BIG titles ranking (work in progress)

KG1965

Legend
Not really, media cares about numbers, slams, weeks at number 1, year end number 1, head to head against fellow goat claimants, total number of titles, consistency, domination... the myth points you add are useless metrics added by fanboys of certain achievements. I mean someone can give player X 2 extra bonus points because they have more social media followers haha. Those subjective metrics have no place in assessing achievements.
Let's not joke if it were as you say Djokovic is the GOAT.
That can be fine with me, I'm a fan of Nole.
But is not so.
Because the other aspects matter more.

For the media not only is Roger > Nole but he is God and >>> Nole.
Why ? It would not make sense.
 

urban

Legend
Correct about the media. Please think for one moment, that Fed would have won RG with a 4 hour win over Nadal, a for setter over dangerous Berrettini, and all those two 2 set comebacks, and an epic final over a 12 year younger strong contender. All media would go frenzy, the internet would break apart, Rolex would build a new watch, a red cow would be handed over, and the Pope would canonize Fed santo subito. And all counts for slams or weeks at Nr. 1 would be stopped immediately, by law.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Not really, media cares about numbers, slams, weeks at number 1, year end number 1, head to head against fellow goat claimants, total number of titles, consistency, domination... the myth points you add are useless metrics added by fanboys of certain achievements. I mean someone can give player X 2 extra bonus points because they have more social media followers haha. Those subjective metrics have no place in assessing achievements.
They also care about the composition of Grand Slams. Although Federer and Nadal have each won 20 Grand Slams (using the inflated terminology of the current scene), there is still a distinction today between the top two events (Wimbledon and U.S. Open) and the other two majors.

Wimbledon/ U.S. Open
Federer 8 + 5
Nadal 2 + 4
Djokovic 5 + 3

Federer is still substantially ahead in terms of the two most prominent tournaments. This metric is usually the best to draw a distinction at the top of the game.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Maybe in 20 years from now, when the dust has settled, people will take a more objective stance, and will look at the whole bulk of work of a player. Substance and results will prevail in the long run. Djokovic shares a bit the fate of players who were not that popular in the media than others contemporaries. For instance, Rosewall (who was populat with the crowds in a more sentinmental way) and Lendl seem to get more recognition now, than in their playing time by the tennis media, because the tennis "historians" with the help pf the internet look more into records. Tilden was the first big male superstar, but due to his behaviour and attitude wasn't loved like Borotra, Johnston or Cochet. But now his name still emerges, while the other are forgotten. Gentleman Jack Crawford was much better liked than Fred Perry, especially among the upper class, but now we look much more on Perry due to his numbers. Agassi was the media darling of his day, but now Sampras will get much more votes..
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
They also care about the composition of Grand Slams. Although Federer and Nadal have each won 20 Grand Slams (using the inflated terminology of the current scene), there is still a distinction today between the top two events (Wimbledon and U.S. Open) and the other two majors.

Wimbledon/ U.S. Open
Federer 8+5
Nadal 2 + 4
Djokovic 5 + 3

Federer is still substantially ahead in terms of the two most prominent tournaments. This metric is usually the best to draw a distinction at the top of the game.
Friend us open is not top anymore, Australian open is easily the second best nearly on par with Wimbledon.
Many players have clearly said Australian open is better, the only reason Wimbledon is at top because of grass.
Take Fed for example even he likes AO more than us open nowadays and Novak already loved AO from start
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Maybe in 20 years from now, when the dust has settled, people will take a more objective stance, and will look at the whole bulk of work of a player. Substance and results will prevail in the long run. Djokovic shares a bit the fate of players who were not that popular in the media than others contemporaries. For instance, Rosewall (who was populat with the crowds in a more sentinmental way) and Lendl seem to get more recognition now, than in their playing time by the tennis media, because the tennis "historians" with the help pf the internet look more into records. Tilden was the first big male superstar, but due to his behaviour and attitude wasn't loved like Borotra, Johnston or Cochet. But now his name still emerges, while the other are forgotten. Gentleman Jack Crawford was much better liked than Fred Perry, especially among the upper class, but now we look much more on Perry due to his numbers. Agassi was the media darling of his day, but now Sampras will get much more votes..
As usual voice of reason
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Friend us open is not top anymore, Australian open is easily the second best nearly on par with Wimbledon.
Many players have clearly said Australian open is better, the only reason Wimbledon is at top because of grass.
Take Fed for example even he likes AO more than us open nowadays and Novak already loved AO from start
Even if we look at Wimbledon only, Federer has a substantial lead over the other two guys.
Sure, they may like the Aussie Grand Slam, the home of past tennis greats, but the weather is really much better in New York than in Melbourne at that time of year, very hot.
And the U.S. Open still offers more in terms of commercial benefits for winning, both the paycheque and public recognition. Both Wimbledon and U.S. Open offer quite a bit more for a win, more than a million dollars edge over the Aussie.
 
