The all-time 100 greatest players

B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
When I read all-time lists like the stupid Tennis Channel list, I got annoyed and I decided to create my own list. Here finally I have done it.

I only considered the male players.

I valued regarding three categories, i.e. achievements, playing level and "genius". The last means touch and special skills.

There are also players included who don't fit for the 100 top singles players but achieved very much in doubles. Of course they are difficult to be included in such a list. I marked them with a "D" for doubles.

I made a distinguished ranking only for the first 30 players because thereafter the players cannot be distinguished from each other easily.

Here the list:

1 Rosewall
1 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Tilden
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
7 Nadal
7 Djokovic
10 Budge
10 Kramer
12 Hoad
12 Connors
14 McEnroe
14 Lendl
16 Vines
17 Cochet
18 Lacoste
18 Perry
20 Agassi
21 Sedgman
22 Newcombe
23 Wilander
23 Becker
25 Segura
26 Edberg
27 Riggs
28 Nastase
29 Crawford
29 Wilding

Then, from No.31 till No.50:

Emerson, Murray, R. Doherty, L. Doherty, Larned, Brookes, Johnston, Trabert, Gimeno, Ashe, Vilas, Courier, L. Hewitt, Nüsslein, Von Cramm, Borotra, Kuerten, A. Gore, Williams, McLoughlin.

To be continued.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
When I read all-time lists like the stupid Tennis Channel list, I got annoyed and I decided to create my own list. Here finally I have done it.

I only considered the male players.

I valued regarding three categories, i.e. achievements, playing level and "genius". The last means touch and special skills.

There are also players included who don't fit for the 100 top singles players but achieved very much in doubles. Of course they are difficult to be included in such a list. I marked them with a "D" for doubles.

I made a distinguished ranking only for the first 30 players because thereafter the players cannot be distinguished from each other easily.

Here the list:

1 Rosewall
1 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Tilden
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
7 Nadal
7 Djokovic
10 Hoad
10 Connors
12 Budge
12 Kramer
14 McEnroe
14 Lendl
16 Vines
17 Cochet
18 Lacoste
18 Perry
20 Agassi
21 Sedgman
22 Newcombe
23 Wilander
23 Becker
25 Segura
25 Emerson
27 Edberg
28 Riggs
29 Nastase
30 Crawford
30 Wilding

Then, from No.32 till No.50:

Murray, R. Doherty, L. Doherty, Larned, Brookes, Johnston, Trabert, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Ashe, Nüsslein, Von Cramm, Borotra, A. Gore, Williams, McLoughlin, W. Renshaw, Sears.

To be continued.
Click to expand...

No. 51 till No.100:

W. Renshaw, Sears, Muster, S. Smith, Wawrinka, Safin, Rafter, Kodes, Kafelnikov, Orantes, Okker, Gerulaitis, Kovacs, Bromwich, K. Kozeluh, Roche, Gimeno, Austin, Patterson, Drobny, B. Hewitt,D, Richards,D, Quist,D, McGregor,D, S. Gore, Roddick, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Noah, Mecir, Santana, Schroeder, Parker, Seixas, Froitzheim, F. Stolle, Pietrangeli, Bruguera, Decugis, McMillan,D, Woodbridge,D, Woodforde,D, B. Bryan,D, M. Bryan,D, Patty, A. Panatta, Brugnon, E.Buchholz. Ralston, A. Cooper and Anderson tied.

Alas, I was not able to include some other great players in my 100 man list, men like Rose, Ferrero, Moya, Mulloy, N.Fraser, Olmedo, C. Drysdale, Van Horn, Najuch, A. Burke, Plaa, Ramillon, Richey, Riessen, Gottfried, Dibbs, Solomon, Stockton, Tanner...
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
I greatly respect effort this must have taken Bobby! Of course we will disagree on the placing of some (perhaps many) of these players but there aren't many people who could even attempt to compile such a list.

Bravo.

This is the part where I count all those names and tell you that you only have 99 ;)
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
BobbyOne said:
When I read all-time lists like the stupid Tennis Channel list, I got annoyed and I decided to create my own list. Here finally I have done it.

I only considered the male players.

I valued regarding three categories, i.e. achievements, playing level and "genius". The last means touch and special skills.

There are also players included who don't fit for the 100 top singles players but achieved very much in doubles. Of course they are difficult to be included in such a list. I marked them with a "D" for doubles.

I made a distinguished ranking only for the first 30 players because thereafter the players cannot be distinguished from each other easily.

Here the list:

1 Rosewall
1 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Tilden
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
7 Nadal
7 Djokovic
10 Hoad
10 Connors
12 Budge
12 Kramer
14 McEnroe
14 Lendl
16 Vines
17 Cochet
18 Lacoste
18 Perry
20 Agassi
21 Sedgman
22 Newcombe
23 Wilander
23 Becker
25 Segura
25 Emerson
27 Edberg
28 Riggs
29 Nastase
30 Crawford
30 Wilding
Click to expand...

I think this is a really good list. Specific rankings aside, I agree strongly. I would probably have 7 of the top 8, 12/13 of the top 14 and 19/20 of the top 20. I wouldn't include Nastase, Emerson and maybe Newk in my top 30. I only rank post-WWI so I am not considering Wilding. So that's 26/27 out of 30.

