Djokovic greater than Lendl & Emerson?

Who's greater (as of now)?


  • Total voters
    95

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I am wondering will you ever stop living in denial...

Rosewall has never won a single Channel Slam, let alone three of those. The Channel Slam means winning both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, so Rosewall is out of contest since he never won Wimbledon.

I believe that there is no difference between Roland Garros and French Pro and between Wimbledon and Wembley Pro in your parallel universe, but, in reality, those are different tournaments.

Living in denial is your job!

Rosewall won the Channel Slam from 1960 to 1962: He won at Paris (French Pro, on clay) and one week later (!) at London, Wembley which was the top event of the year and more important than Wimbledon!!! At Wembley he won on wood which is the fastest surface at all...

The term "Channel Slam" is not an official one like "Grand Slam". You have the right to refer to Wimbledon. I have the right to refer to Wembley. So easy is the case...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
He'll never stop pumping up Rosewall's resume, or pretending that Bud Collins is in agreement with him on everything.

He's basically a fraud pretending to be an expert.

1983, You are an idiot pretending to be a poster about tennis!

I never said that Bud agrees with all I say. But he called my the "Authoritative Austrian" and agrees regarding Rosewall as one of only four GOAT candidates...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
When djokovic wins his 8th slam, he will be greater than lendl. But to be greater than emerson he needs to win atleast 11 slams. I hope he will ;)

Noleberic, Djokovic is already ahead of Emerson. Emmo was never a top four player, Djokovic was and is a No.1 player! Don't count only amateur majors!!!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
But you know what's puzzling me?

Rosewall's career is impressive! No matter how you slice is, the fact that he won every single Pro Major he entered between 1960-1963 (nine of them) is simply astonishing. Not to mention the number of other Majors he won and the fact that he was probably the most consistent top player in tennis history.
And all those great achievements are not enough for Bobby - he had to make it up by stating that Rosewall has won three Channel Slams.

That's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous is that a man who does know about the importance of the old pro events, blames me for just mentioning Rosewall's pro achievements including his fantastic streak of three Channel Slams in a row...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TheMightyFederer,

If you still consider the Tennis Channel list as a serious list, you must be aware of being called a troll...

Just because your list aren't the same as the experts from the tennis channel doesn't mean you have more merit. These expert team are well respected for knowledge. Stop insulting them.

The point is that no serious expert should place Gonzales outside the Top 20.

In fact, no serious expert should place him outside the Top 5
.

Steve Flink doesn't have Gonazles in the top 5. His top 5 are

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Kramer
5. Tilden
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
Living in denial is your job!

Rosewall won the Channel Slam from 1960 to 1962: He won at Paris (French Pro, on clay) and one week later (!) at London, Wembley which was the top event of the year and more important than Wimbledon!!! At Wembley he won on wood which is the fastest surface at all...

No, Rosewall has never won the Channel Slam.

The term "Channel Slam" is not an official one like "Grand Slam". You have the right to refer to Wimbledon. I have the right to refer to Wembley. So easy is the case...

Channel Slam means winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, at least in minds of people who live in reality. A term "Channel Slam" doesn't need to be recognized and accepted by ITF, it's a colloquial term in tennis which refers to impressive achievement of winning both FO and Wimbledon in the same season and it's widely recognized as it.

You obviously cannot live with the fact that your beloved childhood hero Rosewall failed to win Wimbledon (partially because he wasn't able to compete during his best years), so you chose to deliberately change the meaning of the "Channel Slam" term just to make your idol look superior. Sorry, he didn't win the Channel Slam, deal with it.
 

Tenez101

Banned
Still greater than Emerson and still lesser than Lendl. Will take one more slam at least to talk about changing things.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011, Thanks for that question. Personally I rank Rosewall first together with Laver (Gonzalez and Tilden being tough contenders for GOAT) but I know I'm in a small minority with this ranking. But I claim that every true expert should Muscles rank at least among the top five, as f.i. Bud Collins does now. His top four are (chronologically) Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, with Borg and Federer tough followers.

I use to rank according to achievements plus playing level plus talent (touch and so on) with the main emphasis at achievements (records, results).

