zvelf
Hall of Fame
As per my explanation here (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...mostly-objective-method.662012/#post-14069859), here are my updated rankings of the best tennis players of the Open Era. Since that original thread, I have removed all data prior to the Open Era so players like Laver and Court are judged only by their performance from 1968 on. That is obviously not a fair judgment of their entire career, but at some point, the differences in eras break usage of the same criteria across them all. Names in red indicate players whose pre-Open Era numbers are not considered here and if they were, these players would likely move up in the list, sometimes by significant margins.
I use the word “best” here instead of “greatest” because one can be greater in tennis in other aspects besides play. Court was better than King on the court over all, but King had the greater impact on the game.
Bolded numbers indicate that they are the highest achieved in that metric and what all other numbers in that metric are measured against. As the highest achievement in any given metric changes, how equitable that metric is with the others change. For example, each week Djokovic breaks the record for weeks at #1, the scoring of every man who has ever been #1 will change accordingly. Right now in the scoring for men:
1 major win = reaching 15 major finals = 3.67 Year-End Championships or 3.67 Olympic Golds = winning 53.6 tournaments = 76.3 weeks at #1 = 8.85 years in the top 10 = half the points of achieving a calendar year grand slam
In the scoring for women:
1 major win = reaching 14.5 major finals = 3.25 Year-End Championships or 3.25 Olympic Golds = winning 71.2 tournaments = 80.4 weeks at #1 = 8.95 years in the top 10 = half the points of achieving a calendar year grand slam
Here are the men:
I use the word “best” here instead of “greatest” because one can be greater in tennis in other aspects besides play. Court was better than King on the court over all, but King had the greater impact on the game.
Bolded numbers indicate that they are the highest achieved in that metric and what all other numbers in that metric are measured against. As the highest achievement in any given metric changes, how equitable that metric is with the others change. For example, each week Djokovic breaks the record for weeks at #1, the scoring of every man who has ever been #1 will change accordingly. Right now in the scoring for men:
1 major win = reaching 15 major finals = 3.67 Year-End Championships or 3.67 Olympic Golds = winning 53.6 tournaments = 76.3 weeks at #1 = 8.85 years in the top 10 = half the points of achieving a calendar year grand slam
In the scoring for women:
1 major win = reaching 14.5 major finals = 3.25 Year-End Championships or 3.25 Olympic Golds = winning 71.2 tournaments = 80.4 weeks at #1 = 8.95 years in the top 10 = half the points of achieving a calendar year grand slam
Here are the men:
Last edited: