"BEST EVER" WITH NEWER RACQUETS: CONNORS, BORG, LAVER, FEDERER, SAMPRAS, MAC, ETC.?

[BILLYBORG]

Think about this one closely, as Connors has many more wins, and he would have one the Grand Slam had they not stopped him from playing in the French the year he won Australian, Wimbledon, & US Open, as he "also" won the Italina Open that same year, which was right before the French! Could Laver have dominated now had he had today's powerful equipment? How would Federer have done against Borg, Connors, & Mac with a wooden small headed racquet? We will never know, will we? However, given just one style of racquet, who was the absolute best ever given the same equal competition to play against day in and day out? Since I have tried all the racquets, and the T-2000 being one of the most difficult to control due to it's power, if all the pros of history used the T-2000, then Connors would have definitely been the best! I am not so sure about with wooden or current racquests. Maybe Borg because of his superior speed, had he not retired "way" too early!

 

[spinbalz]

????????????????????????????

 

[lemurballs]

????????????????????????????

I concur my good sir.

 

[hyperwarrior]

WTH, did the guy "billyborg" finish high school?

 

[raftermania]

I guess what he meant to say is, "Would the old school legends be competitive with the new schoolers if they had the same equipment."

 

[BreakPoint]

Isn't that kind of like saying - if all the pros used a super stiff Donnay Borg Pro wood racquet with a 65 sq. in. head, strung at 80 lbs, then Borg would have been the best ever, since no one else could have possibly used that racquet and won on a consistent basis? Can you imagine McEnroe, who used a flexy Dunlop Maxply Fort, strung at 45 lbs, trying to use Borg's racquet? Or either Borg or McEnroe trying to use Connors' T-2000? Which was also lobsided in it's weight in the head because he only put lead tape on ONE side of the hoop. Talk about being "off-balance".

 

[AndrewD]

A champion in one era will be a champion in any era. Apart from that, there's too many variables at play to say, without hesitation, that one is far superior to all others. Speculation is fun but its about all we can do. Still, if I had to pick one then all I can say is my answer wouldnt be Federer, Sampras, Connors, Borg or McEnroe.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

Think about this one closely, as Connors has many more wins, and he would have one the Grand Slam had they not stopped him from playing in the French the year he won Australian, Wimbledon, & US Open, as he "also" won the Italina Open that same year, which was right before the French!

Your thread is poorly researched or not at all. Connors had ZERO victories on clay in 1974. Your thread should be delegated to the "Z" row. Your assertion is false, he did not win the Italian Open that year. Though he did win a Major on clay, in 13 attempts he never got to the final of Roland Garros.
Let's see, who was that guy who did win it in 1974? Oh, yeah, some Swedish guy named "Bjorn Borg." I hear he was a pretty fair claycourt player. He went 13-0 on clay in 1974. Given your screen name, one would think you would know that. This Bjorn Borg character had a lifetime career record of 137-19 on clay compared to Connors' 157-41 record.
There's a lot of legitimate disagreement and argument/discussion on this board about who is the greatest this or that. Your argument isn't even legit.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Actually Camilio, Connors won the US Claycourt Championships in '74, (which was a very important event at the time)beating Borg 5-7, 6-3, 6-4. Also he skipped the French from '75-'78 (because he was so ticked off at being banned in '74) So he missed out during the 5 best years of his career. I'm not saying he could have been Borg-like on clay(though he did beat Borg at the '76 US Open on clay) but I'm sure he could have been more of a factor than many of Borg's final round opponents at the French.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

Great spot, Kevin! Bud Collins' Total Tennis does have some errors in it, Connors is listed as 0-0 on clay in 1974. He won 6 matches in that tournament on clay. While I was checking this out, I see that it was HOF'er Philippe Chatrier who banned Jimbo because he had signed with World Team Tennis.
The ATP site counts OZ in Dec. 1973 as part of the '74 season and has done some strange things like that before, so I looked to see if there was some weird calendar anomaly or if it wasn't counted as an ATP result, but it was played in Indianapolis in August and it is there on the site.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Think about this one closely!

I am

And I am still lost.

 

[Deuce]

Hyper & Camilio - give the guy a break, will you?

The insults and sarcasm are wholly unnecessary.

