To me the former shows greater distribution.
It is obvious you don't have a clue about Mathematics or just Statistics
To me the former shows greater distribution.
I'm not sure of your point.
If looked at in a very forensic light, neither Sampras nor Nadal's 14 majors are especially 'aesthetically well balanced'.
Sampras of course has the big fat zero at the FO.
Nadal, while having won all majors at least once, is also in the position where he has won four and a half times more at his best slam (9), than at any other slam (2).
Again, I'm not sure either man has a particular advantage.
well i can understand that as he/ she doesn't like nadal and may be thinks a player with his play style should not be in the top 10. but i don't think he has such biases regarding others... why is agassi ahead of lendl when aside from the career slam lendl is ahead in every criteria?
Stop trolling.
Agassi is one of the most versatile and complete players of all time. AA did the career slam on vastly different surfaces in the 90s. He was balanced off both wings, probably the greatest returner of all time. His game would be successful in any era.
1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Rosewall
4. Tilden
5. Federer
6. Nadal
7. Sampras
8. Borg
9. Budge
10. Connors or Lendl
Can you explain how you rank Tilden and Budge? I often don't rank them, not because I'm certain they don't belong in the top 10 of all time, but because I don't know how to compare their achievements with the other top players: how to put them in a precise place.
lol at Nadal being any less than number 8.
Nadal being as low as 8th is ridiculous at this point too. There is no way he is any lower than say 5th. I think he is more likely top 3 at this point though.
It is a mathematical fact that 0 2 5 7 is more evenly distributed than 1 2 2 9.
Dan, You make me tired with your wrong statements.
No single expert ever has given Hoad a true No.1 ranking!
Gonzalez dominated at least 5 years, Hoad dominated never, also not in 1959. At the most he was equal with Gonzalez that year. AWAKE!
It is obvious that NEITHER is evenly distributed.
Amazing! Your top-8 and mine are the same names, with only tiny differences in the order.
1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Rosewall
4. Tilden
5. Federer
6. Nadal
7. Sampras
8. Borg
9. Budge
10. Connors or Lendl
His ranking for Tilden is as follows;
"He's an older player so I will get props from the posters in the Former Pro section. He also dominated his era therefore I can place him above Federer without raising too many eyebrows."
I guarantee his arguments for placing Tilden there will be superficial at best. He'll talk about Federer dominating a weak era while ignoring completely that the 20's were certainly 3 steps below the modern game in terms of competition.
Hey, Bobby, wherever you are, I guess you don't regard Gardner Mulloy as a tennis expert.
Brilliant logic, old boy.
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Laver
4. Pancho
5. Budge
6 Sampras
7. Borg
8. Lendl
9. Rosewall
10. Connors
His ranking for Tilden is as follows;
"He's an older player so I will get props from the posters in the Former Pro section. He also dominated his era therefore I can place him above Federer without raising too many eyebrows."
I guarantee his arguments for placing Tilden there will be superficial at best. He'll talk about Federer dominating a weak era while ignoring completely that the 20's were certainly 3 steps below the modern game in terms of competition.
Rosewall, Rosewall so low?
It is obvious that NEITHER is evenly distributed.
Mathematically, the "most evenly" way of winning 14 GS would be:
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Mathematically, 2 0 7 5 is closer to that distribution than 1 9 2 2.
Dan, I'm back again (don't know why I was banned, by the way).
Mulloy's first name is Gardnar. I'm sure he never called Hoad the GOAT.
Dan, I'm back again (don't know why I was banned, by the way).
Mulloy's first name is Gardnar. I'm sure he never called Hoad the GOAT.
I have Tilden top-4 as well. I think including level of competition is fine, but not including it is also fine.
Every single sport has matured over the years. Golfers now are - on the whole - so much bigger than they were in Bobby Jones' time (Jones was 5'8"), but Jones is commonly in Top 10 all-time rankings. Baseball pitchers now are taller, stronger, and throw harder than the ones Babe Ruth faced, but it doesn't matter ... Ruth is on everyone's top 10 all-time list. Same goes with Bill Russell in basketball, Jim Brown in football, Gordie Howe in hockey.
