Greatest Forehands of All Time

billnepill

billnepill

Hall of Fame
pc1 said:
Hoodjem's list is a consensus list, not his opinion.
Click to expand...

hoodjem said:
Fed's forehand in the 2011 AO semis did not look good. It appeared to be shaky and weak.

Odd to say, but Djokovic's forehand looked like the better shot--and that is saying something!
Click to expand...

hoodjem said:
The greatest forehand of all time should not be inconsistent, and undependable.

1. Segura
2. Federer
3. Lendl
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Sampras
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
11. Tilden
12. Perry
13. Kramer
14. Santana
15. Johnston
16. Nastase
17. Vines
18. Newcombe
19. Gonzales
20. Gomez
21. Okker
22. Becker
23. Safin
24. del Potro
25. Blake
27. Budge
28. Muster
29. Arias
30. Krickstein
Click to expand...

vllaznia
You guys are really clowns, just because of a match not played very well from Federer, you change the idea of who has the best forehand, so much of being consensus list, maybe its the consensus list of the old ****s of the forum.
Click to expand...

Finally, we get a little respect.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with "we", unfortunately. Hoodjem decided single-handedly to ignore 8 years of dominance ( a dominance, mostly due to serve + forehand) and decided to change Federer's first place based on one match Federer lost at the age of 29, way past his prime.

As long as he is breathing he will change his disguises in order to keep Laver's position in tact. When Nadal gets close to Laver's status, he will start bashing Nadal. The funny thing is, Laver doesn't even need trolls to defend his status, because he is one of the best. The first GOAT.

I cannot hide my frustration as you see. Ignorance is everywhere and even in the conservative Former Pro Section with one post a day, you can see suspiciously great shifts in perception. As if people forgot everything. Yes, the same people who claim to remember Laver playing.

Whatever.

Let just not pretend the ranking is based on consensus, because I don't agree, as well as many others.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
billnepill said:
Nothing to do with "we", unfortunately. Hoodjem decided single-handedly to ignore 8 years of dominance ( a dominance, mostly due to serve + forehand) and decided to change Federer's first place based on one match Federer lost at the age of 29, way past his prime.

As long as he is breathing he will change his disguises in order to keep Laver's position in tact. When Nadal gets close to Laver's status, he will start bashing Nadal. The funny thing is, Laver doesn't even need trolls to defend his status, because he is one of the best. The first GOAT.

I cannot hide my frustration as you see. Ignorance is everywhere and even in the conservative Former Pro Section with one post a day, you can see suspiciously great shifts in perception. As if people forgot everything. Yes, the same people who claim to remember Laver playing.

Whatever.

Let just not pretend the ranking is based on consensus, because I don't agree, as well as many others.
Click to expand...

First of all let me defend Hoodjem here. Second place on this list isn't bad. Federer has been demoted to second before and put back into first on this list.

I agree that Federer's forehand can be the best forehand of all time and it very well is but it's not a slam dunk in that it is 100% certain it is number one.

Federer is awesome as a player and he has won 80.9% of his matches over his career the last time I checked. That's an amazing percentage but it's also not perfect. Is it that bad that Hoodjem put Federer in second place for forehand?

Last I checked Lendl won 82% of his matches and he also was a serve and forehand among other things. He's behind Federer on the list.

There are a lot on this list that Hoodjem put in because people suggested it. So let's not get too upset here that Federer is in second place for now. I would think Hoodjem will see some are upset and perhaps put Federer back in first.

Incidentally no one is a 100% slam dunk number one for forehand. I would disagree if anyone wrote that about anybody's forehand being a slam dunk number one all time.
 
Last edited:
B

BTURNER

Legend
I am trying to think of a match where Lendl's forehand was suspect. EVeryone has the rare match where their strength - just isn't that day. Even Graf has had a few bad forehand days so I'll forgive Fed one or two. But Offhand I can't think of Lendl having one.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BTURNER said:
I am trying to think of a match where Lendl's forehand was suspect. EVeryone has the rare match where their strength - just isn't that day. Even Graf has had a few bad forehand days so I'll forgive Fed one or two. But Offhand I can't think of Lendl having one.
Click to expand...

