Easy to talk about records but...

Q&M son

Professional
I mean everywhere... web face twitter, but... Laurie Doherty won 8 times in a row Nice tournament on clay, somkind of an actually masters 1000, between 1899 and 1906, and a lot talk about McEnroe and Nole's awesomes beggining of seasons but waht about doherty, tilden or budge??
 
Last edited:

magnut

Hall of Fame
They can not compare with the supercool awesomeness of Nadal. Rafa hits with crazy spin and wears cool clothes!:)

Seriously though....Don Budge was the man. Until Laver came along. Laver will forever exemplify tennis excellence in my mind. Just a brilliant man on and of the court.

I just wish there was more footage of the past greats.
 

Q&M son

Professional
They can not compare with the supercool awesomeness of Nadal. Rafa hits with crazy spin and wears cool clothes!:)

Seriously though....Don Budge was the man. Until Laver came along. Laver will forever exemplify tennis excellence in my mind. Just a brilliant man on and of the court.

I just wish there was more footage of the past greats.
:) I'm not talking about compare... only just mention it and not forget facts about those people :)
 

magnut

Hall of Fame
:) I'm not talking about compare... only just mention it and not forget facts about those people :)

No, No, No.......its about who is the best ever. Anyone else is just another player and forgoten in the halls of history.

Personally I am a huge fan of the Golden Era Aussies. A lot of those players grew up on the farm and became great tennis players. A different time back then. I like Gonzales as well.

Its really hard to find footage of pre 70s tennis. I have highlight videos of a lot of old Wimbledons.

For women .......eh, not really into girl tennis. I do enjoy watching old matches of Virginia Wade. She was an exceptional athlete in her era. Connely was an awesome player.

I actually prefer to watch old matches out of my library than current stuff.
 

urban

Legend
I think, Tilden for instance had in his amateur career spanning 12 years a 935% win loss record.
 

urban

Legend
Speaking of streaks. Tilden went unbeaten for 98 matches, Budge for 92 official matches (le lost a few in internatioal team matches), Lenglen even for 128. On World Tennis Magazine there is an article about longest streaks ever.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
So many great records in tennis history that were before the Open Era. I believe Connolly won nine straight majors that she entered. Wills had a period of years (seven?) in which she didn't lose a set. Court won over 190 tournaments in her career.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Laver is reputed to have won 199 tournaments. That's like winning 10 titles a year for 20 years. Holy crapolini! I know many were small pro events, but, those were against the best players in the World. Winning such a tournament is like winning a major consisting only of the top 16 seeds, again and again and again.
 

Q&M son

Professional
Speaking of streaks. Tilden went unbeaten for 98 matches, Budge for 92 official matches (le lost a few in internatioal team matches), Lenglen even for 128. On World Tennis Magazine there is an article about longest streaks ever.
Thanks urban.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Laver is reputed to have won 199 tournaments. That's like winning 10 titles a year for 20 years. Holy crapolini! I know many were small pro events, but, those were against the best players in the World. Winning such a tournament is like winning a major consisting only of the top 16 seeds, again and again and again.
Nope.



Most single titles won:

1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 67
5. Pete Sampras 64
6. Björn Borg 63
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Boris Becker 49
10. Ilie Năstase 48


There's no way Laver could have won 199 single titles when Connors set a record for most single finals:

1. Jimmy Connors 158
2. Ivan Lendl 146
3. John McEnroe 108
4. Guillermo Vilas 104
5. Roger Federer 96
6. Andre Agassi 90
7. Pete Sampras 88
8. Björn Borg 87
9. Stefan Edberg 78
10. Boris Becker 77


And a lot of Connors tournaments were mickey mouse.
 

urban

Legend
Don't believe the ATP records, they cover only the open era, and even there, they are heavily incomplete. Read Education of a tennis player, new edition by Bud Collins, or try the wikipedia entries for tennis records.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Nope.



