Break the all time greats into 3 separate Tiers

[jrepac]

Here, I have Perry on my list of all time greats.....I show no favouritism. I recognize quality.

Tier One:
Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer

Tier Two:
Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe

Tier Three:
Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Trabert, Tilden, Williams, McLaughlin

Tier Four:
Riggs, Segura, Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra, Nadal, Djokovic, Cash, Fraser, Emerson, Johnston, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, Santana, Gimeno, Roche, Stolle, Murray, Agassi, Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Wilander, Tanner, Vilas, L. Doherty, Brookes, Wilding

Mac and Newk above Connors and Lendl? No, that doesn't fly....certainly not in terms of accomplishments in singles.
If you are talking peak ability, sure, for one year Mac played like a God. But over the course of his career, not quite at the more consistent levels of Lendl and Connors, both with more weeks at #1, more titles and 1 more GS each.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I know this is your personal opinion but what basis you have used for ranking? Certainly not peak play or overall achievement so any other specific qualities.
I can't see how Hoad can be number one tier but djokovic in fourth tier. hell even Smith, ashe above Rafa and Novak, this look like a bad joke.

Lobb is the most enormous Hoad fan of all space-time, that's par for the course. No respect for post-70s guys who were more defensively-minded, either.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Mac and Newk above Connors and Lendl? No, that doesn't fly....certainly not in terms of accomplishments in singles.
If you are talking peak ability, sure, for one year Mac played like a God. But over the course of his career, not quite at the more consistent levels of Lendl and Connors, both with more weeks at #1, more titles and 1 more GS each.

You are right,, I only consider level of play, not numbers of titles.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Lobb is the most enormous Hoad fan of all space-time, that's par for the course. No respect for post-70s guys who were more defensively-minded, either.

Actually, I have no opinion on Hoad, I just quote others who really know, the players themselves.

I value the opinion of those who actually traded strokes with the players.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Actually, I have no opinion on Hoad, I just quote others who really know, the players themselves.

I value the opinion of those who actually traded strokes with the players.

Who are you trying to fool? lol.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Who are you trying to fool? lol.

What do you mean?

I prefer the opinions of those who actually played against the greats....that excludes me, and you (I suspect).

 

[Dan Lobb]

I know this is your personal opinion but what basis you have used for ranking? Certainly not peak play or overall achievement so any other specific qualities.
I can't see how Hoad can be number one tier but djokovic in fourth tier. hell even Smith, ashe above Rafa and Novak, this look like a bad joke.

I use only "level of play" as my criterion, and rely upon contemporary evaluations of the players themselves.

I use only grass as the surface, no clay, just classic grass surface (not like today), equipment standardized for all players. (Bad news for Nadal and Djokovic and

Vilas).

The top tier is not my choice...it comes from a 2010 interview of Rosewall who rated the top 4 all-time as 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3)Laver 4) Federer.

That solves the problem of the top tier, which I accept without challenge.

For Tier 2, I have chosen the prominent names of other candidates for Tier 1 who failed to get the nod from the Little Cornishman.

I agree that Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe all have some claim to first tier, but fall below the "Rosewall

dividing line".

Tier 3 and 4 is more subjective, I give Smith, Ashe and the other great grass players the edge for Tier 3. Many of the Tier 4 players were at their best on clay.

You will notice that my tiers get larger as they get lower, and that is how it should be, a pyramid.

It makes sense that the further down you go, the wider the tier should be. I cannot understand why some posters have the same number of players in each tier.

Tier 1: 4 players

Tier 2: 9 players

Tier 3: 14 players

Tier 4: 27 players

 

[Dan Lobb]

This list is not cast in stone, I may change some positions.

Again, this is based on "level of play", not numbers of titles. Grass only, static technology.

This list is not my opinion, but based on evaluations of contemporary players.

Tier One:
Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer

Tier Two:
Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe

Tier Three:
Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Trabert, Segura, Riggs, Lacoste, Tilden, Williams, McLaughlin

Tier Four:
Cochet, Borotra, Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, Cash, Fraser, Emerson, Johnston, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, Santana, Gimeno, Roche, Stolle, Murray, Agassi, Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Nusslein, Kovacs, Wilander, Tanner, Vilas, L. Doherty, Brookes, Wilding

 

[Flash O'Groove]

This list is not cast in stone, I may change some positions.

Again, this is based on "level of play", not numbers of titles. Grass only, static technology.

This list is not my opinion, but based on evaluations of contemporary players.