All you can do is dominate your era, and Tilden did that as thoroughly as any player ever. Nobody in history has his combination of prolonged dominance and prolonged relevance. He also had celebrity status, and filled Madison Square Garden for matches, and helped popularize the pro tour.
The guy played competitively for 30 years, dominated for most of a decade, was still relevant into his mid-40s, and helped a growing sport gain worldwide attention. Not sure what else you want the poor guy to do.
Also people are diminishing the fact of winning 9 times a GS is. Not even Fed or Laver could manage doing this. Being 66-1 in a slam ( the only slam of that surface) alone stands alone for the most impressive feat in tennis... And it gets double more impressive when you do that in a 10 years span. Yes fed won wimbledon , but only 7 times in the same span. How can you only lose 1 time in a whole decade playing the most physically and mentally taxing slam ever is just out of my understanding...
Totally lack of amsingle slam is worse in my opinion, and we arent even tslking sbout slam finals.
3,9,5,3 destroys the final slam resume of sampras being 3,0,7,8.
Also when slam tally is tied the one with most finals goes up, slams are the golden medals and finals are the silver ones.
Rafa should be high concerning slams because 14-6 > 14-4
Also career slam/golden slam, 3+ finals on every slam, Its not even close when it comes to titles rafa is superior to sampras.... He also has singles gold medal and 16 m1000 more.. The 5 wtf are far from compensating those 17 extra titles... Plus you know wtf nowadays is far from being a slam.. Its just a little over an m1000, nobody cries when theybwin m1000 because its nowhere prestigious like a slam.. More like a higher paid exho with round robin format, scheduled in the end of the season... Maybe in lendl era it was more importsnt... But the likes of davydenko or nalbandian are well known fornbeing good players not for their master cup. On the other hand when you win a slam you turn into the 1 time slam winner, like wawrinka or delpo.
Also 20 of his 64 title are of atp 250 category. Rafa has only 7 atp 250. So regarding titles/finals and achievements its not even close, rafa edges sampras from every angle.
The only thing that remains as an advantage for sampras is ye#1 and weeks. But even if younconvert those points needed to keep the #1 you will be surprised how sampras didnt earn more points than rafa, and in some cases even less. Some years rafa held the #1 winning one slam and doing bad in the rest.. That doenst happen this days...
nadal being lower than 3 is a joke.
Totally lack of amsingle slam is worse in my opinion, and we arent even tslking sbout slam finals.
3,9,5,3 destroys the final slam resume of sampras being 3,0,7,8.
Also when slam tally is tied the one with most finals goes up, slams are the golden medals and finals are the silver ones.
Rafa should be high concerning slams because 14-6 > 14-4
Also career slam/golden slam, 3+ finals on every slam, Its not even close when it comes to titles rafa is superior to sampras.... He also has singles gold medal and 16 m1000 more.. The 5 wtf are far from compensating those 17 extra titles... Plus you know wtf nowadays is far from being a slam.. Its just a little over an m1000, nobody cries when theybwin m1000 because its nowhere prestigious like a slam.. More like a higher paid exho with round robin format, scheduled in the end of the season... Maybe in lendl era it was more importsnt... But the likes of davydenko or nalbandian are well known fornbeing good players not for their master cup. On the other hand when you win a slam you turn into the 1 time slam winner, like wawrinka or delpo.
Also 20 of his 64 title are of atp 250 category. Rafa has only 7 atp 250. So regarding titles/finals and achievements its not even close, rafa edges sampras from every angle.
The only thing that remains as an advantage for sampras is ye#1 and weeks. But even if younconvert those points needed to keep the #1 you will be surprised how sampras didnt earn more points than rafa, and in some cases even less. Some years rafa held the #1 winning one slam and doing bad in the rest.. That doenst happen this days...
nadal being lower than 3 is a joke.
Hum no. Masters 1000 weren't mandatory tournaments in the 90's, and some other tournaments awarded more money and ranking point. That's why Sampras, Agassi and many more top players of the 90's missed so many Masters 1000. Nadal win a race that Sampras didn't run.
