4th best mens tennis player in history

4th best mens tennis player in history

  • Total voters
    28
R

rosewallGOAT

Banned
If we accept that Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver are the 3 best mens tennis players in history in whatever order who would be 4th. There seems to be alot of worthy candidates for 4th- Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Tilden, Borg, and I will include as many options as possible.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
rosewallGOAT aka nadalagassi aka davey25 ...

I think a more interesting question is in what position is this profile of yours among your own set of profiles ?

should we start research on that ? :lol:
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
rosewallGOAT said:
If we accept that Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver are the 3 best mens tennis players in history in whatever order who would be 4th. There seems to be alot of worthy candidates for 4th- Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Tilden, Borg, and I will include as many options as possible.
Click to expand...

rosewallGOAT, Fine that you have Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver as the three best (no order). In my opinion Tilden deserves fourth place (or tied third with Pancho).
 
Feather

Feather

Legend
abmk said:
rosewallGOAT aka nadalagassi aka davey25 ...

I think a more interesting question is in what position is this profile of yours among your own set of profiles ?

should we start research on that ? :lol:
Click to expand...

It's heights of desperation. NadalAgassi is trying to convince himself what he wants to believe and he knows very well that this will serve as a bait..

It's funny when you read these kind of topics and I pity the OP
 
Last edited:
R

rosewallGOAT

Banned
TMF said:
I certain don't because most fans believe Federer and Laver is #1 and #2.
Click to expand...

One thing to remember is Laver had less longevity at the top than both Gonzales and Rosewall, despite that he played in the same era essentialy as both. Gonzales and Rosewall were dominating in the 50s, yet still competitive until the early 70s when the much younger Laver was. Rosewall was even the last one to make slam finals of those despite being much older than Laver.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
rosewallGOAT said:
One thing to remember is Laver had less longevity at the top than both Gonzales and Rosewall, despite that he played in the same era essentialy as both. Gonzales and Rosewall were dominating in the 50s, yet still competitive until the early 70s when the much younger Laver was. Rosewall was even the last one to make slam finals of those despite being much older than Laver.
Click to expand...
It depends on what one means by "at the top."

If one means at the very top as the world's no. 1 player, then one could conclude that Tilden, Gonzales, and Laver are all tied.

Tilden--7 years as world no. 1
Gonzales--7 years as world no. 1
Rosewall--4 years as world no. 1
Laver--7 years as world no. 1
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Rosewall was able to hang around for a long time and that meant he picked up alot of trophies. But his peak wasn't as good as the other top tier greats.
 
1

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Clown threads. Don't try to compare pre open era players to open era players. If so, then Rosewall should be knocked off the list; at 5'7" 140 he can't compete in the modern era; you can't say for sure that Federer or Sampras would have been incompatible in other eras for sure/
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
rosewallGOAT said:
If we accept that Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver are the 3 best mens tennis players in history
Click to expand...

We don't.

Or, at least, I don't.

Here is my top 5:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Rosewall

In answer to the thread's question, then, I would say Pancho Gonzales.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
1477aces said:
Clown threads. Don't try to compare pre open era players to open era players. If so, then Rosewall should be knocked off the list; at 5'7" 140 he can't compete in the modern era; you can't say for sure that Federer or Sampras would have been incompatible in other eras for sure/
Click to expand...

His height/weight wasn't a problem in his heyday, but he would suffer in the modern era. Even Serena is heavier than him.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
rosewallGOAT said:
What elevates Tilden above the rest to 4th place in your opinion.
Click to expand...

rosewallGOAT, What elevates Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez? The same as Tilden elevates: A huge record, great achievements.

Tilden won 10 amateur majors and 4 pro majors. He has won at least 160 tournaments, more than Rosewal and Gonzalez. He had an astounding .936 win loss average as an amteur.

He won Wimbledon at 37, beat Budge at least 3 times in 1939 at 46 and had fine victories after WW2. In 1946 he lead 5-2 in the deciding set against champion,Riggs in a pro tournament when he was 53!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
His height/weight wasn't a problem in his heyday, but he would suffer in the modern era. Even Serena is heavier than him.
Click to expand...

Mighty Federer, Do you really believe Serena would have any chance against Rosewall??
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
rosewallGOAT, What elevates Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez? The same as Tilden elevates: A huge record, great achievements.

Tilden won 10 amateur majors and 4 pro majors. He has won at least 160 tournaments, more than Rosewal and Gonzalez. He had an astounding .936 win loss average as an amteur.

He won Wimbledon at 37, beat Budge at least 3 times in 1939 at 46 and had fine victories after WW2. In 1946 he lead 5-2 in the deciding set against champion,Riggs in a pro tournament when he was 53!
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy at it's finest, Tilden is given props by you for an incredible win percentage versus a field of amateurs yet you have the nerve to call the field Federer dominated weak. What a joke.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
NatF said:
Hypocrisy at it's finest, Tilden is given props by you for an incredible win percentage versus a field of amateurs yet you have the nerve to call the field Federer dominated weak. What a joke.
Click to expand...