Laver's biggest assets are his two (or three) Grand Slams (currently called CYGS), his at least 200 tournament wins, his high peak level and other things.

The true Grand Slam is still regarded as the very greatest feat in tennis.

Rosewall's biggest assets are his 23 (or 25) majors won, his 23 years among the top ten (16 out of them among the top three, arguably 7 years at No.1 if we include the tied places), his three Channel Slams,, his nine winning majors in a row (where he participated), his five wins at the (then) most important tournament, Wembley, and other things like his unbelievable longevity (won tournaments from 1951 to 1977!!).

It's so difficult for me (and maybe others) to differentiate between Laver and Rosewall and Gonzalez and Tilden.

I think that Tilden and Federer played at least partly in a weaker era.

Thanks for providing all this information BobbyOne- very interesting indeed. Before the semi finals started last week Jimmy Connors was discussing his very first SF at Wimbledon against Rosewall[I think he said it was in 72] and how it was a privilege for him to play against such a great player. They showed a couple of points from the match- a delight to watch. Also Rosewall was in the crowd during the Raonic/Kyrgios match and John Lloyd was saying that Ken's still a terrific player even now and that his backhand is as deadly as ever!

I love watching the modern game but I think it's also important to remember the greats like Rosewall because let's face it, if it weren't for players like him one could argue that the game wouldn't have ever evolved like it has done. A true legend of the sport! :)
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Thanks for providing all this information BobbyOne- very interesting indeed. Before the semi finals started last week Jimmy Connors was discussing his very first SF at Wimbledon against Rosewall[I think he said it was in 72] and how it was a privilege for him to play against such a great player. They showed a couple of points from the match- a delight to watch. Also Rosewall was in the crowd during the Raonic/Kyrgios match and John Lloyd was saying that Ken's still a terrific player even now and that his backhand is as deadly as ever!

I love watching the modern game but I think it's also important to remember the greats like Rosewall because let's face it, if it weren't for players like him one could argue that the game wouldn't have ever evolved like it has done. A true legend of the sport! :)

Neither of them played the Wimbledon semis in 72
Smith vs Kodes and Nastase vs Orantes
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Thanks for providing all this information BobbyOne- very interesting indeed. Before the semi finals started last week Jimmy Connors was discussing his very first SF at Wimbledon against Rosewall[I think he said it was in 72] and how it was a privilege for him to play against such a great player. They showed a couple of points from the match- a delight to watch. Also Rosewall was in the crowd during the Raonic/Kyrgios match and John Lloyd was saying that Ken's still a terrific player even now and that his backhand is as deadly as ever!

I love watching the modern game but I think it's also important to remember the greats like Rosewall because let's face it, if it weren't for players like him one could argue that the game wouldn't have ever evolved like it has done. A true legend of the sport! :)

It was the 1974 Wimbledon final.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Neither of them played the Wimbledon semis in 72
Smith vs Kodes and Nastase vs Orantes

Oh I must be mistaken then, I was sure he said it was the Wimbledon SF. Did they not meet in the QF instead? Perhaps Jimmy was having a slight memory lapse at the time. :wink:
 

kiki

Banned
Oh I must be mistaken then, I was sure he said it was the Wimbledon SF. Did they not meet in the QF instead? Perhaps Jimmy was having a slight memory lapse at the time. :wink:

If memory serves well, Rosewall did not play that year and Connors lost to Nastase in the last eight round.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Before the semi finals started last week Jimmy Connors was discussing his very first SF at Wimbledon against Rosewall[I think he said it was in 72] and how it was a privilege for him to play against such a great player. They showed a couple of points from the match- a delight to watch. Also Rosewall was in the crowd during the Raonic/Kyrgios match and John Lloyd was saying that Ken's still a terrific player even now and that his backhand is as deadly as ever!

I love watching the modern game but I think it's also important to remember the greats like Rosewall because let's face it, if it weren't for players like him one could argue that the game wouldn't have ever evolved like it has done. A true legend of the sport! :)
It was the 1974 Wimbledon final.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWLkvJIgOpI
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I am wondering will you ever stop living in denial...

Rosewall has never won a single Channel Slam, let alone three of those. The Channel Slam means winning both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, so Rosewall is out of contest since he never won Wimbledon.