As for World Tour Finals, they are not equal to a slam but far superior to a Master 1000.
Davydenko went through Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic when he won it 2009.
In which Master 1000 did Nadal went through such a field? In Madrid 2014 he played Batista Agut in the SF and Nishikori in the final...
I agree with you that Nadal's record is more evenly spread than Sampras (Nadal is now a favorite for every slams he enter!), but Sampras still have the weeks and the Master cups.
Davydenko wiki page - His biggest achievement to date was winning the 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, and he has also won three ATP Masters Series.
Nalbandian wiki page - He was runner-up at the 2002 Wimbledon Championships and the winner of the Tennis Masters Cup in 2005.
The Master Cup is the most important tournament after the slams. The solo fact that in the past 10 years - Federer 5 titles, Djokovic 3.
He needs to do more on a surface other than clay.
Well you keep trumpeting Hoad as #1 all time (ROTFL) and Nadal has more slams even off clay than Hoad has in his entire career.
Interesting objection.
But Hoad has more great match victories than Raf ever dreamed of.
And more great showings on clay than Raf.
Interesting objection.
But Hoad has more great match victories than Raf ever dreamed of.
And more great showings on clay than Raf.
The bit in bold is one of the most ridiculous assertions ever made on this forum.
I have Tilden top-4 as well. I think including level of competition is fine, but not including it is also fine.
Every single sport has matured over the years. Golfers now are - on the whole - so much bigger than they were in Bobby Jones' time (Jones was 5'8"), but Jones is commonly in Top 10 all-time rankings. Baseball pitchers now are taller, stronger, and throw harder than the ones Babe Ruth faced, but it doesn't matter ... Ruth is on everyone's top 10 all-time list. Same goes with Bill Russell in basketball, Jim Brown in football, Gordie Howe in hockey.
All you can do is dominate your era, and Tilden did that as thoroughly as any player ever. Nobody in history has his combination of prolonged dominance and prolonged relevance. He also had celebrity status, and filled Madison Square Garden for matches, and helped popularize the pro tour.
The guy played competitively for 30 years, dominated for most of a decade, was still relevant into his mid-40s, and helped a growing sport gain worldwide attention. Not sure what else you want the poor guy to do.
I am very humble about my achievements. We all know deep down I am #1.
Welcome back!! Great to have you back on TT.
Also people are diminishing the fact of winning 9 times a GS is. Not even Fed or Laver could manage doing this. Being 66-1 in a slam ( the only slam of that surface) alone stands alone for the most impressive feat in tennis... And it gets double more impressive when you do that in a 10 years span. Yes fed won wimbledon , but only 7 times in the same span. How can you only lose 1 time in a whole decade playing the most physically and mentally taxing slam ever is just out of my understanding...
He rated Hoad as number one for 1961.
He did not mention Rosewall for consideration of this honour.
The bit in bold is one of the most ridiculous assertions ever made on this forum.
Ah, I was hoping someone would bite.
Yes, Hoad had a great clay record, exceeding Raf in quality of opposition.
His record against Roswall on clay between 1952 and 1960 was 15 to 7 by my count (Bobby insists on adding the indeterminate surfaces of the 1959 Grand Prix d' Europe stops to make it 16 to 11).
These include some of the greatest red clay matches ever, including the 1957 The Hague final, won by Hoad at 8-6 in the fifth set, if memory serves.
And the Japanes Pro final in 1960, a legendary match won by Hoad at 6-2, 0-6, 3-6, 6-1, 11-9.
A Kramer Cup win in 1962 against Gimeno on the red clay of Turin 2-6, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4.
Also, wins over Trabert, another clay giant, at Roland Garros in 1958 and 1960.
And a series of wins on clay against Davidson in 1956 (Davidson defeated Rosewall at RG in 1954, and was runner-up at RG in 1955 and 1956 (the latter to Hoad), and RG champion in 1957, before injury stopped his career.
And last, but not least, wins at RG over Pasarell at 6-4, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4 and the Italian Open against Orantes at 6-2 in the fifth set, both in 1970, when Hoad was a 35-year old retired legend.