Whose career is more impressive?

I have to vote for Roger as the GOAT,

but Jimmy's numbers are just off the charts impressive.

It must really bug roger knowing that jimbo has that many more career wins/titles than him.

I choose... both =)

Somehow I doubt Roger is bothered by the number of titles, since he has so many more major titles to his credit, and he is largely accepted as one of the top 2 or 3 players of all time. Connors doesn't have nearly as many important titles and he is nowhere near the top of the GOAT list. Still love to watch Jimmy though. Some great matches on Youtube...

Fed has vastly superior numbers over Connors, there's simply no comparison. Recently he just broke Connors record for most Grand Slam match victory(234).

Even though Connors has the most titles, but Fed has more important titles, which overall his 74 titles has more weight than Connors 109.

What scary is Fed at 30 and will add more numbers to his already goat resume.

TMF said:

Fed has vastly superior numbers over Connors, there's simply no comparison. Recently he just broke Connors record for most Grand Slam match victory(234).

Even though Connors has the most titles, but Fed has more important titles, which overall his 74 titles has more weight than Connors 109.

What scary is Fed at 30 and will add more numbers to his already goat resume.

Click to expand...

Actually Connors has double Federer's tournaments at 148.

lol @ Jimbo weighing in at 155lbs.



Fed's bag prolly weighs that much....

I'd take Jimmy's titles and wins, but I'd want Rogers career prize money.

pc1 said:

Actually Connors has double Federer's tournaments at 148.

Click to expand...

1 Connors 109
2 Lendl 94
3 McEnroe 77
4 Federer 74
5 Sampras 64
6 Borg 62
6 Vilas 62
8 Agassi 60
9 Nastase 57
10 Becker 49
10 Nadal 49

floridatennisdude said:

I'd take Jimmy's titles and wins, but I'd want Rogers career prize money.

Click to expand...

Not me. I would rather have 16 grand slam titles over 8.

floridatennisdude said:

I'd take Jimmy's titles and wins, but I'd want Rogers career prize money.

Click to expand...

I'd much rather have Roger's titles and wins than Jimmy's... 16 majors to just 8. Career Slam too.

Connor's career achievements can be compare to Agassi and Lendl. Tough choice if you have to pick one of them.

Connors had to fight against, Borg, Mac, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, sampras, Agassi,Edberg....and other great players i think it was harder for connors.

TMF said:

Connor's career achievements can be compare to Agassi and Lendl. Tough choice if you have to pick one of them.

Click to expand...

I think Connors is clearly above either of those two guys. Agassi and Lendl never dominated like Connors did, and neither were as mentally strong.

TMF said:

1 Connors 109
2 Lendl 94
3 McEnroe 77
4 Federer 74
5 Sampras 64
6 Borg 62
6 Vilas 62
8 Agassi 60
9 Nastase 57
10 Becker 49
10 Nadal 49

Click to expand...

Inaccurate. It doesn't count many tournaments like the old WCT tournaments. Pancho Gonzalez I believe has three tournament victories according to the ATP or something like that. He won over 120 and I believe over 130 tournaments in his great career. Recent player records are very accurate because the system is in place. Note that the ATP doesn't count the majors Gonzalez won.

Amazing how a GOAT candidate has only three tournament victories. lol. Obviously the ATP records are very incomplete.
Here's Gonzalez's ATP record.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Go/R/Richard-Pancho-A-Gonzales.aspx?t=tf

Here's some more information on Gonzalez.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics

6-4, 2-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-0
Smith versus Tiriac, on clay at the Club Sportiv Progresul in Bucharest, Romania.

Ashe or Smith or Nastase?

TMF said:

1 Connors 109
2 Lendl 94
3 McEnroe 77
4 Federer 74
5 Sampras 64
6 Borg 62
6 Vilas 62
8 Agassi 60
9 Nastase 57
10 Becker 49
10 Nadal 49

Click to expand...

What jumps out at me here is Borg's number, considering how young he left the game. Compare to Agassi who was around for so many more years.

SusanDK said:

What jumps out at me here is Borg's number, considering how young he left the game. Compare to Agassi who was around for so many more years.

Click to expand...

Susan,

Borg's numbers are more impressive than that. He won 106 tournaments by the time he first retired at 25.

hoodjem said:

Ashe or Smith or Nastase?

Click to expand...

