Also correct (d. Haas, 2007 AO):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...26032&dq=gonzalez+haas+forehand+winners&hl=en
Oh no doubt, but not in that match (only 3 ue's from all strokes).Of course, if I were to look for UE, I might also suspect him!
The best rate of forehand winners that I know about belongs to Irina Spirlea, who hit 38 when she beat Seles at the 1997 U.S. Open (stat from Bud Collins), over the course of 35 games (a great sample). I wonder whether that stat might be inflated with more than clean winners (ie, judgment calls) but it's still a phenomenal day on the forehand.
The next best I have for the women:
Ivanovic against Dechy, 2008 Wimbledon, 36 FH winners in 44 games
Graf against Navratilova, 1988 Wimbledon, 22 FH winners in 27 games by my count (18 of those FH's went past Martina as she came to net).
I can't confirm, but I think Berastegui may have hit 32 FH winners in 44 games with Agassi which would be 2nd on your chart
No, not on his forehand specifically.krosero, have you come across any stats on El Aynaoui's fh at the '03 AO?
When was that said? I'm wondering what type of error was meant, because AFAIK errors were not divided into forced and unforced until the 70s.It would be fascinating if someone got the stats from as far back as possible on all the majors over the years and see how the ratios of winners to unforced errors have changed as equipment has changed. I remember reading during the Budge era the a ratio of 2 to 1 was considered great during that day but now it's rather common and easily surpassed.
When was that said? I'm wondering what type of error was meant, because AFAIK errors were not divided into forced and unforced until the 70s.
Well his book was published in 1969, so it's not out of the question that he was speaking about unforced errors. I've seen "unforced error" come up in Google News as early as '71.I read it in Budge's book "Don Budge: A Tennis Memoir." It's on page 12 in which Budge states "Most matches, you know, are considered to be excellent technical performances if the number of winning placement equal the number of errors. In this match, both Gottfried and myself were to make twice as many placements to errors."
In reading this I realize that Budge just writes errors and it doesn't say unforced errors. I was mistaken here.
I'm not sure that the winner-to-error ratio has changed that much. I mean, in that Budge match, von Cramm had 61 winners/aces in 58 games -- not even including the service winners that he'd be credited with today. That's not a bad number compared to today's matches. There are many matches today that have better numbers, but that was true even then.It would be fascinating if someone got the stats from as far back as possible on all the majors over the years and see how the ratios of winners to unforced errors have changed as equipment has changed. I remember reading during the Budge era the a ratio of 2 to 1 was considered great during that day but now it's rather common and easily surpassed.
There is an objective way, which is simply to count clean winners and count up errors without distinguishing between forced and unforced. That's how tennis stats were done for decades, before the unforced error came along. But then people would want to know how many of the errors were unforced, before coming to any conclusions (at least, any conclusions they didn't like).
A lot to think about.
Can anyone find a video of Pancho Segura in action? For all the talk about his legendary forehand, I'd be very curious to actually SEE it for myself.
There's only one forehand hit by Segura in the Anderson versus Segura here and you may have to register to the site. Marcos originally found this.
Here's his post.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2712548&postcount=78
Here's an interesting interview on Charlie Rose with Pancho Segura, Bud Collins and the late Gene Scott. They discuss Segura's forehand within the first ten minutes and interestingly they like Chang's running forehand and of course Sampras' running forehand as among the best ever.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5379
His forehand is legendary. Unfortunately that clip doesn't do it justice.Thanks for the links, unfortunately that clip of Segura and Anderson shows Segura hitting two forehands; one was a lob, and the other was a return! Not a single drive forehand in the video. But thanks anyway.
Segura is also one of the smartest tennis strategists around.
Based on its reputation alone, it must have been a helluva shot. (I wish we could find some good video of it.)
Based on its reputation alone, it must have been a helluva shot. (I wish we could find some good video of it.)
Which Gonzalez? Ricardo Alonso or Fernando?1) Federer
2) Gulbis
3) Safin
4) Gonzalez
5) Del Potro
6) Nadal
Los of talk about volleys, backhands, groundstrokes in general, etc. On another post, 35ft6 was saying that Fed definitely had one of the five best forehands of all time, I agreed with him.
So here we go--
1. Segura
2. Federer
3. Lendl
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Nadal
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
11. Tilden
12. Perry
13. Budge
14. Santana
15. Okker
16. Johnston
17. Nastase
18. Vines
19. Gonzales
20. Kramer
21. Becker
22. Safin
23. del Potro
24. Blake
25. Moya
Which Gonzalez? Ricardo Alonso or Fernando?
1. Segura
2. Federer
3. Lendl
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Nadal
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
I think you need more evidence for putting Segura at #1. I mean, you're just going by what his contemporaries have said about his fh; they thought it was maybe the best shot at the time. Do they still think Segura has the best fh ever, even now? Many more people think Fed's fh is the best ever. I can understand why you have Segura at #1, but to me, there's just not enough evidence for it.
