Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
A man who lost five Wimbledon finals cannot be perfect on grass.
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
- Thread starter granddog29
- Start date
A man who lost five Wimbledon finals cannot be perfect on grass.
Already posted the stats by surface. Please see them. They speak enough.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Losing five times in the biggest match on a particular surface speaks more about the so-called perfection of a man.
You still didn't get that the lost finals are 4.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I was referring to the Wimbledon Pro (which I think you know).
But anyway, a 0-4 record proves the same thing.
It proves nothing. You can only dream of 89 titles on grass. Wembley, Sydney, Melbourne pro tournaments etc. were 10 times better than Wim. Don't worry too much.
Ken was at his best on grass, yet still had trouble at Wimbledon, losing five times in the final.
However, I still believe, and shout it out loud, that Ken would have won that 1970 Wimbledon final if not for an inopportune attack of hay fever.
But hey, Hoad would have won at least five Wimby's in a row if tennis were open.
"What if's" do not count.
However, I still believe, and shout it out loud, that Ken would have won that 1970 Wimbledon final if not for an inopportune attack of hay fever.
But hey, Hoad would have won at least five Wimby's in a row if tennis were open.
"What if's" do not count.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
All-Time:
1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Djokovic
4.Laver
5.Sampras
6.Borg
7.Gonsalez
8.Rosewall
9.Tilden
10.Budge
Open Era Only:
1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Djokovic
4.Sampras
5.Borg
6.Lendl
7.McEnroe
8.Agassi
9.Laver
10.Becker
Honorable Mentions For An Open Era: Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg (As for an All-Time not sure...maybe Fred Perry and Rene Lacoste?...)
1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Djokovic
4.Laver
5.Sampras
6.Borg
7.Gonsalez
8.Rosewall
9.Tilden
10.Budge
Open Era Only:
1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Djokovic
4.Sampras
5.Borg
6.Lendl
7.McEnroe
8.Agassi
9.Laver
10.Becker
Honorable Mentions For An Open Era: Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg (As for an All-Time not sure...maybe Fred Perry and Rene Lacoste?...)
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Perfect? As in 100%?
80% is something incredible in tennis. You know this very well.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I agree: 80% is incredible, but only 100% is perfect.
perfect: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is theoretically possible to be; completely free from faults, defects, or losses
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Pretty good lists - you forgot Connors from the Open Era though.
That seems to exclude Rosewall.
Which "Gonsalez" are you referring to?
In tennis 80% or more is considered perfect because as you cite it is "as good as it is possible to be". Nobody did it 100% (and practically it's not possible to be achieved), so this category in tennis doesn't exist. Perfect achievements in tennis are the best achievements.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Well, I guess your English word definitions are different from mine.
Why have you deleted the examples of Nadal, Mac, Navratilova? They are good. But ... one key remark. You can't compare single season records with career records. A very few players have reached such career ratios. When they are a few in sport they are perfect, excellent.
And only single players like Laver and Rosewall have huge success on all surfaces.
I still don't understand why are you arguing? Have nothing to do.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
He’s arguing because your definition of the word perfect is wrong.
If Rosewall was perfect on grass, I would like to know how Rafa was on clay.....
Rosewall isn't even in a top 10 greatest on grass & hard court, so n
Rosewall isn't even in a top 10 greatest on grass & hard court, so no way he is perfect on all surfaces.
I disagree.
Rosewall isn't even in a top 10 greatest on grass & hard court, so no way he is perfect on all surfaces.
well, if you don't like the word perfect, then you can use other words - excellent, incredible etc. The importance of the achievements doesn't loose its meaning.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Pancho off course! Or is it "Gonzalez"? I always confuse these two names...
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Damn you are right! Connors should be right next after Lendl in that case! In that case Becker doesn't make it in and land into "honorable mentions" instead along with Edberg and Wilander!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Ivan,
Let us not argue. An 80% career winning ratio in tennis is--as you say--excellent, incredible, or superlative, amazing, remarkable, dazzling, magnificent, outstanding, or formidable.
(Sorry. As an academic I am committed to precision in language use. In my discipline 80% is a B- . . . not that close to perfect.)
Last edited:
But still a 90+ % like Nadal on clay is kinda betterIvan,
Let us not argue. An 80% career winning ratio in tennis is--as you say--excellent, incredible, or superlative, amazing, remarkable, dazzling, magnificent, outstanding, or formidable.
(Sorry. As an academic I am committed to precision in language use. In my discipline 80% is a B- . . . not that close to perfect.)
What you believe doesn't matter to me either. A player can't be perfect on all surfaces when he can't even make the top ten list on hard court & grass.
Greatest Hard Court players ahead of Rosewall:
Federer
Djokovic
Sampras
Lendl
Agassi
Connors
McEnroe
Edberg
Becker
Roddick
And more....
Greatest Grass Court players ahead of Rosewall:
Federer
Sampras
Borg
McEnroe
Edberg
Laver
Djokovic
Nadal
Tilden
Emerson
And more...
Maybe not Roddick but he gets overlooked and underrated because he was unlucky to play in the era with Federer. He's a lot better hard court player than what people say about him.