If this is how new members are 'welcomed', there's something severely wrong here.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

This question is an impossible question. Mcenroe would never have been a serve and vollyer if everyone had modern racquets because he would have had his bitt kicked! New racquets have enabled players to have huge return of serves and semi western topspin shots. The old school players would have employed different styles if they had the benefit of modern technology. Therefore it would be impossible to answer that question.

In fact, Lendl sort of played with a "modern" racquet as he was for a short time playing with graphite while most of his competition was playing with wood! He also began to destroy everyone on the tour. His graphite racquet and semi-western topspin was the "modern" game. He was the grand daddy of todays game. Today we have little Lendls everywhere and quite frankly its boring as all hell....but thats another issue.

Finally, Sampras did play with a modern racquet! There is virtually little difference between his pro staff and Federer's Ncode, Personally, I would rather play with a St. marks pro-staff than an Ncode any day of the week!

 

[Rabbit]

This question is an impossible question. Mcenroe would never have been a serve and vollyer if everyone had modern racquets because he would have had his bitt kicked! New racquets have enabled players to have huge return of serves and semi western topspin shots. The old school players would have employed different styles if they had the benefit of modern technology. Therefore it would be impossible to answer that question.

In fact, Lendl sort of played with a "modern" racquet as he was for a short time playing with graphite while most of his competition was playing with wood! He also began to destroy everyone on the tour. His graphite racquet and semi-western topspin was the "modern" game. He was the grand daddy of todays game. Today we have little Lendls everywhere and quite frankly its boring as all hell....but thats another issue.

Finally, Sampras did play with a modern racquet! There is virtually little difference between his pro staff and Federer's Ncode, Personally, I would rather play with a St. marks pro-staff than an Ncode any day of the week!

The Lendl vs McEnroe series might well dispute your assertions. Lendl won the last 6 and McEnroe during that time was more or less a part-time player. Take the last six away and they're dead even, graphite vs wood.

Also, McEnroe's best year, and arguably the best year ever in men's tennis, was 84 and he played it with the Dunlop 200G which was a graphite midplus.

Even today, McEnroe handles the modern game very well.

Finally, I don't know what a St. Marks ProStaff is! Surely you are referring to a St. Vincent. Unless, of course, there is a St. Marks off the coast of China.

I agree that this thread is not well thought out.

 

[tom-selleck]

A champion in one era will be a champion in any era. Apart from that, there's too many variables at play to say, without hesitation, that one is far superior to all others. Speculation is fun but its about all we can do. Still, if I had to pick one then all I can say is my answer wouldnt be Federer, Sampras, Connors, Borg or McEnroe.

i agree totally, except that obviously the guys who get to the top are partially the guys who play best with the leading equipment of the time.

i think all the guys mentioned would win in each others time period except maybe mcenroe and laver, who both had such unique games you'd have to see if they carried over to more recent times.

strange that today is a power game but without much S/V, although i guess federer does some and he's the best.

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

The Lendl vs McEnroe series might well dispute your assertions. Lendl won the last 6 and McEnroe during that time was more or less a part-time player. Take the last six away and they're dead even, graphite vs wood.

Also, McEnroe's best year, and arguably the best year ever in men's tennis, was 84 and he played it with the Dunlop 200G which was a graphite midplus.

Even today, McEnroe handles the modern game very well.

Finally, I don't know what a St. Marks ProStaff is! Surely you are referring to a St. Vincent. Unless, of course, there is a St. Marks off the coast of China.

I agree that this thread is not well thought out.

1. Yes Mcenroe did beat Lendl very early in Lendl's career. That was before Lendl developed his serve and finally won a grand slam. Most of Macs wins came before Lendl ever won a grand slam. In any event...why is it that Mcenroe changed to graphite? HE HAD TO!!! Even Mcenroe himself attributes his later losses to modern technlogy! Thats why he is the biggest proponent of the wood racquets.

2. I hate to tell you this but Mcenroe does not handle the modern game very well at all and that is why he had such a bad losing streak. In fact, I have seen Mcenroe play quite often as he is a regular at my club. And he gets regularly beat by a tennis club pro named Alex. He plays at the tennisport in Queens. If you go there during the weekdays in the middle of the day you can see him play and even talk to him. I have actually had a few conversations with him in the locker room. I offered him $1000 bucks to play a match against me....he said he would would do it for 10k!!! Too rich for my blood!