Last edited:

NAS

Hall of Fame
Even if we look at Wimbledon only, Federer has a substantial lead over the other two guys.
Sure, they may like the Aussie Grand Slam, the home of past tennis greats, but the weather is really much better in New York than in Melbourne at that time of year, very hot.
And the U.S. Open still offers more in terms of commercial benefits for winning, both the paycheque and public recognition. Both Wimbledon and U.S. Open offer quite a bit more for a win, more than a million dollars edge over the Aussie.
Don't get me wrong but you are really living in the past, I will take today's players and legends word.
Right now every slam is equal and Wimbledon may be little bit ahead because of grass.
It is players who made any event bigger.
Right now most players are happy with Australian open and with their scheduling and preparation. Australian open fans are also best not tuggish like New Yorkers.
Everybody recongnised Fed AO 17 or Novak AO 21 than Thiem us open
I think AO 2020 paid more than Usopen 2019 but not sure
 

KG1965

Legend
I have decided that I will also include Pancho Gonzalez, I don't know how but I invent something.
I will only consider the Pro and Open periods.
Not amateur because for me they have no adequate value.
I exclude the two slams that Pancho won.
 

KG1965

Legend
1950: Philadelphia, Wembley
1951: Australian Pro Tour, Wembley
1952: Philadelphia, , Berlin, Wembley
1953: US Pro, Los Angeles, Quebec
1954: World Pro Tour, Australian Pro Tour, New York, Cleveland, US Pro
1955: US Pro, Scarborough, Ostend, Los Angeles
1956: World Pro Tour, South African Pro Tour, US Pro, Los Angeles, Chicago, Milan, Buenos Aires
1957: World Pro Tour, Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills), US Pro, Los Angeles, Hamilton
1958: World Pro Tour, Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills), US Pro
1959: World Pro Tour, Tournament of Champions (Sydney), US Pro, Los Angeles, Toronto,
1960: World Pro Tour
1961: World Pro Tour, US Pro, Geneva, Copenhagen, Vienna, Milan
1964: Cleveland, White Plains, Knokke-le-Zoute, Hollywood
1965: Sydney, Orlando, Seattle, Dallas
1966: Wembley, Hollywood
1968: Midland, NTL Los Angeles
1969: Los Angeles PS, Las Vegas
1970: Las Vegas
1971: Los Angeles PS

 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Don't get me wrong but you are really living in the past, I will take today's players and legends word.
Right now every slam is equal and Wimbledon may be little bit ahead because of grass.
It is players who made any event bigger.
Right now most players are happy with Australian open and with their scheduling and preparation. Australian open fans are also best not tuggish like New Yorkers.
Everybody recongnised Fed AO 17 or Novak AO 21 than Thiem us open
I think AO 2020 paid more than Usopen 2019 but not sure
No, not even close. The Aussie Open is about a million dollars less than either Wimbledon or U.S. Open for the winner. The French is about two million dollars less than Wimbledon or the U.S. Open.
Don't kid yourself, the players all want to win one of the two big ones. The older guys know that. Some of that hype for the Aussie is to try and build up interest in the event, and increase the money available in the game.