Can't think of one match myself although I'm sure he had some off matches with the forehand.


billnepill said:
Nothing to do with "we", unfortunately. Hoodjem decided single-handedly to ignore 8 years of dominance ( a dominance, mostly due to serve + forehand) and decided to change Federer's first place based on one match Federer lost at the age of 29, way past his prime.
Click to expand...
Here's some comments on Pancho Segura's forehand-

Jack Kramer in his book "The Game"-Possibly Budge's backhand was a better stroke, I'll have to accept that judgment. But put a gun to my head , and I'd have to say the Segura forehand because he could disguise it so much better and hit so many more angles. As great a shot as Connors' two handed backhand is, it is nowhere near as tough as Segura's forehand because Pancho could hit it as hard with more control.

Ellsworth Vines in his book "Tennis-Myth and Method"-Two fisted forehand is most outstanding stroke in game's history; unbeatable unless opponent could avoid it.

Later in Vines' book-Segura could do much more with a forehand than any other player. His two-handed technique (developed in Ecuador as a child because he had rickets) allowed Segura to pull the ball across the net opponet at the last second, drive it down the line, hit a surprise lob, or knock it through him. He had tremendous power, remarkable deception, and he never seemed to miss.

Pancho Gonzalez from an article by Dave Anderson call "His Toughest Rival"-As strong as Budge's backhand was, Segura's forehand was even stronger."

Rod Laver in an article called "The Topspin Forehand"-from the Fireside Book of Tennis-There are many great players whom I have not seen, such as Jack Kramer, but among the champions I have played, I would pick Pancho Segura's forehand as the best.

I'm not saying Segura's forehand is the best but I am saying that it's not exactly a bad choice. I think we've all seen the Connors backhand and when Kramer says the Segura forehand is a lot better than the Connors' backhand we know the Segura forehand, if Kramer was right had to be a super duper shot.

We have a number of all time greats with tons of tennis experience all calling Segura's forehand great, some calling it the best shot ever so it gives you pause to think that perhaps it was pretty darn good.

That's being said I can see Federer's forehand being ranked above Segura but I also see nothing wrong with ranking Segura's forehand ahead also.
 
Last edited:
NonP

NonP

Legend
hoodjem, I have to side with the youngsters here. It's just not fair to rate a player's stroke based on a single match. Now it'd be a different matter if you were talking about his whole career, but I'd dig up some stats and peruse them rather than rely solely on our impressions (which, as you know, can be unreliable).

Also, maybe the old-timers should be given honorary mentions instead of actual rankings? As I noted on the GSOAT thread, I just don't see how we can assess any stroke that we haven't seen and studied extensively. Secondhand accounts aren't enough IMO, even those that originate from masters of the game. They're are just as susceptible to bias as the rest of us, if not even more so, and as some of you already know, being a master of tennis does not necessarily equal mastery of the sport in all its aspects.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NonP said:
hoodjem, I have to side with the youngsters here. It's just not fair to rate a player's stroke based on a single match. Now it'd be a different matter if you were talking about his whole career, but I'd dig up some stats and peruse them rather than rely solely on our impressions (which, as you know, can be unreliable).

Also, maybe the old-timers should be given honorary mentions instead of actual rankings? As I noted on the GSOAT thread, I just don't see how we can assess any stroke that we haven't seen and studied extensively. Secondhand accounts aren't enough IMO, even those that originate from masters of the game. They're are just as susceptible to bias as the rest of us, if not even more so, and as some of you already know, being a master of tennis does not necessarily equal mastery of the sport in all its aspects.
Click to expand...

Good point. Some of the greats have tremendous bias for the old timers. I do think players like Laver, Gonzalez and Vines were pretty objective.