I think you initially did have Fed at #1 on your list, correct? I don't see why you changed it, have you seen some actual footage of Segura's fh, or some evidence that strongly suggests Segura's fh was better than Fed's?
ontennis.com had an article discussing the best shots in history with a large panel of experts. Federer's fh of course was thought of as the best ever.
http://www.ontennis.com/content/forehand:-roger-federer
^the part discussing the greatest forehand ever.
http://www.ontennis.com/content/tennis-shots
^here you can read on what they thought the other greatest shots were.
A lot of people have mentioned Segura's forehand as the greatest ever, to this day. I was reading a comment Kramer said about Segura's forehand and how it was far better than Connors' backhand so that's very impressive. Kramer thought Segura's forehand was the greatest individual shot in the history of tennis. Gonzalez and Laver both thought Segura's forehand was fantastic.
I don't see the experts on the ontennis panel. Is it a group or just one person expressing their opinion?
Now Federer's forehand is possibly the greatest ever but I noticed my friend that you used the words Federer's fh OF COURSE was thought of as the greatest ever. It's a great shot but I don't think any individual shot in tennis history is a slam dunk to be the greatest ever.
One problem we all have with Federer now is that we don't have the advantage of hindsight. Federer is playing now and we see him and we all are impressed by his play. It is vivid in our minds so we may tend to rank him number one in many areas. Federer's record is great but I've noticed that he is ranked number one by some in serves, volleys, backhand, forehand, groundstrokes, speed everything. He's good but not that good.
I noticed some people rank his serve and volley better than Sampras on these forums and there is no way I can see that.
There is a tendency to always rank the current top player the greatest ever and that simply cannot be. Connors was ranked the GOAT as was Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Federer and that's just in the Open era.
Segura is a player from the past and we cannot excluded him simply because fewer and fewer people have seen him play. It's reasonable to call his forehand the greatest ever as it is reasonable to call Federer's forehand the greatest ever.
I'm not arguing with you at all over whether or not Segura's fh was an all-time great shot. My argument is, should Segura's fh be rated as the BEST ever, over Federer's? No one said anything about "excluding" Segura, it's just that myself and many, many others feel that, as of now, Federer is sort of the default choice for best forehand, similar to how Sampras's serve is the default choice for best serve ever. It's a combination of the overall greatness and achievements of Fed, along with the fact that no shot has contributed more to his success than his fh (and his movement as well, which is also the greatest of all time along with his fh).
This makes no sense to me. Why would Federer be your "default"? Best of those you're familiar with?
One could argue that they don't have enough data to give it to Segura, but by that same token, if true, you don't have enough data NOT to give it to Segura. If you feel you then must fallback on Federer, that's sound, but then, you're really saying, you don't feel comfortable arriving at an ultimate judgment about it, and you dont' feel anybody else should be able to either?
PS. Note, I also don't really buy into "overall greatness/achievements of Fed"....it may be related to his FH being great, but is a very poor measure overall, don't you think? The confounding variables are boggling.
This makes no sense to me. Why would Federer be your "default"? Best of those you're familiar with?
One could argue that they don't have enough data to give it to Segura, but by that same token, if true, you don't have enough data NOT to give it to Segura. If you feel you then must fallback on Federer, that's sound, but then, you're really saying, you don't feel comfortable arriving at an ultimate judgment about it, and you dont' feel anybody else should be able to either?
PS. Note, I also don't really buy into "overall greatness/achievements of Fed"....it may be related to his FH being great, but is a very poor measure overall, don't you think? The confounding variables are boggling.
(sigh) It's not just ME who thinks Fed's fh is the best ever, it's MANY people's opinion, including many tennis experts and former pros.
By "default" I meant that for MANY people, if you asked them, "who has the greatest forehand?" they would automatically think of Federer.
I guess the bottom line for me is this: If you were to make a list of the greatest forehands of all time, there are many more reasons to put Federer at #1 instead of Segura.
Agreed.
Here's a brief flash of Segura hitting a forehand
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=59026
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=26953
Form looks good but I can't see the result of the shot.
Here's a Pancho Segura, Bud Collins and Gene Scott interview with Charlie Scott on the 1997 US Open.
http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4025
Here's a description of Segura's style from Vines' great book Tennis, Myth and Method.
Two-fisted forehand is most outstanding stroke in game's history; unbeatable unless opponent could avoid it. Improved as professional by taking advantage of volleying ability he rarely used as an amateur. Backhand also better later in career. Returns serve brilliantly, particularly off right side where quicksilver moves give him unusual positioning talent. Serve only average for his class of player but well placed, as is overhead. Very deft volleyer, particularly off forehand. Lob and dropshot unsurpassed. Superb passing shots, change of pace, and absolute consistency make him the great "little man" to ever play the game.