Very surprised to see Gimeno so far below Emerson!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
I greatly respect effort this must have taken Bobby! Of course we will disagree on the placing of some (perhaps many) of these players but there aren't many people who could even attempt to compile such a list.

Bravo.

This is the part where I count all those names and tell you that you only have 99 ;)
Click to expand...

NatF, Many thanks for your words. It's clear of course that different people come to different rankings. But I think that at least the approximate line of such a ranking list should be agreed by most readers. It's rather clear that Gonzalez is greater than Emerson, and Emerson greater than Stolle, and so on.

Of course it's very difficult to compare players who played many decades apart. How to value Sampras vs Perry; Connors vs Wilding etc? Especially if we compare their level of play. How do we value the strength of competition between the Doherty brothers and Segura? How to consider players with extraordinary touch skills, geniuses like Santana, Riggs, Segura, Nastase, Mecir if the lack overwhelming achievements? Another uncertainty: How to value Emerson's great record in singles and doubles as an amateur in comparison to pro, Segura, who "only" won three pro majors (in singles)?

Should I consider special circumstances such as Muster's comeback and No.1 place after his terrible incident or Noah's winning at Roland Garros several decades after the previous French winner, Bernard? At a few instances I di consider.

As you see I have made tied places even for the top 30 because it's so difficult to decide sometimes.

I still count 100 players (plus 17 who just missed the cut).
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
70sHollywood said:
I think this is a really good list. Specific rankings aside, I agree strongly. I would probably have 7 of the top 8, 12/13 of the top 14 and 19/20 of the top 20. I wouldn't include Nastase, Emerson and maybe Newk in my top 30. I only rank post-WWI so I am not considering Wilding. So that's 26/27 out of 30.

Very surprised to see Gimeno so far below Emerson!
Click to expand...

70sHollywood, Thanks a lot. It's really astounding that we have so much agreement at the several categories even though we differ probably sometimes within the categories.

I put Nastase rather high because of his extraordinary touch abilities, and Emerson because of his great amount of big (amateur) titles, GS and Davis Cup, and Newcombe because of his high peak play. But my work is a work in progress and open to be disputed.

Yes, Emerson vs. Gimeno sounds a bit strange if one knows my admiration for Gimeno. I still think that Gimeno (and Roche for that matter) had a slightly higher peak play than Emmo but the Spaniard does not have a great resume. One reason is surely that his peak concurred with Laver's peak and partly Rosewall's peak...
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Overall a pretty good list Bobby, which include many players I hardly know, or don't know at all. Congratulations for the work!

I notice neither Moya nor Ferrero make it. You might have a look at their careers, especially Ferrero. Both suffered heavy injuries too.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
BobbyOne said:
When I read all-time lists like the stupid Tennis Channel list, I got annoyed and I decided to create my own list. Here finally I have done it.

I only considered the male players.

I valued regarding three categories, i.e. achievements, playing level and "genius". The last means touch and special skills.

There are also players included who don't fit for the 100 top singles players but achieved very much in doubles. Of course they are difficult to be included in such a list. I marked them with a "D" for doubles.

I made a distinguished ranking only for the first 30 players because thereafter the players cannot be distinguished from each other easily.

Here the list:

1 Rosewall
1 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Tilden
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
7 Nadal
7 Djokovic
10 Hoad
10 Connors
12 Budge
12 Kramer
14 McEnroe
14 Lendl
16 Vines
17 Cochet
18 Lacoste
18 Perry
20 Agassi
21 Sedgman
22 Newcombe
23 Wilander
23 Becker
25 Segura
25 Emerson
27 Edberg
28 Riggs
29 Nastase
30 Crawford
30 Wilding

Then, from No.32 till No.50:

Murray, R. Doherty, L. Doherty, Larned, Brookes, Johnston, Trabert, Vilas, Kuerten, Ashe, Nüsslein, Von Cramm, Borotra, A. Gore, Williams, McLoughlin, W. Renshaw, Sears, Muster.

To be continued.
Click to expand...
Surely much better than all the media lists and critics I have read to date.
I reverse Federer & Rosewall, and I do not understand Hoad.
Anyway ... it's a nice job. Bravo.

There is not media in the world, a specialist journalist or critic that can do it.
This is a merit for you, but ................ a disaster for humanity.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Druss said:
Not a bad list, except Federer should be No1 or at least top 3......but why is Courier behind kuerten and Muster?
Click to expand...

Druss, I have already corrected the order of Courier, Kuerten and Muster.

Unfortunately I cannot give Federer a higher place. Maybe I will do if Roger wins another GS tournament(s).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
KG1965 said:
Surely much better than all the media lists and critics I have read to date.
I reverse Federer & Rosewall, and I do not understand Hoad.
Anyway ... it's a nice job. Bravo.

There is not media in the world, a specialist journalist or critic that can do it.
This is a merit for you, but ................ a disaster for humanity.
Click to expand...

KG, Thanks a lot.

Regarding Hoad: Would you rank him higher or lower than I do?
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Flash O'Groove said:
Overall a pretty good list Bobby, which include many players I hardly know, or don't know at all. Congratulations for the work!