Let's go by decade
1960's-Laver
1970's-Borg
1980's-Lendl
1990's-Not sure here. Agassi? Sampras?
2000's-Federer

However the point of the thread is the debate and discussion. Maybe we should continue as it is. There would be controversy no matter what. I can't figure out why del Potro is there considering he hasn't done enough yet with the forehand to be in the list for example.
 
Last edited:
NonP

NonP

Legend
pc1 said:
Good point. Some of the greats have tremendous bias for the old timers. I do think players like Laver, Gonzalez and Vines were pretty objective.

Let's go by decade
1960's-Laver
1970's-Borg
1980's-Lendl
1990's-Not sure here. Agassi? Sampras?
2000's-Federer

However the point of the thread is the debate and discussion. Maybe we should continue as it is. There would be controversy no matter what. I can't figure out why del Potro is there considering he hasn't done enough yet with the forehand to be in the list for example.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine either way. I personally am not comfortable ranking any stroke by secondhand accounts only, but others' standards may vary.

It's a tough call between Agassi and Sampras, because each FH is great in its own way. I think I'll leave it at that. Gotta get some sleep before the men's final. :)

As for del Potro, when people say his FH belongs up there, they're probably thinking of how well it served him after the '09 AO but before his mini-retirement from the game almost exactly a year after. It remains to be seen whether this level will be representative of his prime (or whether his prime has already expired, heaven forbid), but I think it reasonable to assume for now that his return will not be short-lived, and to rate his FH accordingly.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
hoodjem said:
Fed's forehand in the 2011 AO semis did not look good. It appeared to be shaky and weak.

Odd to say, but Djokovic's forehand looked like the better shot--and that is saying something!
Click to expand...

his FH was "ok". It was more his BH that was absolutely bad. He should've been running around his BH more.

Anyways must complement you on your decision to move his FH down based on a match well past his prime :roll:
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
BTURNER said:
I am trying to think of a match where Lendl's forehand was suspect. EVeryone has the rare match where their strength - just isn't that day. Even Graf has had a few bad forehand days so I'll forgive Fed one or two. But Offhand I can't think of Lendl having one.
Click to expand...

didn't connors break down his FH in the USO 83 final with his BH ?
 
billnepill

billnepill

Hall of Fame
pc1 said:
Can't think of one match myself although I'm sure he had some off matches with the forehand.



Here's some comments on Pancho Segura's forehand-

Jack Kramer in his book "The Game"-Possibly Budge's backhand was a better stroke, I'll have to accept that judgment. But put a gun to my head , and I'd have to say the Segura forehand because he could disguise it so much better and hit so many more angles. As great a shot as Connors' two handed backhand is, it is nowhere near as tough as Segura's forehand because Pancho could hit it as hard with more control.

Ellsworth Vines in his book "Tennis-Myth and Method"-Two fisted forehand is most outstanding stroke in game's history; unbeatable unless opponent could avoid it.

Later in Vines' book-Segura could do much more with a forehand than any other player. His two-handed technique (developed in Ecuador as a child because he had rickets) allowed Segura to pull the ball across the net opponet at the last second, drive it down the line, hit a surprise lob, or knock it through him. He had tremendous power, remarkable deception, and he never seemed to miss.

Pancho Gonzalez from an article by Dave Anderson call "His Toughest Rival"-As strong as Budge's backhand was, Segura's forehand was even stronger."

Rod Laver in an article called "The Topspin Forehand"-from the Fireside Book of Tennis-There are many great players whom I have not seen, such as Jack Kramer, but among the champions I have played, I would pick Pancho Segura's forehand as the best.

I'm not saying Segura's forehand is the best but I am saying that it's not exactly a bad choice. I think we've all seen the Connors backhand and when Kramer says the Segura forehand is a lot better than the Connors' backhand we know the Segura forehand, if Kramer was right had to be a super duper shot.

We have a number of all time greats with tons of tennis experience all calling Segura's forehand great, some calling it the best shot ever so it gives you pause to think that perhaps it was pretty darn good.

