The Greats -an Objective list

Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
Further to the couple of other threads on this subject, I've had a go at preparing a list that takes emotion and bias out of the equation. Here is an attempt at an All Time Greatest list that is based entirely on achievements in the majors (amateur and pro).

I actually think it has turned out pretty well, and seems to meet most people's idea of the relative rankings of each player. Emerson and Agassi could be areas of contention. If we included Career-grand-slam as a qualifier, then Agassi moves into the legends category. And Emerson's entire career spent as an amateur has inflated his total, but his overall achievement is always under-rated I think. Apologies if I've missed anyone!

Key:
LEGEND = Double figure majors (amateur, pro or both)
ATG =Five majors or more
Greats = 3/4 majors. Or 2 majors plus a WTF title**.
* Won both Pre and Post Open eras.

LEGENDS
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

ATG
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

Greats
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka
 
Username_

Username_

Hall of Fame
didnt-read-gif-lightsaber-5.gif
 
Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
There can be no truly objective measure of tennis ability. But using the majors is an established way to measure greatness (if not, all the Federer/Nadal fans have been wasting a decade of their lives).

I have established the cut-off point for Legend status at double-digit majors (this is the only truly "subjective" part of the system -though it seems to work rather well).The next tier 'ATG' contains those who have won at least half the total of the first tier. The third tier 'Greats' includes players who have won at least half the total of the 2nd tier (ie: over 2.5 majors). The rankings are therefore based entirely on mathematical relationships between the tiers and may be as close to "objective" as we're ever going to get.

Hope that helps.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
SpinToWin said:
Ah, but objective is not the same as reasonable ;)
Click to expand...

Well, there is nothing like 'perfect' objectivity, is there? I guess one person's 'objective' list is someone else's target for mockery. But I see no harm in trying to define what separates a double digit Slam winner from one who isn't. I've done it myself. So what would be YOUR criteria for assessing who is an ATG as opposed to someone who is just 'Great'?
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Mainad said:
Well, there is nothing like 'perfect' objectivity, is there? I guess one person's 'objective' list is someone else's target for mockery. But I see no harm in trying to define what separates a double digit Slam winner from one who isn't. I've done it myself. So what would be YOUR criteria for assessing who is an ATG as opposed to someone who is just 'Great'?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't propose any to begin with, as I do not see the point.

Put differently: Great, all time great, legend, etc. are phrases/words that mean something to us. But they do not mean something objective. And replacing the words with arbitrary numerical requirements does not change that. It would be honest to just acknowledge that these are not objective descriptors to begin with.

I can rephrase the OP into what it really is:
Double figure majors
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

5 majors or more but less than double digit
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

3/4 majors or 2+ majors plus a WTF title but less than 5 majors
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka​

Somehow redundant when you frame it like that, no?
 
Last edited:
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
SpinToWin said:
I wouldn't propose any to begin with, as I do not see the point.

Put differently: Great, all time great, legend, etc. are phrases/words that mean something to us. But they do not mean something objective. And replacing the words with arbitrary numerical requirements does not change that. It would be honest to just acknowledge that these are not objective descriptors to begin with.

I can rephrase the OP into what it really is:
Double figure majors
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

5 majors or more but less than double digit
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

2 majors or more plus a WTF title but less than 5 majors
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka​

Somehow redundant when you frame it like that, no?
Click to expand...

That's just a bare statement of the statistical facts. So you would not put any interpretation on them whatsoever? If so, that's okay. ;)
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Mainad said:
That's just a bare statement of the statistical facts. So you would not put any interpretation on them whatsoever? If so, that's okay. ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah I wouldn't.

I might say what it means to me for somebody to be great, though I think these words are more emotionally loaded than rationally conceived, and hence what is presented as rational (not to mention falsely objective) is mostly post hoc rationalization. It's more of a matter of perception really, and all time great is something that reflects in the way players are perceived throughout time therefore. That isn't measurable, it's more of a "revealed truth".
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
SpinToWin said:
Yeah I wouldn't.