I notice neither Moya nor Ferrero make it. You might have a look at their careers, especially Ferrero. Both suffered heavy injuries too.
Click to expand...

Flash, Thank you. I'm sorry, I just have included the two Spaniards in the list of those players who slightly missed the cut.
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
Good list, especially your #1-LOL! IMO though, tennis began to change dramatically about 1975 with Connors and the two handed backhand and other than wood racquets. Therefore, I think it is not fair to compare the players of the pre 75 era with those before then. My pre 75 era top 10 would be: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez- joint #1, or very close 1-2-3. IMO, arguments could be made for either as the #1. 4-10 would be: Tilden, Budge, Cochet, Lacoste, Perry, Kramer, Trabert- Not necessarily in that order. Post 75: Federer, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker- IN that order.
 
T

thrust

Legend
BobbyOne said:
KG, Thanks a lot.

Regarding Hoad: Would you rank him higher or lower than I do?
Click to expand...
For some reason, especially before joining this site, I never considered Hoad and ATG, as I never considered the pro tours or one night stands. It amazes me that he never won a pro slam, though did better against Gonzalez than Rosewall did, but could never beat Ken in a pro major final, losing all five they played. He like Vines, it seems were the greatest on a given day, but not consistent enough to win as much as they should have?
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Good list, especially your #1-LOL! IMO though, tennis began to change dramatically about 1975 with Connors and the two handed backhand and other than wood racquets. Therefore, I think it is not fair to compare the players of the pre 75 era with those before then. My pre 75 era top 10 would be: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez- joint #1, or very close 1-2-3. IMO, arguments could be made for either as the #1. 4-10 would be: Tilden, Budge, Cochet, Lacoste, Perry, Kramer, Trabert- Not necessarily in that order. Post 75: Federer, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Wilander, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker- IN that order.
Click to expand...

thrust, Thanks. I think you overrate Trabert as at least Sedgman, Vines and Segura were stronger than him.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
When I read all-time lists like the stupid Tennis Channel list, I got annoyed and I decided to create my own list. Here finally I have done it.

I only considered the male players.

I valued regarding three categories, i.e. achievements, playing level and "genius". The last means touch and special skills.

There are also players included who don't fit for the 100 top singles players but achieved very much in doubles. Of course they are difficult to be included in such a list. I marked them with a "D" for doubles.

I made a distinguished ranking only for the first 30 players because thereafter the players cannot be distinguished from each other easily.

Here the list:

1 Rosewall
1 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Tilden
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
7 Nadal
7 Djokovic
10 Hoad
10 Connors
12 Budge
12 Kramer
14 McEnroe
14 Lendl
16 Vines
17 Cochet
18 Lacoste
18 Perry
20 Agassi
21 Sedgman
22 Newcombe
23 Wilander
23 Becker
25 Segura
25 Emerson
27 Edberg
28 Riggs
29 Nastase
30 Crawford
30 Wilding

Then, from No.32 till No.50:

Murray, R. Doherty, L. Doherty, Larned, Brookes, Johnston, Trabert, Vilas, Ashe, Nüsslein, Von Cramm, Borotra, Courier, Kuerten, A. Gore, Williams, McLoughlin, W. Renshaw, Sears.

To be continued.
Click to expand...
A good list Bobby and reasonable. A couple of quibbles, why would you rank Hoad over Kramer? Vines should be ahead of some you rank above him.

Outside of minor stuff about order of ranking it's fine.
 
Last edited:
K

KG1965

Legend
pc1 said:
A good list Bobby and reasonable. One quibble, why would you rank Hoad over Kramer?

Outside of minor stuff about order of ranking it's fine.
Click to expand...
Hoad is a mystery.
A mystery in general, I mean.
For someone here, or critics, or old players Hoad is... a god.
I obviously lack much information about man. Much.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
KG1965 said:
Hoad is a mystery.
A mystery in general, I mean.
For someone here, or critics, or old players Hoad is... a god.
I obviously lack much information about man. Much.
Click to expand...
Many think Hoad at his best for one match what is the greatest ever but you could also say the same thing for Ellsworth Vines. Vines however had the advantage of being the dominant player in the world for many years. Vines to me is easily ahead of Hoad but many would disagree. Apparently the man had a magnetic personality and fantastic looking strokes. Often people in those days would judge the player based on their stroking ability and not their achievements. However Hoad also had pretty great achievements.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
NatF, Many thanks for your words. It's clear of course that different people come to different rankings. But I think that at least the approximate line of such a ranking list should be agreed by most readers. It's rather clear that Gonzalez is greater than Emerson, and Emerson greater than Stolle, and so on.

Of course it's very difficult to compare players who played many decades apart. How to value Sampras vs Perry; Connors vs Wilding etc? Especially if we compare their level of play. How do we value the strength of competition between the Doherty brothers and Segura? How to consider players with extraordinary touch skills, geniuses like Santana, Riggs, Segura, Nastase, Mecir if the lack overwhelming achievements? Another uncertainty: How to value Emerson's great record in singles and doubles as an amateur in comparison to pro, Segura, who "only" won three pro majors (in singles)?