That's being said I can see Federer's forehand being ranked above Segura but I also see nothing wrong with ranking Segura's forehand ahead also.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not trying to say Segura's forehand is not one of the greatest. I actually don't mind to see it number 1, if people agree it was the best and therefore better than Federer's.

I don't agree with the principle here. Federer was put on the number 1 spot for a reason - because of evidence, because of his accomplishments, because we witnessed his forehand over the years.

Now it turns out this forehand didn't exist, because Hoodjem saw one match the forehand wasn't at its usual level. You see, even if Federer doesn't win a match from now on and doesn't make a FH winner, his accomplishments existed and these accomplishments were the reason you put Federer on spot number 1.

If you are now judging the current form of the forehands, let's follow the senior tour and change the position every time a player's forehand is not as we know it from the old times.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
billnepill said:
Nothing to do with "we", unfortunately. Hoodjem decided single-handedly to ignore 8 years of dominance ( a dominance, mostly due to serve + forehand) and decided to change Federer's first place based on one match Federer lost at the age of 29, way past his prime.

As long as he is breathing he will change his disguises in order to keep Laver's position in tact. When Nadal gets close to Laver's status, he will start bashing Nadal.
Click to expand...
Where's my moustache, dark glasses, and trenchcoat?

Where's my mallet?

Eight years? I would allot Fed 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and maybe 2009. I believe we have to give 2008 and 2010 to Nadal as the dominant player. That would be five years for Fed.

"to ignore 8 years of dominance (a dominance, mostly due to serve + forehand)"
Hold on! Fed is better than that. He is certainly a more complete player that this description. He used to volley pretty well. Occasionally (as in AO final 2010), his backhand looks really good.

This sounds like the old Roddick.
 
Last edited:
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
1. Segura/Federer
3. Lendl
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Sampras
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
11. Tilden
12. Perry
13. Kramer
14. Santana
15. Johnston
16. Nastase
17. Vines
18. Newcombe
19. Gonzales
20. Gomez
21. Okker
22. Becker
23. Safin
24. del Potro
25. Blake
27. Budge
28. Muster
29. Moya
30. Arias
31. Krickstein
32. Berasategui

Managing a consensus takes time and patience: you have to put something out there, let it air for a time, watch the responses, then make adjustments.
 
Last edited:
Tennis Dunce

Tennis Dunce

Semi-Pro
hoodjem said:
1. Segura-Federer
3. Lendl
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Sampras
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
11. Tilden
12. Perry
13. Kramer
14. Santana
15. Johnston
16. Nastase17. Vines
18. Newcombe
19. Gonzales
20. Gomez
21. Okker
22. Becker
23. Safin24. del Potro
25. Blake
27. Budge
28. Muster29. Moya30. Arias
31. Krickstein32. Berasategui

Managing a consensus takes time and patience: you have to put something out there, let it air for a time, watch the responses, then make adjustments.
Click to expand...

Sorry...but none of these guys' fh is remotely as devastaing as David Nalbandian's fh. Only because his bh gets all the attention he has a devastating fh wing, especially with that 28in. racquet. In fact Nalbandian owns many of the greatest strokes the game has ever seen.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
First of all let me defend Hoodjem here. Second place on this list isn't bad. Federer has been demoted to second before and put back into first on this list.
Click to expand...
True. The last time was when Fed whiffed on a forehand at match point in a tie-breaker in the final in Madrid early May 2010.

I try to keep current.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
1. Segura-Federer
3. Lendl
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Sampras
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
11. Tilden
12. Perry
13. Kramer
14. Santana
15. Johnston
16. Nastase
17. Vines
18. Newcombe
19. Gonzales
20. Gomez
21. Okker
22. Becker
23. Safin
24. del Potro
25. Blake
27. Budge
28. Muster
29. Moya
30. Arias
31. Krickstein
32. Berasategui

Managing a consensus takes time and patience: you have to put something out there, let it air for a time, watch the responses, then make adjustments.
Click to expand...