At their peaks they were very close. I'd go with Ashe. Ashe won a WCT, an Australian, a Wimbledon and the first US Open plus at least 71 tournaments according to Vainquers. Smith won a Wimbledon and a US Open plus a WCT. He won 59 tournaments according to Vainquers. Nastase won a French plus a US Open and at least 78 tournaments. You have to add four Year End Masters that he won also.

Actually in checking the records Ashe and Nastase are close but the four Year End Masters to me and the seven extra tournament wins gives it to Nastase in my opinion. They both are very close to me in pure talent.

To answer the question presented? Well, Federer. I mean, it's quite clear.

Nathaniel_Near said:

To answer the question presented? Well, Federer. I mean, it's quite clear.

Click to expand...

Is it really? You have a man who won 8 majors plus 148 tournaments versus a man who won 16 majors plus 74 tournaments.

Federer has a 81.55 winning percentage lifetime. Connors has a 81.76 winning percentage lifetime in a much longer career. Connors had his decline years and still has a winning percentage slightly higher than Federer. Federer hasn't had his bad decline period yet.

Federer has double the majors in an era where he plays all the majors. Connors didn't play all the majors in his prime.

So it's odd that Federer has double the majors won, Connors has double the total tournaments won at this point. It's almost sort of a symmetry here with the stats comparing Connors and Federer.

It doesn't seem that clear to me.

Jimmy's career is extremely impressive. What stands out is the longevity. Could Federer keep reaching quarter finals or better at majors for the next 6-7 years?

Federer has 16 majors while Connors has 8 majors, but Connors only played 2-3 majors per year in all the years of his career.

Mustard said:

Jimmy's career is extremely impressive. What stands out is the longevity. Could Federer keep reaching quarter finals or better at majors for the next 6-7 years?

Federer has 16 majors while Connors has 8 majors, but Connors only played 2-3 majors per year in all the years of his career.

Click to expand...

Excellent points Mustard.

I think that some of us have to realize that it's not set in stone that Federer is the GOAT as some seem to think. It's good to put Federer up there because it does help the tennis coverage for the media but it's not a FACT that his career is the most impressive. There have been a lot of impressive careers in tennis history. Connors is one of them.

The career records of many like Tilden, Gonzalez, Borg, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Kramer among others are fantastic.

Federer is the greater player with more GS wins, but Connors' career is greater still in many ways than Roger's, I believe. Connors helped popularize the game back in the booming TV era in the 70's along with the likes of Borg, BJK and Chrissie Evert. Connors had the rivalries with Bjorn, Mac and Lendl, the big money (back then) challenge matches with legends like Laver and also Newcombe, won doubles titles with Nasty, played till he was 40 (Roger is only 30 yet) and left us with many rich memories of amazing wins, stirring five set comebacks, dramatic five set losses, bad behaviour at times, granted, controversy, but he was rarely boring.
PS, I like Roger too, my preferred current player. At his peak, I would have to say he's a better player than Jimmy, but Jimmy was an all time great too and yeah, Jimbo was often just playing 2/3 Majors a year in his prime. The game (and therefore aims and objectives) was different back then.

The fun thing is that Connors never won a match against Wilander.

federer's career is more impressive even at this point
winning 16 majors , 6 wtf and 20 master shields plus many other 500 and 250 tournaments is better than 1000 mickey mouse tournaments
in addition he set many impressive records and he beat records that connors ( with his longevity ) used to hold

but what is more impressive is not all these numbers but the the level of play that he demonstrated that made experts assure with certainty that he is the best player to play the game

I RESPECT Connors a lot but it's unfair to compare him to the king
you could have compared him to other great players like MCenroe or Agassi ..

sometimes I wonder why some posters here try by all means to belittle Roger and his achievements and pretend to be objective
as if we didn't watch those players they're always talking about

if you want to be objective you must say the truth not by belittling some players and overrating others without any clear evidences

The only thing Connors has over Federer is the quality of 'talent' he was involved with. Connors had Chris Evert when she was young and cute, and then Patty McGuire. Mirka is a beautiful, loving woman I'm sure, but in purely shallow terms, Connors in five.

pc1 said:

Inaccurate. It doesn't count many tournaments like the old WCT tournaments. Pancho Gonzalez I believe has three tournament victories according to the ATP or something like that. He won over 120 and I believe over 130 tournaments in his great career. Recent player records are very accurate because the system is in place. Note that the ATP doesn't count the majors Gonzalez won.