Should I consider special circumstances such as Muster's comeback and No.1 place after his terrible incident or Noah's winning at Roland Garros several decades after the previous French winner, Bernard? At a few instances I di consider.

As you see I have made tied places even for the top 30 because it's so difficult to decide sometimes.

I still count 100 players (plus 17 who just missed the cut).
Click to expand...

Yes, we agree on the top 9 but I would of course switch the order a bit - Rosewall and Federer would switch and pretty anyone beneath Gonzalez would be ranked jointly. Who I rank ahead changes when the wind blows.

A few other thoughts;

I don't think Hoad deserves to be ranked as highly as that - not when he didn't achieve all that much. Regarding Rosewall he obviously had a high playing level as he did win a lot of big matches, but I believe you've said before you think Laver and Gonzalez were a little better on that front? So I guess you believe Rosewall achieved more than both to rank at the same level or higher despite a bit lower peak level? I say this because of Hoad's very high placing which can really only be due to his playing strength.

I would personally move Hoad potentially outside the top 30, certainly below any 6 time major winner from the open era, I would also definitely put Vines a head of him. Both guys had a mythic peak level but Vines achieved a lot more in his era. I'd also move Emerson way lower :p

I'd move Hewitt up to the Kuerten, Murray tier as well. I assume Muster is ranked highly because you think he would have achieved a lot more without injuries? Hewitt was injured in the middle of his peak as well, youngest #1 and held it in back to back years, 2 majors (also a doubles slam), 2 YEC - was denied in his best period of play at the majors by peak Federer 5x and then became chronically injured needing multiple surgeries. I'd move Roddick up to the Safin, Rafter, Wawrinka section...though maybe he suffers because he's not known for his touch :D

You've added Ferrero as an honourable mention which I agree with, I think he's borderline for the bottom of the list. A great player who was mixing it up on clay with Kuerten at a young age and made some big strides on HC before again succumbing to injuries (beat Hewitt/Agassi back to back on the way to the USO final). A fairly complete player as well, great groundstrokes.

I think the groupings are basically as I would have them though.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Question for you Bobby, you've stated for years that Gimeno was superior to Emerson, yet on this list you have Emerson ahead of Gimeno! Why? I would guess that you would think Gimeno is a superior player.

Same question with Nusslein and von Cramm. I am just wondering why. No argument intended.
 
Last edited:
K

KG1965

Legend
Bobby, why Nastase > Courier?
I think so too, I think that Ilie has achieved legend status, Jim no.
I do not know if it's right. Courier is one of the most underrated champions of all time, for me.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
KG1965 said:
Bobby, why Nastase > Courier?
I think so too, I think that Ilie has achieved legend status, Jim no.
I do not know if it's right. Courier is one of the most underrated champions of all time, for me.
Click to expand...

KG, Nastase was a genius on court, Courier not. I also considered touch and special skills.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
KG1965 said:
Hoad is a mystery.
A mystery in general, I mean.
For someone here, or critics, or old players Hoad is... a god.
I obviously lack much information about man. Much.
Click to expand...

KG, I rank Hoad as No.1 regarding peak play but not among the top 15 regarding achievements. Thus the No. 10 place for him in my "mixed" rankings.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
70sHollywood said:
I think this is a really good list. Specific rankings aside, I agree strongly. I would probably have 7 of the top 8, 12/13 of the top 14 and 19/20 of the top 20. I wouldn't include Nastase, Emerson and maybe Newk in my top 30. I only rank post-WWI so I am not considering Wilding. So that's 26/27 out of 30.

Very surprised to see Gimeno so far below Emerson!
Click to expand...

70sHollywood, You were right regarding Emerson and Gimeno. I have changed my list significantly in this point. Now these two players are pretty close. Sometimes I even am insecure if I should not rank the Spaniard higher than Emmo because Gimeno has won an open GS tournament (Emerson never did) and he reached four finals of pro majors losing every time only to Laver or Rosewall...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Yes, we agree on the top 9 but I would of course switch the order a bit - Rosewall and Federer would switch and pretty anyone beneath Gonzalez would be ranked jointly. Who I rank ahead changes when the wind blows.

A few other thoughts;

I don't think Hoad deserves to be ranked as highly as that - not when he didn't achieve all that much. Regarding Rosewall he obviously had a high playing level as he did win a lot of big matches, but I believe you've said before you think Laver and Gonzalez were a little better on that front? So I guess you believe Rosewall achieved more than both to rank at the same level or higher despite a bit lower peak level? I say this because of Hoad's very high placing which can really only be due to his playing strength.

I would personally move Hoad potentially outside the top 30, certainly below any 6 time major winner from the open era, I would also definitely put Vines a head of him. Both guys had a mythic peak level but Vines achieved a lot more in his era. I'd also move Emerson way lower :p

I'd move Hewitt up to the Kuerten, Murray tier as well. I assume Muster is ranked highly because you think he would have achieved a lot more without injuries? Hewitt was injured in the middle of his peak as well, youngest #1 and held it in back to back years, 2 majors (also a doubles slam), 2 YEC - was denied in his best period of play at the majors by peak Federer 5x and then became chronically injured needing multiple surgeries. I'd move Roddick up to the Safin, Rafter, Wawrinka section...though maybe he suffers because he's not known for his touch :D

You've added Ferrero as an honourable mention which I agree with, I think he's borderline for the bottom of the list. A great player who was mixing it up on clay with Kuerten at a young age and made some big strides on HC before again succumbing to injuries (beat Hewitt/Agassi back to back on the way to the USO final). A fairly complete player as well, great groundstrokes.