Even in the old pro era before 1968, the top tournaments paid out the biggest money.
In the 1957-1958-1959 era, the Tournament of Champions events paid out the top paycheques, and were played at the foremost venues.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
Points
4000: World Pro Tour (7)
2500: Australian Pro Tour (2), South African Pro Tour
1500: Wembley (3), US Pro (8), Scarborough, Tournament of Champions (3),
1400: Los Angeles PS (2), Las Vegas (2)
1000: Philadelphia (2), Los Angeles (5), New York, Berlin, Cleveland (2),
750: Ostend, Chicago, Milan (2), Buenos Aires, Hamilton, Toronto, Geneva, Copenhagen, Vienna, Quebec, White Plains, Knokke-le-Zoute, Hollywood (2), Sydney, Orlando, Seattle, Dallas,
NTL Los Angeles, Midland.

I admit I have a lot of doubts because I have only followed tennis since the mid 70s and in any case the information on the 60s is not that bad.

1) I tend to consider the World Pro Tour a lot, > 1 OE slam,
2) I'm not sure about the score given to Australian Pro Tour and South African Pro Tour,
3) 1500 points at Wembley and US Pro as I think I did for Rosewall and Laver, considering the fact that for me a slam is worth twice as much as a major Pro,
4) 1500 points also at the legendary Tournament of Champions,
5) 1400 points to Los Angeles PS and Las Vegas, best early OE tournaments, excluding Wimbly and USO,
6) the other 32 big titles won are between 1000 and 750, but I have many doubts that they are indicated correctly.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
GONZALEZ
7 World Tours
3 others Tours (Australian Pro Tour & South African Pro Tour)
15 bigger tournaments Pro Era (Wembley, US Pro, Scarborough, Tournament of Champions)
4 bigger tournaments OE (Los Angeles PS and Las Vegas)
11 big titles Pro Era
19 big titles Pro Era but to a lesser relevance

28.000 (7 x 4000)
7.500 (3 x 2500)
22.500 (15 x 1500)
5.600 (4 x 1400)
11.000 (11 x 1000)
15.750 (21 x 750)
90.350 BIG TITLES POINTS
 

KG1965

Legend
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.

RESULTS
21,54 DJOKOVIC
20,47 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
32,54 DJOKOVIC (21,54 + 11 bonus)
32,47 NADAL (20,47 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus*)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)

*
- 1 bonus point EXPLOIT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT, PRESTIGIOUS ... LEGENDARY
- 3 bonus points AESTETICALLY TENNIS, BEAUTY GAME, REVOLUTIONARY STYLE,UNIQUENESS OF TECHNICAL AND ATHLETIC GESTURE

- 0 bonus points HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE

- 5 bonus points DOMINANCE
 
Last edited:

xFedal

Legend
GONZALEZ
7 World Tours
3 others Tours (Australian Pro Tour & South African Pro Tour)
15 bigger tournaments Pro Era (Wembley, US Pro, Scarborough, Tournament of Champions)
4 bigger tournaments OE (Los Angeles PS and Las Vegas)
11 big titles Pro Era
19 big titles Pro Era but to a lesser relevance

28.000 (7 x 4000)
7.500 (3 x 2500)
22.500 (15 x 1500)
5.600 (4 x 1400)
11.000 (11 x 1000)
15.750 (21 x 750)
90.350 BIG TITLES POINTS
I think you should give 5000 points for a world tour .
 

KG1965

Legend
I think you should give 5000 points for a world tour .
Thanks for the suggestion but I must confess that my ranking is just an attempt to group results in order to insert Gonzalez without penalizing him too much. Not to forget the big myth. That's all.

It is clear that while if we take from 1990 onwards a player could potentially (by winning all the big titles) take 18,500 points (8000 slam, 9000 from the Masters and 1500 from the Finals) - I gave 3,000 to the slams .... ; in the Gonzalez Era there were few big titles and even winning them all plus the World Tours the score is significantly lower.
 