Did Segura marry Federer? lol.

Incidentally are we just discussing Federer's peak or do we also include performances now? I've seen (it's not often) performances by Federer's forehand not that different from the performance against Djokovic the other day. Remember that Federer is an active player and we view him often. He may have some bad performances with the forehand. Do we ignore that? Things can change, like the number of majors he has. Segura is retired and many of the others like Lendl has retired so Lendl's average forehand performance is not going to change.

Federer's not guaranteed first place here so we shouldn't be upset if he is not number one here all the time. We can make excellent arguments for many on this list for number one. For example Lendl has an excellent argument to be number one. He won 82% of his lifetime matches. Won over 90 percent of his matches in many years. He won over 140 tournaments in his career and won eight majors. Do we deny his dominance? He's third on this list. That's not bad.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Tennis Dunce said:
I thought it was Segura-Federer-Melloncamp
Click to expand...

Yes but John Melloncamp actually has a better forehand than Segura or Federer. Melloncamp serves better than Sampras too.

Anyway he's dating Meg Ryan. Lucky guy.


hoodjem said:
True. The last time was when Fed whiffed on a forehand at match point in a tie-breaker in the final in Madrid early May 2010.

I try to keep current.
Click to expand...

And that's fair.
 
U

urban

Legend
Segura's status is a real interesting topic. He was ill in his youth, and his legs remained deformed. And indeed many contemporaries ranked his dh forehand very high. But was he a real champion in the class of say a Kramer, Sedgman or Gonzalez? The forehand often was the cornerstone for great dominant champons like Perry, Cochet, Kramer, Federer or Lendl. Segura's amateur career was not so great, some college titles and semis in majors, i think. He turned pro early, lost a tour to Kramer in 1951 by a big margin. His best years were 1952 and 53, when he rivalled with Kramer, who did play only sporadically, however, and Gonzalez, who was not yet in his prime. I think, Segura won a pair of US pro titles in that period, but after that not much more. He reached the Wembley event, the most important for the pros, twice, but lost the finals.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Did Segura marry Federer? lol.

Incidentally are we just discussing Federer's peak or do we also include performances now? I've seen (it's not often) performances by Federer's forehand not that different from the performance against Djokovic the other day. Remember that Federer is an active player and we view him often. He may have some bad performances with the forehand. Do we ignore that? Things can change, like the number of majors he has. Segura is retired and many of the others like Lendl has retired so Lendl's average forehand performance is not going to change.

Federer's not guaranteed first place here so we shouldn't be upset if he is not number one here all the time. We can make excellent arguments for many on this list for number one. For example Lendl has an excellent argument to be number one. He won 82% of his lifetime matches. Won over 90 percent of his matches in many years. He won over 140 tournaments in his career and won eight majors. Do we deny his dominance? He's third on this list. That's not bad.
Click to expand...
Correct. Fed is active, therefore, as long as he can move up, he can also move down.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
urban said:
Segura's status is a real interesting topic. He was ill in his youth, and his legs remained deformed. And indeed many contemporaries ranked his dh forehand very high. But was he a real champion in the class of say a Kramer, Sedgman or Gonzalez? The forehand often was the cornerstone for great dominant champons like Perry, Cochet, Kramer, Federer or Lendl. Segura's amateur career was not so great, some college titles and semis in majors, i think. He turned pro early, lost a tour to Kramer in 1951 by a big margin. His best years were 1952 and 53, when he rivalled with Kramer, who did play only sporadically, however, and Gonzalez, who was not yet in his prime. I think, Segura won a pair of US pro titles in that period, but after that not much more. He reached the Wembley event, the most important for the pros, twice, but lost the finals.
Click to expand...

Segura played in the Old Pro Tours and was one of the top players there. He was competing with Rosewall, Gonzalez, Kramer, Trabert, Hoad, Sedgman among other greats. I think he edged out Sedgman on a tour by a score of 23 to 22 on a tour Gonzalez won and Budge also played in.