Amazing how a GOAT candidate has only three tournament victories. lol. Obviously the ATP records are very incomplete.
Here's Gonzalez's ATP record.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Go/R/Richard-Pancho-A-Gonzales.aspx?t=tf

Here's some more information on Gonzalez.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics

Click to expand...

But generally people have Connors as the record holder at 109. During Roger's match at the FO when he was about to break conner's 233 matches win at the slam, Gilbert ask can Fed break Connor's 109 single titles? Mac said please let me[Connors] keep this record. I don't think he'll reach Connor's 109, but you do get my point that people placed Connors as the benchmark. In fact, if you search for all-time tennis records, it's Connors who's at the top for single titles, or just like the list I've posted above.

SusanDK said:

What jumps out at me here is Borg's number, considering how young he left the game. Compare to Agassi who was around for so many more years.

Click to expand...

Yes. He could add more titles to his 62 titles had he continue to play, but he chose to leave the sport so that's his fault.

Nathaniel_Near said:

To answer the question presented? Well, Federer. I mean, it's quite clear.

Click to expand...

That's why it doesn't make sense comparing between the two. Pete's 14 slams is already below 16 slams, let alone 8 slams from Connors. The tennis channel ranked Connors at #15, that's below other male players.

Mustard said:

Jimmy's career is extremely impressive. What stands out is the longevity. Could Federer keep reaching quarter finals or better at majors for the next 6-7 years?

Federer has 16 majors while Connors has 8 majors, but Connors only played 2-3 majors per year in all the years of his career.

Click to expand...

We will have to wait and see, if Fed stay healthy and fit, he could still be competitive at that age.

Well, there's no if, but, woulda, or shoulda. Connors didn't play and even if he did, no one knows what would be the outcome. If Nadal or even Fed retire today, you can't argue that they would win more base on pure conjecture.

TMF said:

But generally people have Connors as the record holder at 109. During Roger's match at the FO when he was about to break conner's 233 matches win at the slam, Gilbert ask can Fed break Connor's 109 single titles? Mac said please let me[Connors] keep this record. I don't think he'll reach Connor's 109, but you do get my point that people placed Connors as the benchmark. In fact, if you search for all-time tennis records, it's Connors who's at the top for single titles, or just like the list I've posted above.

Click to expand...

Federer's clearly broken Connors' record for most majors but it still has to be pointed out that Connors won far more than just 109 tournaments. The total of 148 is far more than 109 just as Pancho Gonzalez won far more than the three tournaments the ATP has him at. Personally I do think Federer has an outside shot at 100 because of his excellent generally injury free career.

Incidentally Borg retired at 106 tournaments won, not 62. You can't just go by the ATP.

A scientific ranking last year ranked Connors Nr. 1 among all open era players. That's a fact, no conjecture. Some may disagree, but no one can deny the fact. It was based on the strong competition, Connors played. So long the mickey mouse argument, which is simply silly. Its also a fact, that the 109 wins are pure incomplete ATP stats for open events. This doesn't cover anything going on before 1968 (and many events which were not sanctioned by the ATP since 1968). The ATP is constantly changing its own list (thanks to posters as Q and M). The percentage of Connors over his career in more than 1200 matches played is also a fact, and imo one of the most impressive records of the open era.

Suntory and beaver creek

Pebbles10 said:

The fun thing is that Connors never won a match against Wilander.

Click to expand...

No. Connors won the Tokyo suntory cup final in 1986 over wilander 6-4 6-0

Connors also won the beaver creek 1983 and 1985 finals over wilander, both times in straight sets.

timnz said:

No. Connors won the Tokyo suntory cup final in 1986 over wilander 6-4 6-0

Connors also won the beaver creek 1983 and 1985 finals over wilander, both times in straight sets.

Click to expand...

But never in an official match.

Iron Man said:

federer's career is more impressive even at this point
winning 16 majors , 6 wtf and 20 master shields plus many other 500 and 250 tournaments is better than 1000 mickey mouse tournaments
in addition he set many impressive records and he beat records that connors ( with his longevity ) used to hold

but what is more impressive is not all these numbers but the the level of play that he demonstrated that made experts assure with certainty that he is the best player to play the game

I RESPECT Connors a lot but it's unfair to compare him to the king
you could have compared him to other great players like MCenroe or Agassi ..

sometimes I wonder why some posters here try by all means to belittle Roger and his achievements and pretend to be objective
as if we didn't watch those players they're always talking about

if you want to be objective you must say the truth not by belittling some players and overrating others without any clear evidences

Click to expand...