I believe that there is no difference between Roland Garros and French Pro and between Wimbledon and Wembley Pro in your parallel universe, but, in reality, those are different tournaments.

Martin J, Equal how you call Rosewall's fantastic achievement 1960-1962, if Channel Slam or The Grand Double or Shistyshasty, the Paris/London double is arguably his greatest feat at all. When I told Ken this my opinion he did not contradict in his next letter. But I think that Muscles rates his two Dallas finals as his greatest achievement.

I would not want to live in your universe of wrong reasoning and wrongly considering tennis history!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
He'll never stop pumping up Rosewall's resume, or pretending that Bud Collins is in agreement with him on everything.

He's basically a fraud pretending to be an expert.

Phoenix1983, I would be cautious calling me a fraud. You know there is a rigid administrator who banned me for much milder words.....
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Just because your list aren't the same as the experts from the tennis channel doesn't mean you have more merit. These expert team are well respected for knowledge. Stop insulting them.



Steve Flink doesn't have Gonazles in the top 5. His top 5 are

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Kramer
5. Tilden

TMF, You are about the only person who cares what that idiotic T.C. list claims!!

Steve Flink: Sampras ahead of Laver??? Kramer ahead of Gonzalez?? Very strange. Learn history,TMF, my friend and don't trust troll experts who claim that Emerson is much greater than Pancho Gonzalez!!!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No, Rosewall has never won the Channel Slam.



Channel Slam means winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, at least in minds of people who live in reality. A term "Channel Slam" doesn't need to be recognized and accepted by ITF, it's a colloquial term in tennis which refers to impressive achievement of winning both FO and Wimbledon in the same season and it's widely recognized as it.

You obviously cannot live with the fact that your beloved childhood hero Rosewall failed to win Wimbledon (partially because he wasn't able to compete during his best years), so you chose to deliberately change the meaning of the "Channel Slam" term just to make your idol look superior. Sorry, he didn't win the Channel Slam, deal with it.

You are an ignoramus: You concede that Channel Slam is not an official term (by the way, it was not known even ten years ago) but yet refuse to accept that Rosewall has won three of them! It's ridiculous! By the way I doubt you will find that term in a tennis book...

My childhood hero was NOT Rosewall! It was Roy Emerson till I realized (by studying the pro records) that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez and Hoad were much greater.

A question: How should I call a feat when a player wins the top claycourt and the top pro event at all (Roland Garros and Wembley) in the same year (even in the same two weeks) other than Channel Slam???
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
How should I call a feat when a player wins the top claycourt and the top pro event at all (Roland Garros and Wembley) in the same year (even in the same two weeks) other than Channel Slam???

From this day forward, the winner of the Channel Slam shall forever be known as the:
images
 

crash1929

Hall of Fame
OP: Seles and Lendl way too low.

Margeret Court , 24? Why isn't she #1? I had heard the name before but know nothing else about her. Time to hit youtube/google.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Thanks for providing all this information BobbyOne- very interesting indeed. Before the semi finals started last week Jimmy Connors was discussing his very first SF at Wimbledon against Rosewall[I think he said it was in 72] and how it was a privilege for him to play against such a great player. They showed a couple of points from the match- a delight to watch. Also Rosewall was in the crowd during the Raonic/Kyrgios match and John Lloyd was saying that Ken's still a terrific player even now and that his backhand is as deadly as ever!

I love watching the modern game but I think it's also important to remember the greats like Rosewall because let's face it, if it weren't for players like him one could argue that the game wouldn't have ever evolved like it has done. A true legend of the sport! :)

Djoker, Thanks.

I must correct you: Rosewall and Connors never met in a Wimbledon SF or in another SF at all because very old Rosewall was still so strong that he always reached the final against Jimbo! Bad luck because I'm sure that Rosewall would have had better chances against peak Connors if they met in a first or second round (old R. not as much tired as in a final after winng all matches before the final). Their Wimbledon match was in 1974. Muscles had beaten strong grasscourters, Tanner, Newcombe (No.1 of the world at that time) and Smith before the final, the last after a five set match when Stan Smith had a matchpoint in the third set tie-breaker.