NatF,

That is like one is trying to argue 1 > 10.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
rosewallGOAT said:
If we accept that Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver are the 3 best mens tennis players in history in whatever order who would be 4th. There seems to be alot of worthy candidates for 4th- Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Tilden, Borg, and I will include as many options as possible.
Click to expand...

I would accept Rosewall's own list of the top four players, all-time;

1) Hoad
Of course, this concentrates on only those years that Hoad played well, about 1953 to 1964. A brief period of eleven seasons, about the same as Borg or Laver.

2) Gonzales
Gonzales had a peak period from about 1949 to 1961, the year in which he won his last pro tour. Twelve years.

3) Laver
Laver's mature strong years were 1961 to 1971.
About ten years.

4) Federer
Fed had great years from 2003 to 2012. Nine years.

I would rank Rosewall, Sedgman, Sampras, Budge, Vines, Borg, McEnroe, Becker in order after this.
Kramer gets a special category all to himself; the champion of 100-match series. The true entrepreneur of the game.
 
Last edited:
S

Steffi-forever

Hall of Fame
OP # 22. Fed is the G.O.A.T.

Why are you obsessed with G.O.A.T. debate anyway? It's been like 7-8 years you're talking about it every single day. :/
 
1

1477aces

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
Mighty Federer, Do you really believe would have any chance against Rosewall??
Click to expand...

Federer would blow Rosewall off the court in the modern era; 5'7" 140. We can't say definitely that federer wouldn't have beat Rosewall in the pre-open era. Which is why its stupid to compare across the open era and pre-open era; fitness and the like didn't really matter till the 70's.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
I would accept Rosewall's own list of the top four players, all-time;

1) Hoad
Of course, this concentrates on only those years that Hoad played well, about 1953 to 1964. A brief period of eleven seasons, about the same as Borg or Laver.

2) Gonzales
Gonzales had a peak period from about 1949 to 1961, the year in which he won his last pro tour. Twelve years.

3) Laver
Laver's mature strong years were 1961 to 1971.
About ten years.

4) Federer
Fed had great years from 2003 to 2012. Nine years.

I would rank Rosewall, Sedgman, Sampras, Budge, Vines, Borg, McEnroe, Becker in order after this.
Kramer gets a special category all to himself; the champion of 100-match series. The true entrepreneur of the game.
Click to expand...

Dan, Gonzalez was much stronger in 1964 and later than in 1949!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
1477aces said:
Federer would blow Rosewall off the court in the modern era; 5'7" 140. We can't say definitely that federer wouldn't have beat Rosewall in the pre-open era. Which is why its stupid to compare across the open era and pre-open era; fitness and the like didn't really matter till the 70's.
Click to expand...

1477aces,

I understand: We cannot compare old and new tennis but we know that Federer would beat Rosewall. Fitness did not matter till the 1970? LOL, LOL, LOL...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
These top players obviously can't have been that good because they could barely beat Tilden. Those days lack the depth of the modern era.
Click to expand...

NatF, Or Tilden was that better than the other great players (Johnston, Richards, Borotra, Lacoste, Cochet) because he was awesome.
 
1

1477aces

Hall of Fame
BobbyOne said:
1477aces,

I understand: We cannot compare old and new tennis but we know that Federer would beat Rosewall. Fitness did not matter till the 1970? LOL, LOL, LOL...
Click to expand...

Rosewall was 5'7" 140. Have you watched tennis over the last 10 years? You need size and strength in today's game. Rosewall would be blown off the court by any top 20 player probably. Yes, fitness and strength didn't matter nearly as much as they do today till the 70's, as evidenced by the short and (relatively) weak Rosewall being the best player (arguably) of the pre-open era; or chain-smoker Gonzales reaching slam quarterfinals in his 40's. Can't happen in today's game. That's why we shouldn't compare people from pre-open era and the early 70's (like John Newcombe) and open-era players (starting with Borg, Connors, and their contemporaries).
 
T

Top Jimmy

Semi-Pro
I Love the fact that people have these set in stone ideas about players that they most likely have never watched in their lives. I call this the Jim Brown Effect. Whenever anyone talks about RB's in the NFL it's almost sacrilege to suggest anyone else is better. Ignoring the fact someone like Adrian Peterson is faster, stronger and played against much better competition. It's the same way with The Beatles, just because they came first doesn't mean they are the best.

I don't except the fact that because Tilden won a lot in his time that he should be considered the greatest. Fed and Sampras are playing at a different level than players in the past, it's the evolution of the sport.

Though Laver was pretty darn good from what I've watched.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
Top Jimmy said:
I Love the fact that people have these set in stone ideas about players that they most likely have never watched in their lives. I call this the Jim Brown Effect. Whenever anyone talks about RB's in the NFL it's almost sacrilege to suggest anyone else is better. Ignoring the fact someone like Adrian Peterson is faster, stronger and played against much better competition. It's the same way with The Beatles, just because they came first doesn't mean they are the best.