I might say what it means to me for somebody to be great, though I think these words are more emotionally loaded than rationally conceived, and hence what is presented as rational (not to mention falsely objective) is mostly post hoc rationalization. It's more of a matter of perception really, and all time great is something that reflects in the way players are perceived throughout time therefore. That isn't measurable, it's more of a "revealed truth".
Click to expand...

Stats are the only reasonably reliable things we have to go on when making value judgements. At least they are more reliable than arguments like "Federer is better than Nadal because it's tougher to win on grass than it is on clay or vice-versa" ! :cool:
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Mainad said:
Stats are the only reasonably reliable things we have to go on when making value judgements. At least they are more reliable than arguments like "Federer is better than Nadal because it's tougher to win on grass than it is on clay or vice-versa" ! :cool:
Click to expand...
That ignores how value judgments truly occur though.

It's this sort of meme of objectivity. Then you have two people screaming at each other that it is their subjective opinion (because it is based on their subjective values) that is objective. It's a fruitless endeavour in the end.
 
True Fanerer

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
SpinToWin said:
I wouldn't propose any to begin with, as I do not see the point.

Put differently: Great, all time great, legend, etc. are phrases/words that mean something to us. But they do not mean something objective. And replacing the words with arbitrary numerical requirements does not change that. It would be honest to just acknowledge that these are not objective descriptors to begin with.

I can rephrase the OP into what it really is:
Double figure majors
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

5 majors or more but less than double digit
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

2 majors or more plus a WTF title but less than 5 majors
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka​

Somehow redundant when you frame it like that, no?
Click to expand...
I agree that WTF titles should be a factor too. The only problem there is then you have to remove Wawrinka from the list and then starts a whole new argument ;)
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Spencer Gore said:
Further to the couple of other threads on this subject, I've had a go at preparing a list that takes emotion and bias out of the equation. Here is an attempt at an All Time Greatest list that is based entirely on achievements in the majors (amateur and pro).

I actually think it has turned out pretty well, and seems to meet most people's idea of the relative rankings of each player. Emerson and Agassi could be areas of contention. If we included Career-grand-slam as a qualifier, then Agassi moves into the legends category. And Emerson's entire career spent as an amateur has inflated his total, but his overall achievement is always under-rated I think. Apologies if I've missed anyone!

Key:
LEGEND = Double figure majors (amateur, pro or both)
ATG =Five majors or more
Greats = 3/4 majors. Or 2 majors plus a WTF title**.
* Won both Pre and Post Open eras.

LEGENDS
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

ATG
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

Greats
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka
Click to expand...

I think you gave it a fair shot, but this is your subjective view on what the greats list should be.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Spencer Gore said:
The only thing really subjective about it is the choice to measure by achievement in the majors.
Click to expand...

As I said, IMO, cannot speak for others, but I think you did a good job. However calling it objective is probably not accurate, for something like that, it would need to be agreed among many others that this is the most accurate way make such a list, taking all factors into account.
 
Druss

Druss

Hall of Fame
OP, if you want to be taken seriously on TTW you need to stop the ‘Federer’ bashing.

Hey, I don’t like Sampras or Murray, but I don’t go about bashing their accomplishments.
 
A

axlrose

Professional
Spencer Gore said:
Further to the couple of other threads on this subject, I've had a go at preparing a list that takes emotion and bias out of the equation. Here is an attempt at an All Time Greatest list that is based entirely on achievements in the majors (amateur and pro).

I actually think it has turned out pretty well, and seems to meet most people's idea of the relative rankings of each player. Emerson and Agassi could be areas of contention. If we included Career-grand-slam as a qualifier, then Agassi moves into the legends category. And Emerson's entire career spent as an amateur has inflated his total, but his overall achievement is always under-rated I think. Apologies if I've missed anyone!

Key:
LEGEND = Double figure majors (amateur, pro or both)
ATG =Five majors or more
Greats = 3/4 majors. Or 2 majors plus a WTF title**.
* Won both Pre and Post Open eras.

LEGENDS
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

ATG
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

Greats
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka
Click to expand...