Connors and Rosewall also met in the 1974 US Open final (bad loss of R.), in the 1975 North Conway final, in the 1976 Las Vegas final and in the 1977 Sydney indoors final where Muscles gave Jimbo a great fight even though he was 43 at that time and Connors was the No.1 or 2 indoor player.

But these two great players had played a match at Los Angeles already in 1972 (an early round) when Rosewall defeated Connors 6-3, 6-2 who even at only 20 had already won six tournament before that encounter.

I doubt that Rosewall's backhand is still terrific at 79 but probably still a delight to watch...

Ken informed me that this year is probably the last year of visiting Wimbledon.

Yes, without Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez there never would be a modern pro circuit. They played so good at the old pros that finally open tournaments were founded in 1968.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
But it also doesn't mean that Bobby's list is without merit altogether.

Thanks, man from the Antarctica penthouse.

I must concede it's not too difficult to make better all-time rankings than those of Tennis Channel... They (almost) only counted who has won more GS tournaments and "forgot" that a Gonzalez could not participate for 18 (!) years and Rosewall for 11 years but both (and Laver of course) won so many big pro majors and were No.1 in the world for many years whereas Emerson never was a true No.1 player. Thus they rank Emerson ahead of both of them even though every true expert knows that he was not better than them...
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Considering Federer has more "Majors" than Rosewall, and that all of his came against professionals, Bobby's list is dubious at best and ridiculous at worst.

Rosewall has still more majors than Federer even if we omit his four amateur Grand Slam tournaments...

Note: the discussion was about the stupid Tennis Channel list (Emerson far ahead of Gonzalez and so on) and NOT regarding majors won!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
OP: Seles and Lendl way too low.

Margeret Court , 24? Why isn't she #1? I had heard the name before but know nothing else about her. Time to hit youtube/google.

Mate, if you only count GS titles you will crash...

Court won 11 Australian "Open" where there was sometimes a weak field participating.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
It's impossible for anyone(even Bud Collins) can come up with a perfect 100 list that can satisfy all fans. There will always a disagreement anywhere on the line.

In fact each and everyone of us can list the top 20 and I don't think there's going to be any identical list.

I understand that and I am fine with minor discrepancies, but there are few people who exist with any legitimate argument over Pancho Gonzales. I personally have Pancho #2 behind only Laver, but would be willing to concede arguments for Rosewall, Tilden, and Federer. Really anyone else has no business being mentioned.

Don't fall into the "slams are everything" trap. Even when Novak was on 6 slams and Wilander was on 7, the general consensus still seemed to be Nole>Wilander. So even if Novak gets to 9 slams, that doesn't necessarily put him above Lendl if Ivan still has more weeks at #1, more YE#1, more Masters, more WTFs etc

Agreed, I'd say the only # to be definitively above purely on slams is 11 (same as Borg), 9-10 you have other factors, but most likely 10 would pass him. I would actually say 9 is unlikely to pass him because of the sheer volume of what Lendl has done.

Lendl is basically the gatekeeper to tier 1, passing him is pretty much akin to joining that elite club.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg and Becker combined>>>Federer, Nadal and Murray and I say this as a huge Djokovic fan.

Now hold on one second here. Lets not lump that all into one group and think Lendl was facing all of these guys at once.

Lendl caught the very end of Borg. His first two seasons in the top 10 were Borg's last in his career. He denied Lendl of 1 slam and Lendl was not a consistent top tier performer yet.

When Lendl came up in 82-84, becoming a top tier player and started hitting his prime, his main competition was Connors/Wilander/McEnroe. Connors took two slams off Lendl in this time and Wilander took 1. McEnroe dominated 84 shutting everyone out besides Lendl who won his first slam off McEnroe.

By 85 Connors and McEnroe both declined and neither would ever win another slam ever again and were shells of their former selves. Tennis had just gotten so big during the late-70s and early-80s that Mac and Connors were content to stick around making QFs of every slam and getting bounced for the publicity and recognition and then just fighting to win lower tournaments (250/500). At this point they basically devolved into a modern Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer level players.

From 85 on saw the rise of Becker and Edberg to contend with Wilander and Lendl. Pat Cash was merely a modern Del Potro at best and Yannick Noah a Stan Wawrinka.

