing career. Borg's game adapted more than Connors' did and Borg ate Connors' lunch at Wimbledon on more than one occassion. Other players like Tanner would up giving Borg more problems than Connors. This is not a reflection on Connors who is truly a great, but Borg had his number. Why else would Connors make the statement "I'll follow him to the ends of the earth" if not to challenge the preimmenent player of the day?