KG1965

Legend
Post Wimbly

DJOKOVIC
20 Slam
5 ATP Finals
11 IW or Miami
5 Rome
12 Master1000 (extra IW, Miami, Rome, Paris, Madrid)
8 Paris or Madrid or Queen's
61 BIG TITLES

60.000 (20 x 3000)
7.500 (5 x 1500)
15.400 (11 x 1400)
6.250 (5 x 1250)
12.000 (12 x 1000)
6.000 (8 x 750)

107.150 BIG TITLES POINTS
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS

KG1965

Legend
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.

RESULTS
22,16
DJOKOVIC
20,47 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
33,16 DJOKOVIC (22,16 + 11 bonus)
32,47 NADAL (20,47 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
 

xFedal

Legend
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.

RESULTS
22,16
DJOKOVIC
20,47 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
33,16 DJOKOVIC (22,16 + 11 bonus)
32,47 NADAL (20,47 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
Give Lavers TCC 5000 points each for winning it in 1970 and 1971 so Lavers results with this modification are 20 what? 25,00?
 

xFedal

Legend
I'm not sure, but they decided a "World Champion" which would tend to mean the best player. We can ascribe a value to them in the same was as we would more standard tournaments.
I'd go as far as saying give the world pro tour winner 10,000 points for each world pro tour won . Some world tours had over 100 matches against the best in the world :oops: :eek: . Also slams Laver and Rosewall won should be given double points, why? Because they played the longer format, no tiebreak until 1975 i think. Laver played Roche 90 game match in 1969 one of the slams, il give you an example 7/6 6/7 7/6 6/7 7/6 is 65 games todays maximum .
 

xFedal

Legend
I've not really used tennise base, I really should. My issue from what I've seen is the relative weighting they give to events 'major pro tournaments 1700' compared to what 2200 or so for Open Era majors is too close for me. Within individual years I might trust their analysis.
1500 for pro majors and 3000 for open era majors? Is that more acceptable to you?
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
They also care about the composition of Grand Slams. Although Federer and Nadal have each won 20 Grand Slams (using the inflated terminology of the current scene), there is still a distinction today between the top two events (Wimbledon and U.S. Open) and the other two majors.

Wimbledon/ U.S. Open
Federer 8 + 5
Nadal 2 + 4
Djokovic 5 + 3

Federer is still substantially ahead in terms of the two most prominent tournaments. This metric is usually the best to draw a distinction at the top of the game.
WRONG! The AO and FO are equal slams in value: ranking points, competition, money and are unique in their own way.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Not in money, Wimbledon and U.S. are still the top two. Also in terms of prestige, television ratings.
The AO and FO are official slams which is why: Roger has 20, Novak has 20 and Rafa has 20, according to the ATP and ITF official count. Accept the Reality, like it or not.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The AO and FO are official slams which is why: Roger has 20, Novak has 20 and Rafa has 20, according to the ATP and ITF official count. Accept the Reality, like it or not.
Sure, they are Slams, but all Slams are not created equal. Some are bigger and better.

Some of the greatest tournaments in history are not even Slams.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Sure, they are Slams, but all Slams are not created equal. Some are bigger and better.

Some of the greatest tournaments in history are not even Slams.
This is a myth. While I always feel most players grow up wanting to win W and most feel it’s more prestige all slams count the same. USO Fed hasn’t won since 08 so while the 5 in a row is a excellent achievement the 13 years without one doesn’t. I get when people say Nadal has 13 at the FO and is too Clay reliant to be goat but all slams are the same
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
This is a myth. While I always feel most players grow up wanting to win W and most feel it’s more prestige all slams count the same. USO Fed hasn’t won since 08 so while the 5 in a row is a excellent achievement the 13 years without one doesn’t. I get when people say Nadal has 13 at the FO and is too Clay reliant to be goat but all slams are the same
They sure don't all have the same money or prestige.
 
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.