It's not trying to belittle Federer by stating that it's not a slam dunk that he's better than Jimmy Connors. We are comparing him to Jimmy Connors for goodness sake not Joe Below Average Player. To say that Jimmy Connors won Mickey Mouse tournaments makes absolutely no sense.

For example if someone called Rod Laver definitely by far the GOAT I would say that was incorrect also and mention a number of players who can battle Laver for that title.

pc1 said:

Is it really? You have a man who won 8 majors plus 148 tournaments versus a man who won 16 majors plus 74 tournaments.

Federer has a 81.55 winning percentage lifetime. Connors has a 81.76 winning percentage lifetime in a much longer career. Connors had his decline years and still has a winning percentage slightly higher than Federer. Federer hasn't had his bad decline period yet.

Federer has double the majors in an era where he plays all the majors. Connors didn't play all the majors in his prime.

So it's odd that Federer has double the majors won, Connors has double the total tournaments won at this point. It's almost sort of a symmetry here with the stats comparing Connors and Federer.

It doesn't seem that clear to me.

Click to expand...

It was alot easier to win more tournaments back then as the game was far less physical. Navratilova and Evert have won 4 times the tournaments Serena has, I know they are greater players, but do you think they are 4 times as good. They have even won almost double what Steffi Graf did, and many consider Graf better than them. I am not one of those who thinks todays players are automatically better (like TMF) and I am not even referring to the competition (which I think in many cases was better then) just the general natural of the game and how it is more demanding on the body and harder to play as much or as long today.

I dont think anyone will EVER come close to the tournament win totals of people like Court, Laver, Navratilova, Evert, Connors, but will those players be forever a whole level above anyone else who will come. Nobody will ever again be capable of winning major titles in their 40s like Rosewall or Gonzales (they didnt but were contenders too), is that only because of them, or is it the changed natured of the game.

Leelord337 said:

I have to vote for Roger as the GOAT,

but Jimmy's numbers are just off the charts impressive.

It must really bug roger knowing that jimbo has that many more career wins/titles than him.

Click to expand...

Those are only ATP wins. Connors has total wins of about 140. So do Rosewall and Lendl. Laver has 200 total wins.

TMF said:

1 Connors 109
2 Lendl 94
3 McEnroe 77
4 Federer 74
5 Sampras 64
6 Borg 62
6 Vilas 62
8 Agassi 60
9 Nastase 57
10 Becker 49
10 Nadal 49

Click to expand...

Those are only ATP wins.

TMF said:

1 Connors 109
2 Lendl 94
3 McEnroe 77
4 Federer 74
5 Sampras 64
6 Borg 62
6 Vilas 62
8 Agassi 60
9 Nastase 57
10 Becker 49
10 Nadal 49

Click to expand...

Limpinhitter said:

Those are only ATP wins.

Click to expand...

As I wrote before the ATP has the great Pancho Gonzalez at three total tournament victories. :shock:

The actual total is over 120. In studying the Gonzalez actual career record it's quite stunning.

NadalAgassi said:

It was alot easier to win more tournaments back then as the game was far less physical. Navratilova and Evert have won 4 times the tournaments Serena has, I know they are greater players, but do you think they are 4 times as good. They have even won almost double what Steffi Graf did, and many consider Graf better than them. I am not one of those who thinks todays players are automatically better (like TMF) and I am not even referring to the competition (which I think in many cases was better then) just the general natural of the game and how it is more demanding on the body and harder to play as much or as long today.

I dont think anyone will EVER come close to the tournament win totals of people like Court, Laver, Navratilova, Evert, Connors, but will those players be forever a whole level above anyone else who will come. Nobody will ever again be capable of winning major titles in their 40s like Rosewall or Gonzales (they didnt but were contenders too), is that only because of them, or is it the changed natured of the game.

Click to expand...

One thing I do question is the notion that the game is tougher today? Is it really? By that logic all the women should be super brawny like the Incredible Hulk and yet you have tiny females like Justine Henin dominating just a few years ago. I wouldn't call Kim Clijsters a super brawny player either but I do think she's a gifted talent. How tough can these guys be if they complain about blue clay? Some of the past players played in the worst possible conditions, like in terrible rainstorms. That's the way I've heard the conditions of the US Pro final were that Laver and Gonzalez played in. The court was described as a bog. Yet they had to play it because I believe they had to go to another tournament the next day. And I understand it was a fantastic final.