Tier One:
Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer

Tier Two:
Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe

Tier Three:
Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Trabert, Segura, Riggs, Lacoste, Tilden, Williams, McLaughlin

Tier Four:
Cochet, Borotra, Nadal, Djokovic, Cash, Fraser, Emerson, Johnston, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, Santana, Gimeno, Roche, Stolle, Murray, Agassi, Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Wilander, Tanner, Vilas, L. Doherty, Brookes, Wilding

Why don't you include some slamless players in your fourth tier? Certainly there have been some impressive level of play in lesser tournaments, or in early round of slams?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Why don't you include some slamless players in your fourth tier? Certainly there have been some impressive level of play in lesser tournaments, or in early round of slams?

Good point.

Frank Kovacs comes to mind.

Segura is included above.

Gimeno was borderline, his only slam was that boycotted 1972 RG.

Probably Nusslein should be there.

I will add Kovacs and Nusslein now, maybe others too.

 

[frodobaggins]

This list is not cast in stone, I may change some positions.

Again, this is based on "level of play", not numbers of titles. Grass only, static technology.

This list is not my opinion, but based on evaluations of contemporary players.

Tier One:
Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer

Tier Two:
Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe

Tier Three:
Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Trabert, Segura, Riggs, Lacoste, Tilden, Williams, McLaughlin

Tier Four:
Cochet, Borotra, Nadal, Djokovic, Cash, Fraser, Emerson, Johnston, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, Santana, Gimeno, Roche, Stolle, Murray, Agassi, Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Nusslein, Kovacs, Wilander, Tanner, Vilas, L. Doherty, Brookes, Wilding

ROTFL, Hoad Tier 1 with the likes of Federer and Laver, and Nadal/Djokovic in the same tier as Ivanisevic and Krajicek and a lower tier than Ashe, Smith, Becker, Williams, McLaughlin, Riggs, Trabert. I would love some of what you are smoking, as it must be some good sh-t.

Edit- I didnt see the grass only part, but that logic is stupid. As if the only surface tennis has ever been played on is grass.

 

[Dan Lobb]

ROTFL, Hoad Tier 1 with the likes of Federer and Laver, and Nadal/Djokovic in the same tier as Ivanisevic and Krajicek and a lower tier than Ashe, Smith, Becker, Williams, McLaughlin, Riggs, Trabert. I would love some of what you are smoking, as it must be some good sh-t.

Edit- I didn't see the grass only part, but that logic is stupid. As if the only surface tennis has ever been played on is grass.

I specified constant technology, so that is a huge problem for Djokovic and Nadal...especially on grass, not good for Nadal.

I doubt that Nadal and Djokovic could adjust to wood rackets with their two-handed style.

Segura was two-handed, but he hit his volleys ONE-HANDED, he gets to level 3. Segura was great on grass.

Grass was the traditional surface for three of the four GS titles, and should still be.

You like rubber? All that "squeak...squeak...squeak"? I can't stand it.

I would put Ivanisevic and Krajicek higher if they had won more than one major.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

"I doubt that Nadal and Djokovic could adjust to wood rackets with their two-handed style."

Borg had two-handed backhand and did pretty well on grass. That Connors guy had a few good runs too.

 

[Dan Lobb]

"I doubt that Nadal and Djokovic could adjust to wood rackets with their two-handed style."

Borg had two-handed backhand and did pretty well on grass. That Connors guy had a few good runs too.

Connors did by far his best on rubber. By far.

On grass he had trouble with Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe (although he had some good wins over Mac on grass).

No, these guys all had trouble at net, volleying with two hands is awkward, hard to adjust.

I have Borg and Connors at a fairly high level, 2 for Borg, 3 for Connors...look at their peers, pretty good players.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Yes, but Nadal and Djokovic volley with one hand anyway.

 

[Dan Lobb]

ROTFL, Hoad Tier 1 with the likes of Federer and Laver, and Nadal/Djokovic in the same tier as Ivanisevic and Krajicek and a lower tier than Ashe, Smith, Becker, Williams, McLaughlin, Riggs, Trabert. I would love some of what you are smoking, as it must be some good sh-t.

Edit- I didnt see the grass only part, but that logic is stupid. As if the only surface tennis has ever been played on is grass.

I don't think that Rosewall was under any influence when he picked the top tier for me.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes, but Nadal and Djokovic volley with one hand anyway.

That must be recent...I seem to recall them using two hands to volley.