Sorry OP,

I saw you put Federer in the same class/tier with Laver, the man who won 2 CYGS, 11 Slams despite absent from Slams for half a decade, during his prime.

What's your intention by lumping Federer with the GOAT?
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Fed is in a league of his own but Spencer Troll knows this.

Its in insult to lump him in with Novak, Rafa etc.
 
Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
Druss said:
OP, if you want to be taken seriously on TTW you need to stop the ‘Federer’ bashing.

Hey, I don’t like Sampras or Murray, but I don’t go about bashing their accomplishments.
Click to expand...
Arguing that there is no objective evidence that Federer is the greatest player of all time is not 'bashing'.
 
van_Loederen

van_Loederen

Professional
it is statistically way more evident that Federer is the greatest of all time
than it is statistically evident that a player on 10 Majors is a Legend, while a player on 9 Majors is only an ATG.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Shaolin said:
Fed is in a league of his own but Spencer Troll knows this.

Its in insult to lump him in with Novak, Rafa etc.
Click to expand...

In that case I guess it's a good job he doesn't play in the WTA or he'd have to share his limelight (and, in some cases, be placed behind) with at least 4 other players! ;)
 
Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
van_Loederen said:
it is statistically way more evident that Federer is the greatest of all time
than it is statistically evident that a player on 10 Majors is a Legend, while a player on 9 Majors is only an ATG.
Click to expand...
Rosewall has 23 major titles. Laver has 19 and two Grand Slams. The stats do not prove that Federer is the greatest of all time. They prove he is a contender for that title.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
SpinToWin said:
I wouldn't propose any to begin with, as I do not see the point.

Put differently: Great, all time great, legend, etc. are phrases/words that mean something to us. But they do not mean something objective. And replacing the words with arbitrary numerical requirements does not change that. It would be honest to just acknowledge that these are not objective descriptors to begin with.

I can rephrase the OP into what it really is:
Double figure majors
Pre-Open: Tilden, Perry, Budge, Gonzales, Emerson,
Post Open: Rosewall*, Laver*, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

5 majors or more but less than double digit
Pre Open: Renshaw, Sears, L.Doherty, Larned, Wilding, Cochet, Lacoste, Crawford, Vines, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert,
Post Open: Newcombe*, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.

3/4 majors or 2+ majors plus a WTF title but less than 5 majors
Pre Open : Borotra ,Parker, Drobny, Hoad, Cooper, Fraser,
Post Open: Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Nastase**, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt**, Murray, Wawrinka​

Somehow redundant when you frame it like that, no?
Click to expand...
Putting Laver and Rosewall in the post open era is a fully nonsense. Both guys are incomparable to all other.
We could discuss the players' accomplishments in every detail if you wish.
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Mainad said:
Stats are the only reasonably reliable things we have to go on when making value judgements. At least they are more reliable than arguments like "Federer is better than Nadal because it's tougher to win on grass than it is on clay or vice-versa" ! :cool:
Click to expand...
Agree. More of the guys ignore the statistics maybe because they don't have it.
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Ivan69 said:
Putting Laver and Rosewall in the post open era is a fully nonsense. Both guys are incomparable to all other.
We could discuss the players' accomplishments in every detail if you wish.
Click to expand...
Good job reading context, that’s the OP’s list, not mine
 
I

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
SpinToWin said:
Good job reading context, that’s the OP’s list, not mine
Click to expand...
I did it. Staying in your post means that you agree. Of course all the guys having written something like this is not correct if we want to have a real GOAT discussion based on the real players' accomplishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Is it possible that Federer could get to the most titles of an individual major?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Andy G
Andy G
F
Murray doesn't fits in the list of this era greats i.e Federer , Nadal , Djokovic
Replies
30
Views
2K
fastgrass
F
hoodjem
Second-20 Greatest Male Singles Players
Replies
12
Views
1K
hoodjem
hoodjem
L
Tiers
5 6 7
Replies
319
Views
12K
kiki
kiki
Mainad
Is it time we had an International Tennis Hall of All Time Greats?
2
Replies
61
Views
2K
flutzingitaway
F
Top