Segura also crushed Ken McGregor by a score of 71 to 25 and he easily (no match W-L was given) beat Frank Parker on tour.

Given some of these results I would think that Segura probably was a great player in his day but was not in the record books for majors because he was not eligible to play them.

Is his forehand the best ever? I don't know but I would think guys like Laver, Gonzalez and Vines were pretty objective and they raved about the Segura forehand. I would think the forehand was pretty good.
 
Last edited:
P

pmerk34

Legend
pc1 said:
Did Segura marry Federer? lol.

Incidentally are we just discussing Federer's peak or do we also include performances now? I've seen (it's not often) performances by Federer's forehand not that different from the performance against Djokovic the other day. Remember that Federer is an active player and we view him often. He may have some bad performances with the forehand. Do we ignore that? Things can change, like the number of majors he has. Segura is retired and many of the others like Lendl has retired so Lendl's average forehand performance is not going to change.

Federer's not guaranteed first place here so we shouldn't be upset if he is not number one here all the time. We can make excellent arguments for many on this list for number one. For example Lendl has an excellent argument to be number one. He won 82% of his lifetime matches. Won over 90 percent of his matches in many years. He won over 140 tournaments in his career and won eight majors. Do we deny his dominance? He's third on this list. That's not bad.
Click to expand...

I saw a ton of Lendl and I would never rank his FH above Federer's.
 
HackersRUs

HackersRUs

Rookie
while I understand the context argument, and the flogged-to-death 'modern racquet' argument, I have grave doubts over the viability of rating a pre-war or post war closed stance forehand as 'greater' than those of the post-Borg era.

Remember, our man Bjorn had a woodie, too, and hit it with far more ferocity and variation than his illustrious forebears, simply by virtue of his modern techique.
(No, of course he wasn't the first, or the only, but he is a good example because he is easy to find footage of)

Sorry rose colored nostagia dudes, but don't just argue with me, watch the tapes with a stopwatch in your hand and be honest with yourself.
(no, that isn't slow motion, that's how they played!)
 
P

piece

Professional
hoodjem said:
Fed's forehand in the 2011 AO semis did not look good. It appeared to be shaky and weak.

Odd to say, but Djokovic's forehand looked like the better shot--and that is saying something!
Click to expand...

Not quite true, I don't think. I was at the match. Federer made a few more errors from that side than he should have but on average when Fed got set up on his forehand it was quite obvious that he was doing the greater damage. On the run, however, was a completely different story.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
piece said:
Not quite true, I don't think. I was at the match. Federer made a few more errors from that side than he should have but on average when Fed got set up on his forehand it was quite obvious that he was doing the greater damage. On the run, however, was a completely different story.
Click to expand...

Piece,

Were you at the final and if so what were your impressions of Djokovic's play and did you think Murray seemed nervous?
 
P

pmerk34

Legend
pc1 said:
Didn't say he should be but I was using Lendl to point out that Federer's forehand is not necessarily a definitive number one.
Click to expand...

That's true but then Lendl's sure as heck isn't number one either. It's all subjective. In the 2009 Us Open final Del Potro hit the best forehands in the history of the world.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
pmerk34 said:
That's true but then Lendl's sure as heck isn't number one either. It's all subjective. In the 2009 Us Open final Del Potro hit the best forehands in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

Of course it's subjective. That's why we have the thread. I've read that Lew Hoad used to have streaks in which he could hit a ton of forehand winners with incredible power. I've read Hoad used to be able to move in a hit winners off Gonzalez's first serve inside the baseline. I would assume a lot of those winners were off the forehand but few would rank Hoad's forehand as the best ever.
 
Last edited:
P

piece

Professional
pc1 said:
Piece,

Were you at the final and if so what were your impressions of Djokovic's play and did you think Murray seemed nervous?
Click to expand...