I will check the online videos. But they sure look awkward at net. They sure bungle a lot of volleys.

Segura used one hand to volley.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

They play classic one-handers.

 

[BrokenGears]

That must be recent...I seem to recall them using two hands to volley.

I will check the online videos. But they sure look awkward at net. They sure bungle a lot of volleys.

Segura used one hand to volley.

What are you on? Novak and Nadal use one-hand for volleys since the beginning of time

 

[Dan Lobb]

What are you on? Novak and Nadal use one-hand for volleys since the beginning of time

They sure don't volley much, I tried watching the 2015 Wimbledon final and fell asleep waiting for someone to come to net. And they bungle way more volleys than greats of the past.

Have you watched Wimbledon recently? Like in the past ten years?

 

[Dan Lobb]

What are you on? Novak and Nadal use one-hand for volleys since the beginning of time

Here is some footage of open era players who knew how to volley.

Needless to say, the current group of "greats" failed to qualify for this list.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes, luck or other top players being injured is the only way Rosewall would have won Wimbledon, I'm afraid...

Here is that link showing that Rosewall is a fellow Cornishman.

I now refer to him as The Little Cornishman, much better than the Little Master, don't you think?

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/boards/surnames.tremayne/21.32.1.1.1/mb.ashx

Here is Rosewall Hill near St. Ives,

 

[jrepac]

This list is not cast in stone, I may change some positions.

Again, this is based on "level of play", not numbers of titles. Grass only, static technology.

This list is not my opinion, but based on evaluations of contemporary players.

Tier One:
Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer

Tier Two:
Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe

Tier Three:
Smith, Nastase, Ashe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Trabert, Segura, Riggs, Lacoste, Tilden, Williams, McLaughlin

Tier Four:
Cochet, Borotra, Nadal, Djokovic, Cash, Fraser, Emerson, Johnston, Krajicek, Ivanesevic, Santana, Gimeno, Roche, Stolle, Murray, Agassi, Perry, Crawford, von Cramm, Nusslein, Kovacs, Wilander, Tanner, Vilas, L. Doherty, Brookes, Wilding

Lendl in Tier 3 and other Wimbledon winners in T4 doesn't make good sense to me. Sure he won a few at Queens but you have him at a level alongside guys who won multiple GS on grass. That really seems a bit off to me.

 

[thrust]

I specified constant technology, so that is a huge problem for Djokovic and Nadal...especially on grass, not good for Nadal.

I doubt that Nadal and Djokovic could adjust to wood rackets with their two-handed style.

Segura was two-handed, but he hit his volleys ONE-HANDED, he gets to level 3. Segura was great on grass.

Grass was the traditional surface for three of the four GS titles, and should still be.

You like rubber? All that "squeak...squeak...squeak"? I can't stand it.

I would put Ivanisevic and Krajicek higher if they had won more than one major.

You should accept the fact that grass is NO longer the premier GS surface. Therefore, Novak and Nadal should not be penalized for their lack of grass court wins. Djokovic has won 4 Wimbledons, so he should be a tier one ATG, even by your grass court standard.
Tier One, Post WW2: Laver, Federer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Djokovic, Nadal
Tier Two: Hoad, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Newcombe, Lendl, Edberg and Becker

 

[Dan Lobb]

Lendl in Tier 3 and other Wimbledon winners in T4 doesn't make good sense to me. Sure he won a few at Queens but you have him at a level alongside guys who won multiple GS on grass. That really seems a bit off to me.

You are right, he should be with Nadal and Djokovic in Tier 4. Will make the change.

You should accept the fact that grass is NO longer the premier GS surface. Therefore, Novak and Nadal should not be penalized for their lack of grass court wins. Djokovic has won 4 Wimbledons, so he should be a tier one ATG, even by your grass court standard.
Tier One, Post WW2: Laver, Federer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Djokovic, Nadal
Tier Two: Hoad, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Newcombe, Lendl, Edberg and Becker

Hey, both baseball and football moved to rubber/concrete for some decades, and are now moving back to grass.

Injuries are more common on this rubber/concrete stuff.

I do not think of Djokovic as a grass court guy.

Is your ranking on which surface?

 

[thrust]

You are right,, I only consider level of play, not numbers of titles.

I will take the higher number of titles, and longevity of high quality, for about 20 years, over a player who had a higher level for about 4 years. To Each His Own!