3. Yes its a St. Vincent. The fact is however, its an awesome racquet.

 

[andfor]

Finally, Sampras did play with a modern racquet! There is virtually little difference between his pro staff and Federer's Ncode, Personally, I would rather play with a St. marks pro-staff than an Ncode any day of the week!

Where is St. marks and what does it have to do with the pro-staff?

Your edit is noted. lol

 

[bamboo]

http://www.atptennis.com/championstour/news/stories/paris_preview1.asp
The "exhibition" referred to was played for keeps - I would say trouncing promising junior Andrew Murray and losing to Ancic 9-7 is handling the modern game well. Do you doubt if he were 25 he would not do even better, he's 45 now?

 

[Rabbit]

1. Yes Mcenroe did beat Lendl very early in Lendl's career. That was before Lendl developed his serve and finally won a grand slam. Most of Macs wins came before Lendl ever won a grand slam.

Sorry, but the record would say differently. Between the time Lendl won Roland Garros and the last six (which I've already addressed by noting that McEnroe was semi-retired or at least gave half an effort), the record was 6-5 in favor of Lendl. That is hardly domination.

In any event...why is it that Mcenroe changed to graphite? HE HAD TO!!! Even Mcenroe himself attributes his later losses to modern technlogy! Thats why he is the biggest proponent of the wood racquets.

Agreed.

2. I hate to tell you this but Mcenroe does not handle the modern game very well at all and that is why he had such a bad losing streak.

He beat Andy Roddick in WTT last year. Fixed? Who knows, but he did it. Andy Roddick is about as modern a game as you can get; plus the fact that McEnroe was 45 when he did it. He stretched Mario Ancic, 25 years his junior to a long set in the SuperSet exhibition in England. Fixed? Who knows, but he did it.

3. Yes its a St. Vincent. The fact is however, its an awesome racquet.

I have a St. Vincent and a Chicago. Awesome may be a stretch.

 

[Rickson]

Federer would be the best in any era.

 

[DoubleHanded&LovinIt]

If this were Jeopardy I would say, "Who is Marat Safin?"

 

[andfor]

Federer would be the best in any era.

Hmmmm, how soon we forget the great streaks of the past. Sampras, McEnroe, Edberg, Lendl, Agassi (albeit briefly), Borg, Becker, Vilas, Connors, Laver, Emerson, etc. etc. They all have records and long ones at that to reference. The point is that when these great played their best (very best) who's to say beyond the shadow of doubt that one was better than the other.

It's all so objective. My measuring stick is what has a person accomplished over time. Mine may be considered objective but it's fun to consider the possibilities. All of the true greats have long track records and they along with Fed and a few others are all all-time greats. Fed compare to the greats of history still has much to accomplish. Saying one is better than the other is mearly conjecture and very difficult to measure given they can't all play each other when each was at his best.

I say give Fed some time to equal or surpass some or most of the above before annointing him "the greatest of all time."

My greatest of all-time is Laver, then Sampras (if only he won the French).

The greatest year of all-time for me had to be McEnroe when he was virtually unbeatable in 1984. Except for the French Open lapse against Lendl, he won 13 of 15 singles tournaments on an 82-3 record. Anyone who watched him play that year should know what I am talking about. For that one year he could do it all. I am not including what he also accomplished in doubles.

Just MHO. LOL

 

[The Pusher Terminator]

Sorry, but the record would say differently. Between the time Lendl won Roland Garros and the last six (which I've already addressed by noting that McEnroe was semi-retired or at least gave half an effort), the record was 6-5 in favor of Lendl. That is hardly domination.



Agreed.




He beat Andy Roddick in WTT last year. Fixed? Who knows, but he did it. Andy Roddick is about as modern a game as you can get; plus the fact that McEnroe was 45 when he did it. He stretched Mario Ancic, 25 years his junior to a long set in the SuperSet exhibition in England. Fixed? Who knows, but he did it.



I have a St. Vincent and a Chicago. Awesome may be a stretch.

1. Mcenroe not trying?...and the sun was in his eyes to?