Again as I wrote before Federer is not an unreasonable choice but he is too much in the public eye and people see him and forget about other greats. Also many have not seen that many greats over the year. Lendl had a great forehand but many have never seen him play. Maybe years from now people will think Lendl blooped the ball back all the time and that isn't true. Maybe years from now people will think that Sampras had a soft serve because they never saw him and can't imagine a person serving better than their champion of the moment. There are a ton of reasons to put Segura as number one
A lot of people have mentioned Segura's forehand as the greatest ever, to this day. I was reading a comment Kramer said about Segura's forehand and how it was far better than Connors' backhand so that's very impressive. Kramer thought Segura's forehand was the greatest individual shot in the history of tennis. Gonzalez and Laver both thought Segura's forehand was fantastic.
I don't see the experts on the ontennis panel. Is it a group or just one person expressing their opinion?
Now Federer's forehand is possibly the greatest ever but I noticed my friend that you used the words Federer's fh OF COURSE was thought of as the greatest ever. It's a great shot but I don't think any individual shot in tennis history is a slam dunk to be the greatest ever.
One problem we all have with Federer now is that we don't have the advantage of hindsight. Federer is playing now and we see him and we all are impressed by his play. It is vivid in our minds so we may tend to rank him number one in many areas. Federer's record is great but I've noticed that he is ranked number one by some in serves, volleys, backhand, forehand, groundstrokes, speed everything. He's good but not that good.
I noticed some people rank his serve and volley better than Sampras on these forums and there is no way I can see that.
There is a tendency to always rank the current top player the greatest ever and that simply cannot be. Connors was ranked the GOAT as was Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Federer and that's just in the Open era.
Segura is a player from the past and we cannot excluded him simply because fewer and fewer people have seen him play. It's reasonable to call his forehand the greatest ever as it is reasonable to call Federer's forehand the greatest ever.
(sigh) It's not just ME who thinks Fed's fh is the best ever, it's MANY people's opinion, including many tennis experts and former pros.
By "default" I meant that for MANY people, if you asked them, "who has the greatest forehand?" they would automatically think of Federer. .
(
I guess the bottom line for me is this: If you were to make a list of the greatest forehands of all time, there are many more reasons to put Federer at #1 instead of Segura.
Again as I wrote before Federer is not an unreasonable choice but he is too much in the public eye and people see him and forget about other greats. Also many have not seen that many greats over the year. Lendl had a great forehand but many have never seen him play. Maybe years from now people will think Lendl blooped the ball back all the time and that isn't true. Maybe years from now people will think that Sampras had a soft serve because they never saw him and can't imagine a person serving better than their champion of the moment. There are a ton of reasons to put Segura as number one
This. Some of these "experts" have never seen or have a hazy recollection at best of Segura's forehand. And as you noted there's the unavoidable bias towards the present, to which these pundits are particularly susceptible. Given all this a little bit of skepticism should be in order, but apparently not.
No...apparently not! We should not even consider him, a question mark, because if we lack enough data, we must "default" to Federer because more people would pick him!
The extreme bias we often see pep[;e are often prone to declare that everything from now MUST be better than in the past, even though, some have even admitted having only been watching tennis for a few years! And further reveal a lack of knowledge in various errors and questions they have asked!
I might note that the ideal people to make this judgement would be expert observers OVER 70+ years old. And of course, even they may have memory skewed by the vast length of time.
Personally, I haven't seen a much of Segura so I am reserving judgment on it...though I wager what I have seen is MORE than the majority here! I do know that people like Kramer have called it the best shot in tennis history! So, I am certain that it was very likely quite comparable to Federer or any other great forehand. Of course, everyone else is entitled to make their opinion based on what info they have, but saying that we should give it to Federer based on current popular opinion, or simply saying there are innumerable "reasons" to give it to Federer.....well....not too convincing!
Agreed. One can simply say Fed's FH is the best of the modern era. That would be the fair and rational thing to do, given the lack of data and reliable sources on the old-timers. Too bad the overenthusiastic fans don't get this.
Agreed. One can simply say Fed's FH is the best of the modern era. That would be the fair and rational thing to do, given the lack of data and reliable sources on the old-timers. Too bad the overenthusiastic fans don't get this.
Sure, I agree with that. My argument was about hoodjem's list, putting Segura's fh at #1. I agree there's no way we can PROVE, one way or another, whose fh was the best. I can understand why Fed's fh shouldn't automatically be rated as the best ever. But it makes even less sense to put Segura's fh at the very top, a shot certain people have only read about, and not observed carefully for themselves. What's more absurd: singing the praises of a shot you have seen for yourself time and time again, and may have a certain bias towards, or saying a certain shot is the best ever that you don't even really know that much about!?
My argument here is not really about who has the best fh. It's about the illogical nature of rating Segura's fh as #1 when you haven't even seen and observed it carefully for yourself.