I don't except the fact that because Tilden won a lot in his time that he should be considered the greatest. Fed and Sampras are playing at a different level than players in the past, it's the evolution of the sport.

Though Laver was pretty darn good from what I've watched.
Click to expand...

It works both ways. Many people worship the old greats as gods but others dismiss any player from the past for the reasons you stated above. Neither viewpoint is fair in my opinion.

I think it is fairly obvious when someone has fallen completely into one of these extremes, and it is a pity that they are usually blind to it.

This thread is a joke anyway, so don't worry about it too much. :)
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Dan, Gonzalez was much stronger in 1964 and later than in 1949!
Click to expand...

No, I don't see that.

Looking at Gonzales' year in 1964, he won the Cleveland "World Pro Championships", the Jack March event, no longer pretending to be the U.S. Pro, over Gimeno.
A remarkable win at White Plains, the Golden Raquet at Wembley (not the big tournament), Knokke-Le-Zoute in Belgium, the Florida Pro (over Bartzen and Giammalva).

Gonzales did well enough to finish third overall for the 1964 tour of USA and Europe.

In 1949, he was 21 years old, and could run all day, outlasting Schroeder in the Forest Hills final and PSW final. He also beat Sedgman in the Davis Cup final.
These were his first mature wins against a top player.

Although he started slowly against Kramer on the pro tour, he gradually improved and had a substantial edge on the California portion of the tour, 8 wins to 4.
Gonzales won his biggest tournament meeting with Kramer in his rookie season in the Philadelphia final, the most important event of the season, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4. A no-doubter.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
rosewallGOAT said:
If we accept that Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver are the 3 best mens tennis players in history in whatever order who would be 4th. There seems to be alot of worthy candidates for 4th- Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Tilden, Borg, and I will include as many options as possible.
Click to expand...
It is odd and perhaps "funny" that a poster with this moniker should originate such a post--I have Rosewall as fourth on my GOAT-list.
 
Devilito

Devilito

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
Sampras has nothing on Federer except the 6 YE #1's...no way is ahead now, especially since Federer has matched or exceeded his achievements on every surface.
Click to expand...

comparing stats / numbers between different generations is meaningless. The sport changes so much that what's relevant now in terms of stats may not have been so just 10 years ago. Tennis is not baseball. I know how much American's just loooooove their stupid stats :rolleyes:
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Devilito said:
comparing stats / numbers between different generations is meaningless. The sport changes so much that what's relevant now in terms of stats may not have been so just 10 years ago. Tennis is not baseball. I know how much American's just loooooove their stupid stats :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry but slams, weeks at #1, YEC's etc...were all just as important in Pete's time. Federer is the more rounded player as well.

P.S...I'm not American.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
No, I don't see that.

Looking at Gonzales' year in 1964, he won the Cleveland "World Pro Championships", the Jack March event, no longer pretending to be the U.S. Pro, over Gimeno.
A remarkable win at White Plains, the Golden Raquet at Wembley (not the big tournament), Knokke-Le-Zoute in Belgium, the Florida Pro (over Bartzen and Giammalva).

Gonzales did well enough to finish third overall for the 1964 tour of USA and Europe.

In 1949, he was 21 years old, and could run all day, outlasting Schroeder in the Forest Hills final and PSW final. He also beat Sedgman in the Davis Cup final.
These were his first mature wins against a top player.

Although he started slowly against Kramer on the pro tour, he gradually improved and had a substantial edge on the California portion of the tour, 8 wins to 4.
Gonzales won his biggest tournament meeting with Kramer in his rookie season in the Philadelphia final, the most important event of the season, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4. A no-doubter.
Click to expand...

Dan, Being third behind Rosewall and Laver is pretty good. Pancho was stronger as a pro than as an amateur.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
It is odd and perhaps "funny" that a poster with this moniker should originate such a post--I have Rosewall as fourth on my GOAT-list.
Click to expand...

hoodjem, I'm happy with any poster or expert who has Rosewall among the four or five best. Remember Tennis Channel (Rosewall 13) and Limpinhitter (Rosewall not among the 13)...
 
M

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Since Donald Young wasn't an option, I had to give it to the one of the only ones who could possibly compete with his GOATness today. So, Federer.

Also, what's up with Agassi/McEnroe being options?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Who is the 10th best female and male players of all time
Replies
39
Views
862
thrust
T
R
  • Poll
3rd best mens and 2nd best womens player of all time
2
Replies
90
Views
3K
lewisgibson
L
R
  • Poll
3rd best female tennis player in history
Replies
34
Views
4K
rosewallGOAT
R
U
Tennis at the garden. Some History
Replies
6
Views
1K
Leublu tennis
Leublu tennis
deacsyoga
  • Poll
2nd best female player of all time
2 3
Replies
129
Views
5K
mtincoronel76
mtincoronel76
Top