 

[timnz]

In no particular order within the tiers

Tier- 1

Laver, Pancho Gonz, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Tilden, Djokovic

Tier-2

Budge, Kramer, Connors, Lendl, Mac, Agassi, Vines

Tier- 3

Edberg, Becker, Emerson, Wilding, Nusslein

Tier 4

Courier, Nastase, Sedgman. Newcombe, Murray

 

[Phoenix1983]

You should accept the fact that grass is NO longer the premier GS surface. Therefore, Novak and Nadal should not be penalized for their lack of grass court wins. Djokovic has won 4 Wimbledons, so he should be a tier one ATG, even by your grass court standard.
Tier One, Post WW2: Laver, Federer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Djokovic, Nadal
Tier Two: Hoad, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Newcombe, Lendl, Edberg and Becker

Er - Sampras is definitely Tier One bud.

Also where is Borg?

 

[King No1e]

Open Era:
Tier 1: Laver, Rosewall, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Connors, Borg
Tier 2: Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker
Tier 3: Courier, Murray, Vilas, Kuerten, Nastase, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Wawrinka, Kodes, Ashe

 

[thrust]

Er - Sampras is definitely Tier One bud.

Also where is Borg?

For some reason I usually forget Borg. He is a tier one ATG, despite a short career. Pete is one of my all time favorite players, but his very poor clay court record bothers me. For me a tier one ATG should have been great on all surfaces. Though Borg never won a hard court slam, he did reach several USO finals, whereas, Pete never got to a FO final and only one SF. I accept the fact that, perhaps, Pete is a tier one ATG and that I am being too critical.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I will take the higher number of titles, and longevity of high quality, for about 20 years, over a player who had a higher level for about 4 years. To Each His Own!

If you are referring to Hoad, he had a career lasting about 11 years where he produced top level play, 1953 to 1964.

Titles have to be evaluated on the strength of the field.

 

[Dan Lobb]

For some reason I usually forget Borg. He is a tier one ATG, despite a short career. Pete is one of my all time favorite players, but his very poor clay court record bothers me. For me a tier one ATG should have been great on all surfaces. Though Borg never won a hard court slam, he did reach several USO finals, whereas, Pete never got to a FO final and only one SF. I accept the fact that, perhaps, Pete is a tier one ATG and that I am being too critical.

That is why I asked you to specify your surface.

It makes no sense to mix up the surfaces, better to choose one surface for each ranking list.

 

[Drob]

After The Great War

Clay

Tier One

Nadal, Borg, Cochet, Rosewall, Lendl


Tier Two

Lacoste, Kuerten, Laver, Tilden, Drobny, Djokovic, Cramm, Wilander, Trabert


Tier Three

Gimeno, Ferrero, Nusslein, Muster, Nastase, Johnston, Courier, Hoad, Kozeluh, Brugera, Pietrangeli, Borotra, Perry, Panatta, Santana, Warwinka, Agassi, Federer, Vilas, Richard Gonzalez, Noah, Sedgman, Orantes, Patty, Kovacs, Budge, Vines

 

[Fiero425]

For some reason I usually forget Borg. He is a tier one ATG, despite a short career. Pete is one of my all time favorite players, but his very poor clay court record bothers me. For me a tier one ATG should have been great on all surfaces. Though Borg never won a hard court slam, he did reach several USO finals, whereas, Pete never got to a FO final and only one SF. I accept the fact that, perhaps, Pete is a tier one ATG and that I am being too critical.

Just 15 years ago, the tennis experts and fans were ready to forget that missing element to Sampras' status as "The GOAT!" We all wanted to be part of history and anointed him the greatest even though lacking any reputation on clay; never playing a FO final against his closest rival like Roger! Lucky for him, Soderling came along in '09 to help Federer out by eliminating Rafa early to give him his lone title! I still say Roger should gift something to Robin; maybe a house back in Sweden! He can afford it! He helped complete his record!

 

[Drob]

In no particular order within the tiers

Tier- 1

Laver, Pancho Gonz, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Tilden, Djokovic

Tier-2

Budge, Kramer, Connors, Lendl, Mac, Agassi, Vines

Tier- 3

Edberg, Becker, Emerson, Wilding, Nusslein

Tier 4

Courier, Nastase, Sedgman. Newcombe, Murray

Not bad

 

[Dan Lobb]

After The Great War

Clay

Tier One

Nadal, Borg, Cochet, Rosewall, Lendl


Tier Two

Lacoste, Kuerten, Laver, Tilden, Drobny, Djokovic, Cramm, Wilander, Trabert


Tier Three

Gimeno, Ferrero, Nusslein, Muster, Nastase, Johnston, Courier, Hoad, Kozeluh, Brugera, Pietrangeli, Borotra, Perry, Panatta, Santana, Warwinka, Agassi, Federer, Vilas, Gonzalez, Noah, Sedgman, Orantes, Patty, Kovacs, Budge

Which Gonzalez, Francisco or Ricardo?