So at any given time Lendl had 3 chief rivals
80-81 was Borg/Connors/McEnroe (Borg retires end of 81)
82-84 was Connors/McEnroe/Wilander (Mac/Connors never legitimate top guys starting in 85)
85-forward was Edberg/Becker/Wilander

80-81 was monstrous with Borg/Connors/McEnroe, but Lendl was akin to 06-07 Nole at this time and only really lost out on 1 legitimate title due to the era (prime Fed at USO 07 vs prime Borg at FO 81).

I would say the rotating window of big 4s Lendl was part of is equally as tough as the consistent Fed/Murray/Nadal Nole's had to face for his career. (So far at least, it will be until Fed totally falls off the planet and Dimitrov/Raonic/Wawrinka don't prove to be suitable replacements).
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Now hold on one second here. Lets not lump that all into one group and think Lendl was facing all of these guys at once.

Lendl caught the very end of Borg. His first two seasons in the top 10 were Borg's last in his career. He denied Lendl of 1 slam and Lendl was not a consistent top tier performer yet.

When Lendl came up in 82-84, becoming a top tier player and started hitting his prime, his main competition was Connors/Wilander/McEnroe. Connors took two slams off Lendl in this time and Wilander took 1. McEnroe dominated 84 shutting everyone out besides Lendl who won his first slam off McEnroe.

By 85 Connors and McEnroe both declined and neither would ever win another slam ever again and were shells of their former selves. Tennis had just gotten so big during the late-70s and early-80s that Mac and Connors were content to stick around making QFs of every slam and getting bounced for the publicity and recognition and then just fighting to win lower tournaments (250/500). At this point they basically devolved into a modern Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer level players.

From 85 on saw the rise of Becker and Edberg to contend with Wilander and Lendl. Pat Cash was merely a modern Del Potro at best and Yannick Noah a Stan Wawrinka.

So at any given time Lendl had 3 chief rivals
80-81 was Borg/Connors/McEnroe (Borg retires end of 81)
82-84 was Connors/McEnroe/Wilander (Mac/Connors never legitimate top guys starting in 85)
85-forward was Edberg/Becker/Wilander

80-81 was monstrous with Borg/Connors/McEnroe, but Lendl was akin to 06-07 Nole at this time and only really lost out on 1 legitimate title due to the era (prime Fed at USO 07 vs prime Borg at FO 81).

I would say the rotating window of big 4s Lendl was part of is equally as tough as the consistent Fed/Murray/Nadal Nole's had to face for his career. (So far at least, it will be until Fed totally falls off the planet and Dimitrov/Raonic/Wawrinka don't prove to be suitable replacements).

Lendl was a central-late Golden Erer and that says it all
 
Considering Federer has more "Majors" than Rosewall, and that all of his came against professionals, Bobby's list is dubious at best and ridiculous at worst.
Rosewall great as he was should not imho be ranked above Fed. What I was referring to was that TFM (a fanboy) should not be lecturing anyone about which "experts" to bow down to, in this case the Tennis Channel. Further, TFM telling Bobby "not to insult them" just because he disagreed with them? Please, talk about presumptuousness….

These Tennis Channel 'experts' had Sampras over Laver (hmmm.…) and Kramer over Gonzalez (verrrry dubious), so they're not the be all and end all themselves. Too many fanboys that think that tennis began with Federer and Nadal, just like music fanboys who thought music all began with Nirvana.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
The poll results of this thread are also the masses' opinion. No one has to prove anything to you.

Noleberic123 has stated it's a fact that Lendl has faced tougher competition than Nole.

It is a fact. djokovic doesn't have to deal with players that all have atleast 6 slams.
Can you prove that fact proves that in the 1980's was higher level of competition?

Noleberic123, you've lost the argument.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I understand that and I am fine with minor discrepancies, but there are few people who exist with any legitimate argument over Pancho Gonzales. I personally have Pancho #2 behind only Laver, but would be willing to concede arguments for Rosewall, Tilden, and Federer. Really anyone else has no business being mentioned.