I think the groupings are basically as I would have them though.
Click to expand...

NatF, Thanks for your input. I have increased Hewitt's place.

Hoad did achieve some great things: Two Wimbledon titles, one pro major (Forest Hills); several finals in pro majors, almost the Grand Slam, two tough world series against Gonzalez (he once beat Pancho 15:13 matches), 21 big doubles titles, 14 times top ten, 10 times top 5, 6 times top 3.

I considered the fact that Muster came back even stronger after that car accident. He also won more than 40 ATP tournaments.

I'm happy you agree with my top 9 (albeit in other order). I really think that these nine players are a category of their own. It seems that several posters here agree with these nine players as an own group.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
A fine list, in which you thankfully gave due to those players whom you usually criticise (Newcombe, Emerson, etc.) and don't overrate those whom you usually praise to the high heavens (Roche, Gimeno, etc.)

There is only one thing wrong with the list: the presence of a certain K.R. Rosewall at #1...
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
BobbyOne said:
NatF, Thanks for your input. I have increased Hewitt's place.

Hoad did achieve some great things: Two Wimbledon titles, one pro major (Forest Hills); several finals in pro majors, almost the Grand Slam, two tough world series against Gonzalez (he once beat Pancho 15:13 matches), 21 big doubles titles, 14 times top ten, 10 times top 5, 6 times top 3.

I considered the fact that Muster came back even stronger after that car accident. He also won more than 40 ATP tournaments.

I'm happy you agree with my top 9 (albeit in other order). I really think that these nine players are a category of their own. It seems that several posters here agree with these nine players as an own group.
Click to expand...

Yes, Hoad did have a good career. I just can't see him above players who won more majors than him, were all #1 for several years etc...For example the likes of McEnroe had mythic peak play as well (1984) so I personally don't think there's enough of a reason to place Hoad so highly. But we can agree to disagree.

Fair enough about Muster, one of tennis' many what if's - maybe he would have dominated clay in the 90's for a few years. It's too his credit he was able to come back so strong.

I'll leave my overall comments there for now.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Yes, Hoad did have a good career. I just can't see him above players who won more majors than him, were all #1 for several years etc...For example the likes of McEnroe had mythic peak play as well (1984) so I personally don't think there's enough of a reason to place Hoad so highly. But we can agree to disagree.

Fair enough about Muster, one of tennis' many what if's - maybe he would have dominated clay in the 90's for a few years. It's too his credit he was able to come back so strong.

I'll leave my overall comments there for now.
Click to expand...

NatF, I will consider Hoad once more (also after considering pc1's posts).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983 said:
A fine list, in which you thankfully gave due to those players whom you usually criticise (Newcombe, Emerson, etc.) and don't overrate those whom you usually praise to the high heavens (Roche, Gimeno, etc.)

There is only one thing wrong with the list: the presence of a certain K.R. Rosewall at #1...
Click to expand...

Phoenix, Thanks. My list is more focussed on achievements than on playing level. Thus the order of Roche and Gimeno. But I still believe that Roche and Gimeno were stronger than Emerson and even Newcombe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
No. 51 till No.100:

W. Renshaw, Sears, Muster, L. Hewitt, S. Smith, Wawrinka, Safin, Rafter, Kodes, Orantes, Okker, Gerulaitis, Kovacs, Bromwich, K. Kozeluh, Roche, Gimeno, Austin, Patterson, Drobny, B. Hewitt,D, Richards,D, Quist,D, McGregor,D, S. Gore, Roddick, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Noah, Mecir, Santana, Schroeder, Parker, Seixas, Froitzheim, F. Stolle, Pietrangeli, Bruguera, Decugis, McMillan,D, Woodbridge,D, Woodforde,D, B. Bryan,D, M. Bryan,D, Patty, A. Panatta, Brugnon, E.Buchholz, Ralston, A. Cooper, Anderson.

Alas, I was not able to include some other great players in my 100 man list, men like Rose, Ferrero, Moya, Mulloy, N.Fraser, Olmedo, C. Drysdale, Van Horn, Najuch, A. Burke, Plaa, Ramillon, Richey, Riessen, Gottfried, Dibbs, Solomon, Stockton, Tanner...
Click to expand...

HELLO PC1, I cannot answer directly to your posts because whenever I'm logged in your posts vanish from my display.

Thank you for your friendly words and your remarks.

I will consider once more if I should put Budge and Kramer ahead of Hoad and Connors. Also Vines has not gotten a secure place in my list.

Yes, as I have stated elsewhere, I still think that Gimeno was a superior player than Emerson but only slightly. Emmo might have been a bit stronger on grass while Andres was stronger on clay.