 

[Drob]

Which Gonzalez, Francisco or Ricardo?

Ricardo, of course. I'll edit to make explicit.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Ricardo, of course. I'll edit to make explicit.

Did Ricardo win a major clay event?

 

[Drob]

Here is some footage of open era players who knew how to volley.

Needless to say, the current group of "greats" failed to qualify for this list.

Nice video, thanks. Truth of the matter, Roger's serve and volley may be in the same class as these, but his use of it has been so sparse, relatively speaking, that it is hard to assert that with total confidence. One does not know how his s/v would hold up if it were a constant of his service game.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

In no particular order within the tiers

Tier- 1

Laver, Pancho Gonz, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Tilden, Djokovic

Tier-2

Budge, Kramer, Connors, Lendl, Mac, Agassi, Vines

Tier- 3

Edberg, Becker, Emerson, Wilding, Nusslein

Tier 4

Courier, Nastase, Sedgman. Newcombe, Murray

Ahem, Wilander?

 

[Drob]

Good point.

Frank Kovacs comes to mind.

Segura is included above.

Gimeno was borderline, his only slam was that boycotted 1972 RG.

Probably Nusslein should be there.

I will add Kovacs and Nusslein now, maybe others too.

Gimeno won two majors. NoMercy has established that Barcelona 1966 was The Pro Clay World Championship, a successor to Roland Garros pre 1963, with the winner receiving the traditional Perry Cup.

BTW, is your list only for grass, and only up to 2012

 

[Dan Lobb]

Gimeno won two majors. NoMercy has established that Barcelona 1966 was The Pro Clay World Championship, a successor to Roland Garros pre 1963, with the winner receiving the traditional Perry Cup.

BTW, is your list only for grass, and only up to 2012

I agree with Barcelona, although it was a one-off and therefore those who have created that fictional Pro Major list which everyone seems to like (!!!!) would

not be happy with our choice on Barcelona.....but some of them have already been banned from here. Barcelona was not Roland Garros, but I would accept

one-off's like this.

My list is only for grass, but no time limit.

 

[Dan Lobb]

If you are referring to Hoad, he had a career lasting about 11 years where he produced top level play, 1953 to 1964.

Titles have to be evaluated on the strength of the field.

I have recently upgraded Hoad's performance for 1960, 1961, 1962, where I think that he has a shot at number one for all three years.

The supposed points series for 1960 is apparently nothing more than an apparition, it was not carried through on the year, there was no official title awarded, and no money attached to this supposed championship....I give it a zero rating for impressive achievements.

That leaves 1960 in a quagmire of unofficial results, but the official ranking system from 1959/1960 must be presumed to continue until supplanted by a succeeding ranking result, so Hoad gets my number one. Plus winning four tournament finals over Rosewall on the year.

For 1961, Hoad wins the biggest prestige/money event of the year, the British hth, Rosewall avoided Gonzales on the tour, so cannot be number one, Gonzales was actually strong that year, but avoided the Kramer Cup final against Hoad. Hoad number one.

For 1962, Hoad wins the biggest money event of the year at Melbourne, wins the only tour of the season, the Facis, is given the lead-off singles against Olmedo in the Kramer Cup final at Adelaide on grass, and gets the press ranking as number one....Hoad is number one.

 

[jasonbrown]

I think Sampras has to be a tier 1 despite his relatively weak clay record. Atleast if Borg, Djokovic, Nadal are all are. The only way to omit him would be for those who are making an even more exclusive tier 1 that possibly contains say only Federer and Laver.

I am also pretty sure Rosewall does not quite belong in tier 1.

 

[thrust]

I think Sampras has to be a tier 1 despite his relatively weak clay record. Atleast if Borg, Djokovic, Nadal are all are. The only way to omit him would be for those who are making an even more exclusive tier 1 that possibly contains say only Federer and Laver.

I am also pretty sure Rosewall does not quite belong in tier 1.

