Best male player to never win US Open other than Borg? (Open Era)

Best player other than Borg to never win the American Slam?

  • Chang

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Courier

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • Gerulaitis

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Kodes

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Martin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nishikori

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Roche

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Total voters
    21

BGod

G.O.A.T.
It's one of the most universally accepted facts that Bjorn Borg is the greatest player to never win the US Open. Making 4 Finals and another Semi and Quarter run as well as retiring after making 2 straight finals. But what about the rest?

Other than Borg, every one of the other all-time players won at least once. Yes, the Big 5, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg. Even Vilas won it once on clay. And the old guard of Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, etc.

Remember now, this is BEST PLAYER at this event not greatest career.

Breakdown of choices, I'm just doing highlights:

Todd Martin, 1 Time Finalist, 2 additional SF
Jim Courier, 1 Time Finalist, 2 additional SF
Michael Chang, 1 Time Finalist, 2 additional SF & 2 QF
Jan Kodes, 2 Time Finalist & 1 QF
Tony Roche, 2 Time Finalist
Vitas Gerulaitis, 1 Time Finalist, 2 additional SF
Kei Nishikori, 1 Time Finalist, 2 additional SF
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Is the USO even a single tourney? Honestly. Its identity has been all over the map.

The three distinct surfaces thing aside, this tourney is night and day from what it was even when Fed won it last.

Hard-pressed to come up with a tourney that has wavered as radically.

Bizarre. And sad.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Although courier is the best player on that list, he was never as close to winning the title as Borg was in 1980 in that not-so-remembered final against mcenroe.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Courier is certainly the most accomplished player on that list never to win his home Slam.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Its close between Courier and Chang! I personally would give it to Chang, simply cuz the dude deserves 2nd slam and was robbed many times later in his career ever since that single RG victory...
 

KG1965

Legend
All top players in history (apart from Bjorn) have won the US Open perhaps because the US Open is the most important tournament in history.o_O
Not Wimbledon? :rolleyes:
Yes, not Wimbledon.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
All top players in history (apart from Bjorn) have won the US Open perhaps because the US Open is the most important tournament in history.o_O
Not Wimbledon? :rolleyes:
Yes, not Wimbledon.

Who are you defining as top players?
 

Fiero425

Legend
Its close between Courier and Chang! I personally would give it to Chang, simply cuz the dude deserves 2nd slam and was robbed many times later in his career ever since that single RG victory...

Robbed? Chang was a backboard; nothing more, nothing less! He had no real weapon besides his mobility/speed! Like Rafa now, Chang pret' near exhausts himself trying to outlast players in many of his more memorable matches! He coughed up a few of his own chances including that '92 USO SF to Edberg up a break with a point to go up 2 in the 5th set! Not like he had a real chance against Sampras in the final who'd embarrassed him many a time in big matches! :sneaky: :cautious: ;)
 

Fiero425

Legend
The concept is this:
while at Wimbledon and RG some important all time stars are missing among the winners (the history of AO is a joke), only the Borg is missing from USO.
From my point of view, the history of US Open is better.

Besides the skills of Borg's contemporaries, he was just very unlucky with the USO! So many things went against him there; the distractions of people and planes, the 1st Major to go to night play, and injuries from the shoulder in '77 and the thumb in '78! He couldn't keep from slamming his racket to the ground on serves and overheads in '78 final against Connors! The actual court surface had gone thru so many metamorphosis during that period; from grass in '74, to Har-Tru clay '75-77, then to a "pain of glass" speed HC in '78! He was legitimately stopped by McEnroe in '80 & '81, but putting him against the serve of Roscoe Tanner in a night match, an official was looking for an upset in '79 QF! :censored: :cautious: :sneaky: ;)
 

KG1965

Legend
Besides the skills of Borg's contemporaries, he was just very unlucky with the USO! So many things went against him there; the distractions of people and planes, the 1st Major to go to night play, and injuries from the shoulder in '77 and the thumb in '78! He couldn't keep from slamming his racket to the ground on serves and overheads in '78 final against Connors! The actual court surface had gone thru so many metamorphosis during that period; from grass in '74, to Har-Tru clay '75-77, then to a "pain of glass" speed HC in '78! He was legitimately stopped by McEnroe in '80 & '81, but putting him against the serve of Roscoe Tanner in a night match, an official was looking for an upset in '79 QF! :censored::cautious::sneaky:;)
I agree with everything you write about Borg-USO.
He's was particularly unlucky.
But I think Wimbledon Bjorn was lucky to win 5 times in a row. I don't know if the misfortune USO v luck Wimbly is equal.

Wimbledon is the most famous and most important tournament of all. No doubt.
I just wanted to say that the USO winners are top all time, a sign that the participants have always been the best of tennis.
 

USOPEN1991

Rookie
The concept is this:
while at Wimbledon and RG some important all time stars are missing among the winners (the history of AO is a joke), only the Borg is missing from USO.
From my point of view, the history of US Open is
I agree with everything you write about Borg-USO.
He's was particularly unlucky.
But I think Wimbledon Bjorn was lucky to win 5 times in a row. I don't know if the misfortune USO v luck Wimbly is equal.

Wimbledon is the most famous and most important tournament of all. No doubt.
I just wanted to say that the USO winners are top all time, a sign that the participants have always been the best of tennis.
What is definitely clear with Connors is that he was the most successful player in his active time from the US Open in 1969 to Atlanta in 1996.
And that's why only the comparison with Lendl is so important. His active time was integrated in the time of Connors.
I mean now only in singles. Otherwise, McEnroe would be better overall. Borg is the Grand Slam King of Europe in this period.
So, when it's clear that Connors stands in front of Borg, Lendl and McEnroe in singles, he's the most successful player of HIS TIME.
August 1969 to April 1996.
 
Top