I believe that Nüsslein was a bit stronger than Von Cramm. The former lost their only official match when he was a bit ill. Ferdinand Henkel of the German Tennis Federation afterwards said that Nüsslein would win 8 out of 10 encounters. BIll Tilden reported that Nüsslein used to beat Von Cramm in practice matches. Tilden won an official encounter against the Baron clearly in 1934 but he usually lost to Nüsslein already at that time.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The problem of having a top 100 for anyone is looking at the level of play over a period of time, preferably for at least a few years. My theory is that a consistently high level of play always will show up in achievements but you have to look at what type of achievements they are!

For example nowadays the general public and many experts look at several factors in analyzing level of play, one is the number of majors won, another is tournaments won and how strong the tournaments are (yes I understand the two are intermixed) and also many look at winning percentages. Factors as ability to play well on all surfaces are there also. I have a number of other factors in my evaluations also besides this that indicate the strength of a player. Now this is for today's ATP tour and the WTA tour.

Another factor is the peak versus career evaluations of a player. Let's say you have a player who was the GOAT for five years. The player won every match he or she played. The player won the Grand Slam every year and was number one every year. Everyone who played that player KNEW that player was unbeatable from watching and playing that player. Then the player hurts himself or herself and loses every match he or she plays for the rest of the player's career or perhaps it's age in the case of Bill Tilden for example who played until he was over 50.

Does that take away from the years he or she may very well have been the GOAT in that player's best years? I would hope not. You have to look at peak level and career level imo.

Take Jack Kramer as an example. So many former players and experts have called Jack Kramer the GOAT. They are Frank Sedgman, Segura, Riggs, Budge, Bromwich, Hoad, Trabert (tied with Laver), Vic Braden, Paul Metzer. Yet when I looked at Kramer's record I was at first puzzled by it. I mentioned this to BobbyOne that perhaps Kramer was overrated yet I realized it made no sense that some many calling him the GOAT. These experts and former players certainly knew more than I did about Kramer.

Well in examining it more carefully I realized that Kramer's record imo was extremely impressive. I did not take into account the World Championship Tours in which he crushed his opponents like Bobby Riggs, a young but still strong Pancho Gonzalez, Pancho Segura by decisive scores and later Frank Sedgman by a clear margin. I didn't take into account that he may have become (according to some like Segura and Kramer himself the best on clay also in the world). Segura didn't say it straight out but the comments he has written are indications of that. On a subjective level players indicated that Kramer didn't have a weakness and many strengths. It's very possible that Kramer was the best player in the world from the late 1940s to the early 1950s although Gonzalez could challenge that in the early 1950s. Years at number one is to me a very important factor in achievements which may be somewhat true throughout any era.

My major point with the discussion about Kramer is that when we search for a top player, we search for a high level of play and the high level of play will be evidenced in results. The type of results that show high level of play varies from era to era. In the Kramer era it was shown by the tours and tournaments won for example. I believe I saw on Tennis Base where Kramer (I could be wrong) swept an entire tour against other top players! That to me was sort of like Laver's 1971 Tournament of Champions win in sweeping 13 straight matches without a loss. However Kramer didn't have time off like Laver so it could have been even more impressive.

In the Tilden, Vines, Perry, Budge era airplane travel was not prevalent so players could not go to the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Championships every year so we have to account for that. Because of that the totals in majors may not be as high. Tilden was I believe the leader in majors won for ages until I think Emerson broke the record. Emmo didn't even know he had the record by the way for a while! Tournaments like the US Claycourts and other tournaments were big deals that we don't take into account for nowadays.

In the era of the Old Pro Tours we have the World Champions Tours but also the big tournaments like Wembley, the French Pro and the Tournaments of Champions and the US Pro. The 1964 Tour was not a World Championship Tour but for all intents and purposes it was because it was probably the biggest event of the year. Rosewall won it over Laver and that in some ways should go into Rosewall's column as an event won that was bigger than a major. I write that because I found a very reliable source on the Old Pro Tour of 1964.

Gonzalez won six or seven World Championship Tours. I now tend to lean toward six because Kramer really was the only one to play in World Championship Tours against his opponents in those days. That's a great achievement that is perhaps unparalleled in tennis history.

The World Championship Tours are a huge factor in looking at the peak and career levels of players. The thing about these tours is that they are played against other great players so even the winner of the World Championship Tours generally (unless you're Kramer) aren't going to get great winning percentages on these tours which often were over 100 matches. It may tend to lower that player's lifetime winning percentage. Gonzalez beat great players like Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Trabert, Gimeno, Olmedo on these tours. He beat some of those several times. These tours have to be taken into account for peak and career levels as well as the tournaments he won.

Anyway it's extremely tough to have a top 100 of all time ranking. Bobby did a fine job here. Again of course there are some minor quibbles about where certain players are but at least Bobby as I would expect shows his superb knowledge of tennis history in doing this list.

Bobby, I do believe you vastly underrate Vines and Kramer on the list Bobby so I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your rankings of them. I do think Vines and Kramer are far ahead of Hoad and a number of others. You can even argue Vines is ahead of Hoad for greatest for one match although that's greatly debatable but fun.
 
Last edited:
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
The problem of having a top 100 for anyone is looking at the level of play over a period of time, preferably for at least a few years. My theory is that a consistently high level of play always will show up in achievements but you have to look at what type of achievements they are!