The players years ago didn't have the private planes of today, the great hotels to live in. They couldn't sit down during odd games. And perhaps most of all, they played with heavy wooden racquets which if you use them regularly would take a lot out of you, especially considering the tens of thousand of swings that they had to take with them.

And the reason they won so many tournaments is that they entered a lot of tournaments I believe to make money. Tennis wasn't the huge money making sport it is today. The players played when injured and exhausted. They had no choice but to play. The players today can afford to be choosy and play less tournaments. I do not think Evert or Navratilova are many times the player Serena is but bear in mind Serena doesn't enter many tournaments. She takes time off, perhaps she's injured but over the course of her career she just doesn't entered many tournaments. How can you get credit for winning a tennis tournament if you don't enter many? In Serena's case I do believe she is one of the finest talents I've seen on a tennis court which is stating the obvious. A lot of people I know believe Serena, playing at her best may be the best female player ever. It's hard to say but I wouldn't rule it out.

pc1 said:

As I wrote before the ATP has the great Pancho Gonzalez at three total tournament victories. :shock:

Click to expand...

LOL at the ATP. Gonzales won 113 titles in his career, and during Gonzales' prime in the 1950s, professional tournaments usually weren't as important as the professional tours. Even in the open era, when Gonzales was in his 40s, I think he managed to win 11 tournaments, beating guys like Laver, Emerson, Ashe, Olmedo and Connors in those tournament finals.

Mustard said:

LOL at the ATP. Gonzales won 113 titles in his career, and during Gonzales' prime in the 1950s, professional tournaments usually weren't as important as the professional tours. Even in the open era, when Gonzales was in his 40s, I think he managed to win 11 tournaments, beating guys like Laver, Emerson, Ashe, Olmedo and Connors in those tournament finals.

Click to expand...

If you look at the Gonzalez career it is comparable or better than any player ever. I don't know how some can look at the ATP stats and make assumptions about all the great players in history from them if you know how incomplete the information is. I can't blame the ATP but you have to realize that in looking at the information you have to take it with a grain of salt.

urban said:

A scientific ranking last year ranked Connors Nr. 1 among all open era players. That's a fact, no conjecture. Some may disagree, but no one can deny the fact. It was based on the strong competition, Connors played. So long the mickey mouse argument, which is simply silly. Its also a fact, that the 109 wins are pure incomplete ATP stats for open events. This doesn't cover anything going on before 1968 (and many events which were not sanctioned by the ATP since 1968). The ATP is constantly changing its own list (thanks to posters as Q and M). The percentage of Connors over his career in more than 1200 matches played is also a fact, and imo one of the most impressive records of the open era.

Click to expand...

Well, that ranking only ranked wins against top ten players, not losses. It also gave you the same number of points for a win against a future top ten player or a long-past top ten player as it did for a current top ten player, which is also very flawed.

1477aces said:

Well, that ranking only ranked wins against top ten players, not losses. It also gave you the same number of points for a win against a future top ten player or a long-past top ten player as it did for a current top ten player, which is also very flawed.

Click to expand...

well, of course, its easy to overlook the flaws when it helps your argument ...

pc1 said:

Excellent points Mustard.

I think that some of us have to realize that it's not set in stone that Federer is the GOAT as some seem to think. It's good to put Federer up there because it does help the tennis coverage for the media but it's not a FACT that his career is the most impressive. There have been a lot of impressive careers in tennis history. Connors is one of them.

The career records of many like Tilden, Gonzalez, Borg, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Kramer among others are fantastic.

Click to expand...

forget about the GOAT argument for a moment ... consider just federer vs connors ...

the one and only argument connors has is longevity ...

even if consider the Masters/Dallas for Jimmy, his major tournaments win count still doesn't come close to fed's ...

fed has the better dominance, surface versatility, better in the majors .....there isn't a single surface that both played on where you could say jimmy was clearly better ( decoturf II comes close, but I'd say fed is better ) .....federer was/is better on grass, clay, indoors, HC ... everywhere ...

coming back to the GOAT argument

gonzalez, borg, rosewall, laver , Tilden have records closer to that of federer, but not connors,lendl and Kramer ... they are by some distance behind and it is very clear cut IMO ...

abmk said:

fed has the better dominance, surface versatility, better in the majors .....there isn't a single surface that both played on where you could say jimmy was clearly better ( decoturf II comes close, but I'd say fed is better ) .....federer was/is better on grass, clay, indoors, HC ... everywhere ...

Click to expand...