I wasn't I'm sorry to say. I don't live in Melbourne and chose to see both men's semis rather than the final. Couldn't afford a longer stay or the extra tickets I would've needed to see all three. But from what I saw on TV, Djokovic was even more impressive in the final than in the semi, and Murray looked extremely nervous and played very poorly for the most part. I was pretty disappointed by Murray actually because there were parts in the Ferrer match where he hit his forehand unbelievably well. I couldn't recall ever seeing him hit his forehand with so much pace and penetration on rally balls as he was at the end of the 2nd and through most of the 3rd sets.

But no, I don't have any unique perspective on the final, unfortunately.

I should caveat my last post by acknowledging that Djokovic was flattening out high balls with his forehand substantially better than Federer in addition to doing more with his forehand on the run. Still, on regular forehand rally balls, I could really tell that Federer's forehand was the more damaging shot.
 
Last edited:
Y

You Can't Be Serious

Rookie
SusanDK said:
I still don't agree that Wilander wouldn't make a list that now is extended to the best 32 forehands of all time, or that Krickstein and Arias both make the list ahead of him. What did Krickstein or Arias ever achieve? Just being able to hit a hard and heavy forehand is no measure of greatness, IMO.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with krickstein and Arias. You are 100 percent correct in saying what did they achieve except they made it to the pro tour and had some successful tournaments based on their great forehands.

If you are considering the forehand itself--I agree with their positions. If you take into accounts an individuals overall success and longevity no.

But I gather the topic of conversation was the best forehand not the best forehand with results to show for it.

Most people here play tennis and I gather can make that distinction. As they said about Mats Wilander, his strength was his mental toughness.

Another example from the Arias era was Eric Korita who had one of the best serves.

Even the ATP bio states he had one of the best all-time serves. Of course, he was lazy and out of shape. I remember working a small tournament in New Jersey and they had to clear the backrows in the corner of the stands because fans were getting hit with his serve that hit off players frames and into the stands.

Believe me, you were scared.

It depends on what your critera is. Serve with results or just a great serve.

Arias set a new standard in forehands back in his time. The rest of his game--well we saw what happened.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Segura-Federer is not a marriage. It's the greatest forehand rivalry of all time! (GFROAT)
Click to expand...

I understand both players were thinking, darn if not for that other guy I'd be undisputed greatest forehand of all time. :)
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
But after all, Segura used two hands. So is he cheating?
Click to expand...

That's right, that Segura may have been cheating by using two hands. That's quite diabolical. Federer is only using one hand so therefore Federer wins by default.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
That's right, that Segura may have been cheating by using two hands. That's quite diabolical. Federer is only using one hand so therefore Federer wins by default.
Click to expand...
I like it. Then maybe we should rank Segura at no. 15?
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
piece said:
I wasn't I'm sorry to say. I don't live in Melbourne and chose to see both men's semis rather than the final. Couldn't afford a longer stay or the extra tickets I would've needed to see all three. But from what I saw on TV, Djokovic was even more impressive in the final than in the semi, and Murray looked extremely nervous and played very poorly for the most part. I was pretty disappointed by Murray actually because there were parts in the Ferrer match where he hit his forehand unbelievably well. I couldn't recall ever seeing him hit his forehand with so much pace and penetration on rally balls as he was at the end of the 2nd and through most of the 3rd sets.

But no, I don't have any unique perspective on the final, unfortunately.

I should caveat my last post by acknowledging that Djokovic was flattening out high balls with his forehand substantially better than Federer in addition to doing more with his forehand on the run. Still, on regular forehand rally balls, I could really tell that Federer's forehand was the more damaging shot.
Click to expand...

Piece,
thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
piece said:
I should caveat my last post by acknowledging that Djokovic was flattening out high balls with his forehand substantially better than Federer in addition to doing more with his forehand on the run. Still, on regular forehand rally balls, I could really tell that Federer's forehand was the more damaging shot.
Click to expand...
Maybe on telly (I was not there), I noticed more the "flattening out high balls with his forehand substantially better than Federer, in addition to doing more with his forehand on the run."