Agreed, I'd say the only # to be definitively above purely on slams is 11 (same as Borg), 9-10 you have other factors, but most likely 10 would pass him. I would actually say 9 is unlikely to pass him because of the sheer volume of what Lendl has done.

Lendl is basically the gatekeeper to tier 1, passing him is pretty much akin to joining that elite club.

Spicy, You have an excellent list of the greatest.

I agree that putting Gonzalez at place 22 (among the male) is not a minor discrepancy. It's pure nonsense!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall great as he was should not imho be ranked above Fed. What I was referring to was that TFM (a fanboy) should not be lecturing anyone about which "experts" to bow down to, in this case the Tennis Channel. Further, TFM telling Bobby "not to insult them" just because he disagreed with them? Please, talk about presumptuousness….

These Tennis Channel 'experts' had Sampras over Laver (hmmm.…) and Kramer over Gonzalez (verrrry dubious), so they're not the be all and end all themselves. Too many fanboys that think that tennis began with Federer and Nadal, just like music fanboys who thought music all began with Nirvana.

Dedan's Penthouse, Thanks for your support. Putting Kramer above Gonzalez is not very bad but putting Emerson far ahead of Gonzalez is about he greatest joke in history...
 

kiki

Banned
I´ll never understand your despict for amateurs...I mean, bobbyone, all top pros were top ams before and some did not improve, rather played better tennis as amateus even if I agree the best competition forced them to improve...but Cochet ams is better than Cochet pro, Tilden am is better than Tilden pro and so was Budge.Maybe not the rare case of Nusslein but...take Ramillet,Plaa,Stoeffen,Bucholz,Van Horn,Ayala...would they seriously stand a chance against the best amateurs?

Maybe Emerson, your idol, disappointed you so much at one point? there must be a bitter cause for that disdain...
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Lendl was a central-late Golden Erer and that says it all

Don't get me wrong mad respect for Lendl's career and his accomplishments and he had some tough competition. I maintain Nole probably needs 10 slams to pass him, but I think Nole has had it about as rough in terms of competition if you break down the levels of all of the Golden Eras guys year by year like I did compared to the levels Nadal/Fed/Murray have been at in Nole's era.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF, You are about the only person who cares what that idiotic T.C. list claims!!

Steve Flink: Sampras ahead of Laver??? Kramer ahead of Gonzalez?? Very strange. Learn history,TMF, my friend and don't trust troll experts who claim that Emerson is much greater than Pancho Gonzalez!!!

There's nothing wrong with having Sampras over Laver. In 2002, many have anointed Sampras as the greatest of all time.


In 2009, Bud still conceded that Sampras is the greatest of all time despite Federer that year won the FO. Federer surpassed Sampras by winning Wimbledon to broke the record.

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-roger-federer-greatest-mens-tennis-player-ever-3605993.html?cat=14

Funny how some tt posters believe they better than these historians like Steve and Bud.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I´ll never understand your despict for amateurs...I mean, bobbyone, all top pros were top ams before and some did not improve, rather played better tennis as amateus even if I agree the best competition forced them to improve...but Cochet ams is better than Cochet pro, Tilden am is better than Tilden pro and so was Budge.Maybe not the rare case of Nusslein but...take Ramillet,Plaa,Stoeffen,Bucholz,Van Horn,Ayala...would they seriously stand a chance against the best amateurs?

Maybe Emerson, your idol, disappointed you so much at one point? there must be a bitter cause for that disdain...

While this is true Cochet/Tilden/Budge all these guys proved themselves on all levels to be dominant. Emerson never did such things and was shown to be not near the same level as Rosewall or Laver when when they clashed. If we were to include the pre-open era players with the open era guys, I would roughly place them as such:

open era tier 3: Becker/Wilander/Edberg/Newcombe/Nastase
add Emerson/Riggs/Borotra

open era tier 2: Lendl/Connors/Mac/Agassi/Djokovic
add Hoad/Perry/Cochet/Lacoste

open era tier 1: Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg
add Tilden/Budge/Vines/Kramer

above all open era players: Laver/Gonzales/Rosewall
 
Last edited:

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I´ll never understand your despict for amateurs...I mean, bobbyone, all top pros were top ams before and some did not improve, rather played better tennis as amateus even if I agree the best competition forced them to improve...but Cochet ams is better than Cochet pro, Tilden am is better than Tilden pro and so was Budge.Maybe not the rare case of Nusslein but...take Ramillet,Plaa,Stoeffen,Bucholz,Van Horn,Ayala...would they seriously stand a chance against the best amateurs?