RESULTS
21,54 DJOKOVIC
20,47 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
32,54 DJOKOVIC (21,54 + 11 bonus)
32,47 NADAL (20,47 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus*)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)

*
- 1 bonus point EXPLOIT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT, PRESTIGIOUS ... LEGENDARY
- 3 bonus points AESTETICALLY TENNIS, BEAUTY GAME, REVOLUTIONARY STYLE,UNIQUENESS OF TECHNICAL AND ATHLETIC GESTURE

- 0 bonus points HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE

- 5 bonus points DOMINANCE
I'm lost here KG, would you kindly walk me through a little bit? Couldn't actually find the ranking system you are using in the posts above - im sure it's there somewhere though. Thank you!
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
They also care about the composition of Grand Slams. Although Federer and Nadal have each won 20 Grand Slams (using the inflated terminology of the current scene), there is still a distinction today between the top two events (Wimbledon and U.S. Open) and the other two majors.

Wimbledon/ U.S. Open
Federer 8 + 5
Nadal 2 + 4
Djokovic 5 + 3

Federer is still substantially ahead in terms of the two most prominent tournaments. This metric is usually the best to draw a distinction at the top of the game.
TODAY, as in the past 30 years or so, ALL slams are equal competitive wise.
I have decided that I will also include Pancho Gonzalez, I don't know how but I invent something.
I will only consider the Pro and Open periods.
Not amateur because for me they have no adequate value.
I exclude the two slams that Pancho won.
I agree, then we should eliminate 6 of Laver's amateur slams and 4 of Rosewall's.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
TODAY, as in the past 30 years or so, ALL slams are equal competitive wise.

I agree, then we should eliminate 6 of Laver's amateur slams and 4 of Rosewall's.
In some years, the top amateur could be considered the equal or better of the top pros.

Wimbledon and U.S. titles have always been considered higher level than French or Australian, even today those top two have larger payments to players.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
In some years, the top amateur could be considered the equal or better of the top pros.

Wimbledon and U.S. titles have always been considered higher level than French or Australian, even today those top two have larger payments to players.
No doubt in some years the amateur players were the equal or superior to the pro players, however from the late fifties till the open era players like: Gonzalez, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Laver were superior to the players on the amateur tour
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
No doubt in some years the amateur players were the equal or superior to the pro players, however from the late fifties till the open era players like: Gonzalez, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Laver were superior to the players on the amateur tour
Laver was probably the last amateur champ to be ranked ahead of the top pros.
 

KG1965

Legend
Post Paris Indoor

DJOKOVIC
20 Slam
5 ATP Finals
11 IW or Miami
5 Rome
12 Master1000 (extra IW, Miami, Rome, Paris, Madrid)
9 Paris or Madrid or Queen's
62 BIG TITLES

60.000 (20 x 3000)
7.500 (5 x 1500)
15.400 (11 x 1400)
6.250 (5 x 1250)
12.000 (12 x 1000)
6.750 (8 x 750)

107.900 BIG TITLES POINTS
 

KG1965

Legend
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.

RESULTS
22,32
DJOKOVIC
20,47 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
33,32 DJOKOVIC (22,16 + 11 bonus)
32,47 NADAL (20,47 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
 

KG1965

Legend
This is a normal point counter essentially consisting of two parts:
1) the points to be awarded to the tournaments and that I have hypothesized over the years;
2) some super bonuses that I assume fans and media attribute to some aspect of superstar careers.
I have given these aspects a score.

Both are obviously moot points.

Personally, I would attribute different importance to superbonus and therefore score with respect to what is the opinion of the fans and the media.

In fact for me currently the GOAT is Djokovic.
 

Drob

Professional
No doubt in some years the amateur players were the equal or superior to the pro players, however from the late fifties till the open era players like: Gonzalez, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Laver were superior to the players on the amateur tour
any year through 1930 amateur is No. 1

1931 - a year w/o a No.1
1932 - amateur Vines
1933 - amateur Crawford
1934 - amateur Perry arguably
1936 - amateur Perry
1938 - amateur Budge very arguably
1947 - amateur Kramer
1952 - amateur Sedgman arguably

That is it. After 1952 no amateur is in contention for world No. 1
 
Top