For example nowadays the general public and many experts look at several factors in analyzing level of play, one is the number of majors won, another is tournaments won and how strong the tournaments are (yes I understand the two are intermixed) and also many look at winning percentages. Factors as ability to play well on all surfaces are there also. I have a number of other factors in my evaluations also besides this that indicate the strength of a player. Now this is for today's ATP tour and the WTA tour.

Another factor is the peak versus career evaluations of a player. Let's say you have a player who was the GOAT for five years. The player won every match he or she played. The player won the Grand Slam every year and was number one every year. Everyone who played that player KNEW that player was unbeatable from watching and playing that player. Then the player hurts himself or herself and loses every match he or she plays for the rest of the player's career or perhaps it's age in the case of Bill Tilden for example who played until he was over 50.

Does that take away from the years he or she may very well have been the GOAT in that player's best years? I would hope not. You have to look at peak level and career level imo.

Take Jack Kramer as an example. So many former players and experts have called Jack Kramer the GOAT. They are Frank Sedgman, Segura, Riggs, Budge, Bromwich, Hoad, Trabert (tied with Laver), Vic Braden, Paul Metzer. Yet when I looked at Kramer's record I was at first puzzled by it. I mentioned this to BobbyOne that perhaps Kramer was overrated yet I realized it made no sense that some many calling him the GOAT. These experts and former players certainly knew more than I did about Kramer.

Well in examining it more carefully I realized that Kramer's record imo was extremely impressive. I did not take into account the World Championship Tours in which he crushed his opponents like Bobby Riggs, a young but still strong Pancho Gonzalez, Pancho Segura by decisive scores and later Frank Sedgman by a clear margin. I didn't take into account that he may have become (according to some like Segura and Kramer himself the best on clay also in the world). Segura didn't say it straight out but the comments he has written are indications of that. On a subjective level players indicated that Kramer didn't have a weakness and many strengths. It's very possible that Kramer was the best player in the world from the late 1940s to the early 1950s although Gonzalez could challenge that in the early 1950s. Years at number one is to me a very important factor in achievements which may be somewhat true throughout any era.

My major point with the discussion about Kramer is that when we search for a top player, we search for a high level of play and the high level of play will be evidenced in results. The type of results that show high level of play varies from era to era. In the Kramer era it was shown by the tours and tournaments won for example. I believe I saw on Tennis Base where Kramer (I could be wrong) swept an entire tour against other top players! That to me was sort of like Laver's 1971 Tournament of Champions win in sweeping 13 straight matches without a loss. However Kramer didn't have time off like Laver so it could have been even more impressive.

In the Tilden, Vines, Perry, Budge era airplane travel was not prevalent so players could not go to the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Championships every year so we have to account for that. Because of that the totals in majors may not be as high. Tilden was I believe the leader in majors won for ages until I think Emerson broke the record. Emmo didn't even know he had the record by the way for a while! Tournaments like the US Claycourts and other tournaments were big deals that we don't take into account for nowadays.

In the era of the Old Pro Tours we have the World Champions Tours but also the big tournaments like Wembley, the French Pro and the Tournaments of Champions and the US Pro. The 1964 Tour was not a World Championship Tour but for all intents and purposes it was because it was probably the biggest event of the year. Rosewall won it over Laver and that in some ways should go into Rosewall's column as an event won that was bigger than a major. I write that because I found a very reliable source on the Old Pro Tour of 1964.

Gonzalez won six or seven World Championship Tours. I now tend to lean toward six because Kramer really was the only one to play in World Championship Tours against his opponents in those days. That's a great achievement that is perhaps unparalleled in tennis history.

The World Championship Tours are a huge factor in looking at the peak and career levels of players. The thing about these tours is that they are played against other great players so even the winner of the World Championship Tours generally (unless you're Kramer) aren't going to get great winning percentages on these tours which often were over 100 matches. It may tend to lower that player's lifetime winning percentage. Gonzalez beat great players like Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Trabert, Gimeno, Olmedo on these tours. He beat some of those several times. These tours have to be taken into account for peak and career levels as well as the tournaments he won.

Anyway it's extremely tough to have a top 100 of all time ranking. Bobby did a fine job here. Again of course there are some minor quibbles about where certain players are but at least Bobby as I would expect shows his superb knowledge of tennis history in doing this list.

Bobby, I do believe you vastly underrate Vines and Kramer on the list Bobby so I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your rankings of them. I do think Vines and Kramer are far ahead of Hoad and a number of others. You can even argue Vines is ahead of Hoad for greatest for one match although that's greatly debatable but fun.
Click to expand...
One of the most fair and well-thought-out posts I've seen from you.
 
treblings

treblings

Hall of Fame
NonP said:
Look, there's no single GOAT, but if there is one, her name is Martina Navratilova, man or woman.

And yes, I'm right and you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree about there being no single GOAT.
How does Martina fit in a thread about 100+ male all-time greats?
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
@BobbyOne

Just discuss things with me. I believe it should be fine. Just understand that if I disagree with you it is just a disagreement.
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983 said:
Incorrect, she is only the 3rd greatest female tennis player after S Williams and Graf.
Click to expand...
Bobby Riggs is one of the greatest players in Women's competition. He had the highest peak level of any person who played a competitive even odds match of anyone in Women's competition. ;)

I'll take peak Riggs over Serena or Graf. Lol.
 
treblings

treblings

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
I greatly respect effort this must have taken Bobby! Of course we will disagree on the placing of some (perhaps many) of these players but there aren't many people who could even attempt to compile such a list.