Rosewall lost 11 peak years at the official slams while being on the pro tour. Still, he managed to win 8 slams, 4 by age 22 and 4 after turning 33 in the open era. He also reached another 4 finals in the open era, the last two after turning 39. On the pro tour Ken played 10 pro major finals against Laver and won 6 of them. In the open era they were 1-1 in slam finals. Ken won both of their 2 WCT finals. Rod won his last slam at 31, Ken won his last slam at 37. Therefore, Ken Rosewall is a tier 1 ATG! Sampras never won a clay slam, Borg never won a hard court slam. Rosewall won slams and over 100 tournaments on ALL surfaces.

 

[Fiero425]

Rosewall lost 11 peak years at the official slams while being on the pro tour. Still, he managed to win 8 slams, 4 by age 22 and 4 after turning 33 in the open era. He also reached another 4 finals in the open era, the last two after turning 39. On the pro tour Ken played 10 pro major finals against Laver and won 6 of them. In the open era they were 1-1 in slam finals. Ken won both of their 2 WCT finals. Rod won his last slam at 31, Ken won his last slam at 37. Therefore, Ken Rosewall is a tier 1 ATG! Sampras never won a clay slam, Borg never won a hard court slam. Rosewall won slams and over 100 tournaments on ALL surfaces.

Way back when, tennis was more about skill and technique over physical prowess! Rosewall wouldn't have won anything before, during, or after his prime now! Today he'd be an embarrassed mess where one of these FO qualifiers would run him to death!

 

[thrust]

Way back when, tennis was more about skill and technique over physical prowess! Rosewall wouldn't have won anything before, during, or after his prime now! Today he'd be an embarrassed mess where one of these FO qualifiers would run him to death!

ATG players are usually ranked by their accomplishments in the eras they played in. How Ken, Rod or Pancho would do in this vastly different era is irrelevant.

 

[Dan Lobb]

ATG players are usually ranked by their accomplishments in the eras they played in. How Ken, Rod or Pancho would do in this vastly different era is irrelevant.

Ken, Rod, Lew, and Pancho would do superbly in this era with this current technology, just look at Djokovic, not exactly a football player body. How would Djokovic do in the fifties wielding a heavy racquet? Probably poorly.

 

[Fiero425]

Ken, Rod, Lew, and Pancho would do superbly in this era with this current technology, just look at Djokovic, not exactly a football player body. How would Djokovic do in the fifties wielding a heavy racquet? Probably poorly.

Poncho could win in any era! His game translates to any era IMO; overpowering serve, good groundstrokes, & attacked the net relentlessly! He was a big guy too!

 

[Dan Lobb]

You left out some important information.

Perry's father was a Member of Parliament.

Perry returned to Britain in 1945 as soon as hostilities ended and re-established his connections, founding his own name brand clothing company in Britain.

He married a well-connected British woman, owned a large house in London, and raised his children in Britain (not the U.S.A.), and was a BBC broadcast

commentator at Wimbledon immediately after the war, continuing in that role on an annual basis for decades.

Perry always claimed that he was British to the core. Perry won several British professional tennis championships post WWII.

You think that Jack Crawford was part of the "establishment", and that's why Perry was snubbed by the Wimbledon establishment, and Crawford was

embraced?

No, there was much more to the story. The term "the best man" did not mean that Crawford was an elite social connector.

Crawford, like von Cramm, was noted for his sportsmanship and good manners. Crawford's nickname was "Gentleman Jack".

Perry was considered the "bad boy" of his era in tennis, his tactics included annoying his opponents with antics.

One tennis opponent in the U.S. threatened to punch him out.

Perry himself said that he was not concerned about great sportsmanship, but rather about becoming a champion.

Perry dated a long list of female Hollywood stars, hung out with British actors in Hollywood.

Perry and Austin were both members of the Oxford Group which agitated for Moral Rearmament, and against arming with weapons.

They hated war, and both Perry and Austin went to the U.S. when war was threatening Europe. They did not claim conscientious objector status, but Austin was

later denied membership at the All-England Club because it was believed that he had. That was rectified in 1994.

Actually, registered conscientious objectors could be assigned to dangerous duty as battlefield medics, it was not a soft option.

Ironically, they were both eventually drafted by the United States Army Air Force, but as non-combatants.

So, in the end, they could not get away from the war entirely.

I personally believe that they could have served Britain better by playing exhibition tennis within Britain itself during the war years.

That would have helped enormously with civilian morale, as Perry and Austin were both huge celebrities in Britain due to their Davis Cup success.

Here is good summary of the matter.