Emerson has a strong argument. While he gets dock for all of his wins because he was competing in the amateur, but he was incredibly successful on grass. AO was played on grass and he won 6 titles there along with 2 Wimbledon titles. People(maybe even you) may say he didn't do anything special in the open era when both amateur & pro combined to compete at the slams. However he was already 32 by 1968 so he was already past his prime.
NatF
Bionic Poster
And how old was Rosewall when the OE began? He still managed to win the USO and two AO's on grass - the 1972 edition was weak but the 1971 win surely stacks up to Amateur slams Emerson won.
Also I love Arod and he's underrated but him above Rosewall on any surface is a big no. Not sure whether surfaces like indoor wood should count as HC so it's hard to rate Rosewall - imo he's probably in the Connors, Mac, Agassi bracket. On grass I wouldn't go any lower than Mac or Borg for Kenny.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Here is legit top-10 grass courters list and not this nonsense:
1.Federer
2.Sampras
3.Laver
4.Newcombe
5.Borg
6.Djokovic
7.McEnroe
8.Becker
9.Nadal
10.Edberg
The rule is simple - whoever wins more grass court grand slams (yes, including Australian Opens before 90's!) is the greater grass courter! As simple as that! The only exceptions are Federer and Sampras, since they are the only two, who won double digit grass court titles in an open era!)
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I questioned those two as well. The rest is probably defensible - albeit TMF is obviously still biased.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Ultraperfect.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Super-GOATs: Gonzales, Laver, Federer
Sub-GOATs: Rosewall, Nadal, Djokovic
Semi-GOATs: Tilden, Borg, Sampras
Anyone with a different bunch in their top 9 is a MUG. Ordering within the groups is debatable (put only chronologically here), plus Rosewall and Tilden could be placed anywhere potentially.
Sub-GOATs: Rosewall, Nadal, Djokovic
Semi-GOATs: Tilden, Borg, Sampras
Anyone with a different bunch in their top 9 is a MUG. Ordering within the groups is debatable (put only chronologically here), plus Rosewall and Tilden could be placed anywhere potentially.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Edberg over Nadal, extra grasscourt AOs matter when Wimbledon titles are equal.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Right i totally forgot, that AO was still played on grass back in 80's, when Edberg won them...here is more accurate list according to that (Also totally forgot about Connors!):
1.Federer
2.Sampras
3.Laver
4.Newcombe
5.Borg
6.Djokovic
7.Connors
8.Edberg
9.McEnroe
10.Becker
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Agreed that the top 9 is as you state above (in whatever order).
Strongly disagree - as you know - that Gonzales deserves a place up with Laver and Federer. I'm still not convinced his career, given the circumstances of his era, was that much greater than Nadal/Djokovic/Sampras.
Here is my top 10:
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
5. Sampras
6. Gonzales
7. Rosewall
8. Borg
9. Tilden
10. Budge
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Newcombe higher than Borg??
The wise men have said that when the figures speak even the Gods should be silent. I like to paraphrase it that when the figures speak some fans should be silent.
Let's see the success ratios on grass of some of the mentioned players. They are presented in % because some people would argue that they are not so many grass tournaments today compared to the past times. It's not a ranking, just the players are classified by the ratio.
Rod Laver 56.2% (73 titles)
Ken Rosewall 54.3% (89 titles)
John McEnroe 51.5% (17 titles)
Roger Federer 47.5% (19 titles)
Bjorn Borg 43.8% (7 titles)
Pete Sampras 34.4% (11 titles)
Novak Djokovic 27.3% (6 titles)
Jimmy Connors 25.0% (12 titles)
Even more the players who played much more on grass are exposed to lesser ratios because playing more matches one may have more losses.
So, like it or not everybody can see that Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall (I would include also Tilden whose stats I will finalize very soon) were / are the monsters on grass either by quantity or by quality.
All such lists like the posted above show nothing else than the weird trials of favoring somebody's idols. They show also that some posters even don't know the careers of the players in their lists. But that's usual here.
Nobody would like to answer you this question. Many posters freeze when it comes to Kenny's stats.So how is it possible that Ken has won 20+ majors?
My simple answer - all 287 titles were accidental and the opponents were drunk.
No, buddy, not the only 2.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
You do you or whatever. I don't see how Gonzales should be placed below Sampras when he has greater dominance and longevity over Pete while playing effectively the same style relative to the era.
Agree
Here comes the interesting issue. I respect your academic approach though I have some remarks. Fresh example - my son studies in Germany and in January he got A- in Sociology with 78%. But not that's the point.
If you are precise in language use (good for that) you should know that the word "perfect" has not the only meaning of "perfectness", "faultless", "100% success". The people use this word in many many cases implying almost the same meaning but with a different nuance.
"You are perfect" says a man to his wife.
"The movie was perfect."
"Mid-July would be the perfect time for a holiday."
You see, the word is used also in the meanings you mentioned.
Why don't you post Rosewall's grass tournament winning percentage of just the singles?
And also, why don't you post how many times Rosewall won the premium event on grass in a given year?
Because, I don't know you, but if there are two players that play Stuttgart, Queen's and Wimbledon and the first wins Stuttgart and Queen's and the second wins Wimbledon, I go with the second.
But probably you go with the first.....
Last edited:
If Rosewall is perfect on grass, Nadal is Super-Ultra-Mega perfect on clay.