I'll take Federer on red clay (and okay, blue clay, if I must) .... but I'm really not sure Federer would have beaten Connors on Har-Tru clay, as he played in the '76 USO final. If Connors could beat Borg there, and Borg was already twice a winner at RG (still a level below the claycourter he would become, but obviously already at a Slam-winning level) ... I'm not sure Federer is better. That one looks close.

krosero said:

I'll take Federer on red clay (and okay, blue clay, if I must) .... but I'm really not sure Federer would have beaten Connors on Har-Tru clay, as he played in the '76 USO final. If Connors could beat Borg there, and Borg was already twice a winner at RG (still a level below the claycourter he would become, but obviously a Slam-winning level) ... I'm not sure Federer is better. That one looks close.

Click to expand...

it would probably be close on har-tru ... But connors did lose to orantes the year before he beat borg and to vilas the year after

but has fed even played on har-tru ? I don't think so ..

I did mention "surface that both played on" ...

abmk said:

it would probably be close on har-tru ... But connors did lose to orantes the year before he beat borg and to vilas the year after

but has fed even played on har-tru ? I don't think so ..

I did mention "surface that both played on" ...

Click to expand...

I missed that qualification, yes ... I doubt Federer has ever played on har-tru.

Connors lost comprehensively to Orantes, but Orantes slowed down the pace like no one I've ever seen, and that worked against Connors more than any single tactic. Not easy to do. Federer can change the pace and it would help him against Connors, but he's not the slowball touch artist that Orantes was (or I should say: the slowball artist that Orantes could be; he didn't always play that way, and was capable of quite a lot of different things; he beat Vilas in their famous match on Har-Tru with some surprising SV play, for example).

Even Orantes couldn't pull off the slowball strategy again when they met in the '77 quarters... Connors blasted him away then.

abmk said:

forget about the GOAT argument for a moment ... consider just federer vs connors ...

the one and only argument connors has is longevity ...

even if consider the Masters/Dallas for Jimmy, his major tournaments win count still doesn't come close to fed's ...

fed has the better dominance, surface versatility, better in the majors .....there isn't a single surface that both played on where you could say jimmy was clearly better ( decoturf II comes close, but I'd say fed is better ) .....federer was/is better on grass, clay, indoors, HC ... everywhere ...

coming back to the GOAT argument

gonzalez, borg, rosewall, laver , Tilden have records closer to that of federer, but not connors,lendl and Kramer ... they are by some distance behind and it is very clear cut IMO ...

Click to expand...

I will give you that statistically Federer is better in the majors but the better dominance comment doesn't pan out. If Federer is more dominant, why is his lifetime winning percentage slightly lower than Connors at 81.55 to 81.76? If Federer is more dominant he certainly doesn't prove it on the court? And Connors' career was longer and he had his big decline period already.

Everything you're mentioned about surface dominance is subjective. If this was true Federer would be winning far more than Connors by percentage and he doesn't.

It's not as though Connors played awful players on hard courts. He played Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe, Panatta, Nastase. On har tru he played Borg, Vilas, Orantes, McEnroe, Solomon, Dibbs among others and more than once for many of them. He played virtually all of these names indoors and some others like Rod Laver. He played Newcombe, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall, Tanner, Ashe, Stan Smith on grass.

At their peaks both were winning over 90% of their matches. Connors didn't play many majors at his peak and Federer did.

Kramer is tougher to examine. Kramer was the best player in the world for years and he was winning all those head to head tours. And he did win a number of amateur and pro majors. At his best Kramer was clearly comparable to Federer. Over his career it's tougher because of the tours. Overall I would go with Federer over Kramer for career.

I'm not saying Connors is better than Federer but I am saying it's not the easy choice some would think it would be because of the ASSUMPTION that Federer is the de facto GOAT.

Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. I think I may start a thread on this. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough. I'll give the stats later because I'm off to play tennis.

Edit-Back from tennis

Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

Total tournaments won
Tilden-161-est.
Federer-74

Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
Federer-16
We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won a Grand Slam or so.

Percentage of majors won
Tilden-14/42=.333
Federer-16/52=.308

Lifetime winning percentage
Tilden-.660-est
Federer-.8157
Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 26-47. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

Grand Slams won
Tilden-0
Federer-0

Percentage of tournaments won
Tilden-.520
Federer-.289

Winning percentage in best five years
Tilden-.980
Federer-.907

Look at the information and discuss.

Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

On clay, Kodes clearly surpasses Federer, at least in the majors.On grass, we can´t compare, since grass was much different then from the current turf...