Bravo.

This is the part where I count all those names and tell you that you only have 99 ;)
Click to expand...

i count 102;)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
HELLO PC1, I cannot answer directly to your posts because whenever I'm logged in your posts vanish from my display.

Thank you for your friendly words and your remarks.

I will consider once more if I should put Budge and Kramer ahead of Hoad and Connors. Also Vines has not gotten a secure place in my list.

Yes, as I have stated elsewhere, I still think that Gimeno was a superior player than Emerson but only slightly. Emmo might have been a bit stronger on grass while Andres was stronger on clay.

I believe that Nüsslein was a bit stronger than Von Cramm. The former lost their only official match when he was a bit ill. Ferdinand Henkel of the German Tennis Federation afterwards said that Nüsslein would win 8 out of 10 encounters. BIll Tilden reported that Nüsslein used to beat Von Cramm in practice matches. Tilden won an official encounter against the Baron clearly in 1934 but he usually lost to Nüsslein already at that time.
Click to expand...

PC1, I was glad that you -for the first time since 2014- reacted positively to one of my posts (the 100 players rankings). But to be honest I cannot have a "normal" communication with you generally. Too much has happened between us since February, 2014 when you ended our very long and good friendship without reason. Since then you seldom gave a "like" to my posts but often a "like" to my opponents' posts (Limpinhitter, Phoenix1983, Dan Lobb). And very recently the next incident when you liked a Dan's post with a wrong claim and, when I contradicted him and you, you claimed that I would have misinterpreted you. Please note: I never misinterpret you.

To the topic: I think you overrate the old world tours significantly. I believe it's easier for a world champion to beat a rookie pro than to win a pro tournament with all the top pros involved. It was you who once (or several times) told me that Kramer scheduled himself against opponents who he was sure to beat (you perhaps referred to Gonzalez who was not allowed to play a world series for several years).

I'm disappointed that you still claim that the 1964 tour was not a world championship tour. Have you missed krosero's great findings and other sources?
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
I'm disappointed that you still claim that the 1964 tour was not a world championship tour. Have you missed krosero's great findings and other sources?
Click to expand...
Bobby, my source is impeccable. Why don't we just agree to disagree on this?

When I give likes to people, I often give them to people who totally disagree with me but have interesting points. I see no reason not to give likes to people just because they are viewed as somebody else's opponents.

Have you consider my views on Kramer and Vines?
 
Last edited:
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane said:
One of the most fair and well-thought-out posts I've seen from you.
Click to expand...

Duane, this post sure has a condescending tone to it, intended or not. I have not found a post by pc1 (easily the most measured and diplomatic member of this board), to be either unfair or not well-though-out, even when I didn't agree with him.
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
NonP said:
Look, there's no single GOAT, but if there is one, her name is Martina Navratilova, man or woman.

And yes, I'm right and you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Who do you think played the highest level in history on the woman's side? I have a hard time not going with Monica Seles. Do you recall Martina's comment: "I feel like I've been run over by a truck," after losing to 16 year old Seles, 6-1, 6-1, in the 1990 Italian Open final.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/102420/SELES-BLASTS-NAVRATILOVA-IN-ITALIAN-OPEN.html?pg=all

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-14/sports/sp-92_1_italian-open-title
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Who do you think played the highest level in history on the woman's side? I have a hard time not going with Monica Seles. Do you recall Martina's comment: "I feel like I've been run over by a truck," after losing to 16 year old Seles, 6-1, 6-1, in the 1990 Italian Open final.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/102420/SELES-BLASTS-NAVRATILOVA-IN-ITALIAN-OPEN.html?pg=all

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-14/sports/sp-92_1_italian-open-title
Click to expand...
Such a tough question. I was thinking for one match Hana Mandlikova but over a few years of the ones I've seen I would go with Navratilova although Seles, Graf and Evert are up there. Court was great also. And I could see Seles at her peak beating Navratilova more than not but I could see the other way around also. The Seles return was unbelievable.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Duane, this post sure has a condescending tone to it, intended or not. I have not found a post by pc1 (easily the most measured and diplomatic member of this board), to be either unfair or not well-though-out, even when I didn't agree with him.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you think that. I thought the post was superb. I don't think there was one word I disagreed with. This whole thread has been very good.

I didn't say more because my energy right now is very, very low.

I seldom disagree with PC1 much about tennis, and certainly not about matters before 1968. No one is fighting with anyone else. What's not to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
All time rankings pre 1950
Replies
23
Views
2K
hoodjem
hoodjem
hoodjem
Second-20 Greatest Male Singles Players
Replies
12
Views
1K
hoodjem
hoodjem
A
Greatest Players of the Decade
2 3
Replies
109
Views
14K
kiki
kiki
hoodjem
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
107 108 109
Replies
5K
Views
314K
Dan Lobb
D
Mustard
Winners of the Major Tennis Tournaments
Replies
43
Views
8K
Dan Lobb
D
Top