I did also see Fed have some good "damaging" forehands, but they seemed fewer and farther between than typical Fed-forehand-prowess.. Djoker's forehand seemed, IMO, more consistent and deeper in general, overall.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
Maybe on telly (I was not there), I noticed more the "flattening out high balls with his forehand substantially better than Federer, in addition to doing more with his forehand on the run."

I did also see Fed have some good "damaging" forehands, but they seemed fewer and farther between than typical Fed-forehand-prowess.. Djoker's forehand seemed, IMO, more consistent and deeper in general, overall.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth Patrick McEnroe thought Djokovic outhit Federer, forehand to forehand also.
 
S

SusanDK

Semi-Pro
You Can't Be Serious said:
If you are considering the forehand itself--I agree with their positions. If you take into accounts an individuals overall success and longevity no.

But I gather the topic of conversation was the best forehand not the best forehand with results to show for it.
Click to expand...

I have obviously not expressed myself clearly. I mentioned results, yes, but also consistency of stroke. Arias and Krickstein had power forehands that were great shots when they had time to set up and blast them. But I value consistency over power and believe Wilander's forehand, with it's consistency and placement, was a better shot than just being able to hit a powerful forehand. Of course having both power and consistency is better. Consequently, we have players like Lendl, Agassi and Courier quite high on the list. I'm not arguing that Wilander belongs in the top 10 with them. But I think his forehand was better than both Arias and Krickstein's.

Most people here play tennis and I gather can make that distinction.
Click to expand...

I play tennis as well. ;-)

As they said about Mats Wilander, his strength was his mental toughness.
Click to expand...

Something I have independently commented on in several posts on this forum.

In any case, it doesn't matter - as is always the case in these discussions, we have to agree to disagree, and obviously more people have agreed with Arias and Krickstein making the list over Wilander.

But don't belittle my opinion by implying it is based on incorrect logic or not understanding the game or the topic. I know exactly what the intention of the thread is and my opinion is that Wilander's forehand was better than Arias and Krickstein's. I have no problem with your not agreeing, but don't patronize me.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
1. Lendl
2. Borg
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Agassi
7. Courier
8. Cochet
9. Tilden
10. Perry
11. Kramer
12. Santana
13. Johnston
14. Nastase
15. Segura/Federer
16. Vines
17. Newcombe
18. Gonzales
19. Gomez
20. Okker
21. Becker
22. Safin
23. del Potro
24. Blake
25. Budge
26. Muster
27. Moya
28. Wilander
29. Arias
30. Krickstein
31. Berasategui




(Just kidding.):wink:
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
1. Lendl
2. Borg
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Agassi
7. Courier
8. Cochet
9. Tilden
10. Perry
11. Kramer
12. Santana
13. Johnston
14. Nastase
15. Segura/Federer
16. Vines
17. Newcombe
18. Gonzales
19. Gomez
20. Okker
21. Becker
22. Safin
23. del Potro
24. Blake
25. Budge
26. Muster
27. Moya
28. Wilander
29. Arias
30. Krickstein
31. Berasategui




(Just kidding.):wink:
Click to expand...

You may be kidding but I understand Lendl fans are jumping for joy. lol.

Lendl's hated forehand rivals are knocked down. Segura took Federer down with him.

Lendl must feel this honor is better than winning Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pc1
Rankings of Greats by tennis experts
14 15 16
Replies
791
Views
74K
Dan Lobb
D
U
All time rankings pre 1950
Replies
23
Views
2K
hoodjem
hoodjem
B
The all-time 100 greatest players
2
Replies
85
Views
4K
pc1
pc1
joe sch
  • Poll
Greatest Group of all Time (GGOAT) ?
Replies
19
Views
3K
Andres
Andres
hoodjem
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
107 108 109
Replies
5K
Views
314K
Dan Lobb
D
Top