Maybe Emerson, your idol, disappointed you so much at one point? there must be a bitter cause for that disdain...

kiki, There is no (secret?) cause. I just studied tennis history.

I know the amateurs were very good. But the pros just were better.

The most top amateurs since WW2, after turning pro, improved, even the amateur giants like Gonzalez, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad and Laver.

Of course Tilden was better as amateur because he was almost 38 when he turned pro!!

Budge was not better as an amateur, rather equal good in both periods.

Please use the correct names: Ramillon, Stoefen, Buchholz.

Buchholz, as told several times, almost beat best amateurs, Fraser and Laver, when he was only 19. He also beat prime Newcombe in open era and won five WCT tournaments after his peak. In the mid-1960s he was stronger than all amateurs. Maybe Emerson in 1964 was equal to him or a bit better.

Van Horn and Ayala did be top amateurs but failed terribly against the best pros.

You never acknowledged the greatness of the top pros!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
There's nothing wrong with having Sampras over Laver. In 2002, many have anointed Sampras as the greatest of all time.


In 2009, Bud still conceded that Sampras is the greatest of all time despite Federer that year won the FO. Federer surpassed Sampras by winning Wimbledon to broke the record.

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-roger-federer-greatest-mens-tennis-player-ever-3605993.html?cat=14

Funny how some tt posters believe they better than these historians like Steve and Bud.

Funny how a certain poster ignores updating: As I have posted several times, Bud Collins last year confirmed my supposition that Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver are his top three all-time. He added: "And Kenny".

Also a few years ago he did not rank Sampras among his five best players. It's obvious that Bud changed his mind since 2009. It's also possible that he referred to level of play when calling Sampras the GOAT and to achievements when he mentioned the other giants.

Many have called Sampras the GOAT when he played but meanwhile many have also realized that Federer is maybe greater and that Laver is ahead of Pete (alas, most of them "forget Gonzalez and Rosewall).

pc1 wrote that Laver is Bud's choice for GOAT.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
While this is true Cochet/Tilden/Budge all these guys proved themselves on all levels to be dominant. Emerson never did such things and was shown to be not near the same level as Rosewall or Laver when when they clashed. If we were to include the pre-open era players with the open era guys, I would roughly place them as such:

open era tier 3: Becker/Wilander/Edberg/Newcombe/Nastase
add Emerson/Riggs/Borotra

open era tier 2: Lendl/Connors/Mac/Agassi/Djokovic
add Hoad/Perry/Cochet/Lacoste

open era tier 1: Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg
add Tilden/Budge/Vines/Kramer

above all open era players: Laver/Gonzales/Rosewall

Spicy, You truly have studied tennis history. Excellent list!! I only would omit Emerson because he never was a top three player whereas Riggs and Borotra were true No1 and No.2 players (respectively). But it's debatable.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Spicy, You truly have studied tennis history. Excellent list!! I only would omit Emerson because he never was a top three player whereas Riggs and Borotra were true No1 and No.2 players (respectively). But it's debatable.

I appreciate your kind words Bobby! I have studied a fair amount of tennis history, but there is still much to learn and I aim to learn more each day. I also know almost nothing about the Pre-1920s as my study pretty much starts with the Bill Tilden/Les Quatre Mousquetaires Era.

You have valid claims about Emerson, I certainly wouldn't mind moving him down to the top of tier 4 as I would have him rated as my weakest player in tier 3 right now. My tier 4 looks like this in case you are wondering:

Open Era: Vilas, Courier, Ashe, Kuertan, Murray, Hewitt, Smith, Kodes
with Trabert/Frasier/Crawford/Santana added in

I also seem to have omitted two individuals from tier 3 unintentionally. I would also add Pancho Segura and Frank Sedgman in with Riggs and Borotra. I always tend to forget about those two because how much Gonzales dominated the 50s.
 
Top