Most single titles won:

1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 67
5. Pete Sampras 64
6. Björn Borg 63
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Boris Becker 49
10. Ilie Năstase 48


There's no way Laver could have won 199 single titles when Connors set a record for most single finals:

1. Jimmy Connors 158
2. Ivan Lendl 146
3. John McEnroe 108
4. Guillermo Vilas 104
5. Roger Federer 96
6. Andre Agassi 90
7. Pete Sampras 88
8. Björn Borg 87
9. Stefan Edberg 78
10. Boris Becker 77


And a lot of Connors tournaments were mickey mouse.
As Urban wrote, the records cover over the Open Era from 1968 on and even then the records kept are poor due to different tours and other reasons.

Trust me, Laver won 199 tournaments at least. Remember that 1968 to now is but a fraction of the history of tennis.
 

timnz

Legend
Clay streak wilding

I'd love to know how many matches was wildings unbeaten clay streak from mid 1910 to mid 1914. It has to be around 140 to 150 matches
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Nope.



Most single titles won:

1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 67
5. Pete Sampras 64
6. Björn Borg 63
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Boris Becker 49
10. Ilie Năstase 48


There's no way Laver could have won 199 single titles when Connors set a record for most single finals:

1. Jimmy Connors 158
2. Ivan Lendl 146
3. John McEnroe 108
4. Guillermo Vilas 104
5. Roger Federer 96
6. Andre Agassi 90
7. Pete Sampras 88
8. Björn Borg 87
9. Stefan Edberg 78
10. Boris Becker 77


And a lot of Connors tournaments were mickey mouse.
From 1968 on for Laver

1968-12 tournaments won
1969-18
1970-15
1971-7
1972-5
1973-7
1974-6
1975-5
1976-1

Laver won at least 76 tournaments in the Open Era that started in 1968. Laver was to become 30 in 1968. So is it that hard to believe that he won over 120 tournaments before he was 30 and in his best physical years?

Look at it this way, Laver won two Grand Slams, one Pro Grand Slam but he's not considered by many to be the best ever for just that, he accomplished a lot in his long career.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
From 1968 on for Laver

1968-12 tournaments won
1969-18
1970-15
1971-7
1972-5
1973-7
1974-6
1975-5
1976-1

Laver won at least 76 tournaments in the Open Era that started in 1968. Laver was to become 30 in 1968. So is it that hard to believe that he won over 120 tournaments before he was 30 and in his best physical years?
Look at it this way, Laver won two Grand Slams, one Pro Grand Slam but he's not considered by many to be the best ever for just that, he accomplished a lot in his long career.
Laver’s titles does not have equal weight as today. There’s too many small tourneys that just doesn’t have enough quality players participating. Also before the open era the field was depleted due to having both amateur and the pros.

There’s no way you can translate his 199 titles from the 60s to today’s 199. You know it’s IMPOSSIBLE to win 199 titles today. Even if a player compete only in a lesser competitive event(ATP 250) for the rest of his career, he wouldn’t be close.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Hahah.. nice try TMF

Rod entered Open era at the age of 30 and still won 40 titles

And Nastase won much more then 48
How many players in the current era have won 40 titles when they hit their 30s? None. It’s just impossible, you know that !
 

urban

Legend
Its not impossible. It was done in open era with at least 32 men fields. Is a streak of 50 wins in a row impossible? It was done and can be done in open era.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Its not impossible. It was done in open era with at least 32 men fields. Is a streak of 50 wins in a row impossible? It was done and can be done in open era.
I'm sorry but in today's era, i don't think so. Players after 25 yrs of age have won very little. Most of their wins are in early 20s.


1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 67
5. Pete Sampras 64
6. Björn Borg 63
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Boris Becker 49
10. Ilie Năstase 48


Connors after 1982 won only 13 titles.
Lendl after 1990 won only 6 titles.

Anyone in their right mind would agree that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a player at 30 yrs old to win 40 titles.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Some thought, is was IMPOSSIBLE, that the earth circled around the sun.
Taking an easy way out, huh?

Now until someone win 40 titles after their's 30th birthday, you let me know. I'm all ears !
 

kiki

Banned
No, No, No.......its about who is the best ever. Anyone else is just another player and forgoten in the halls of history.

Personally I am a huge fan of the Golden Era Aussies. A lot of those players grew up on the farm and became great tennis players. A different time back then. I like Gonzales as well.

Its really hard to find footage of pre 70s tennis. I have highlight videos of a lot of old Wimbledons.

For women .......eh, not really into girl tennis. I do enjoy watching old matches of Virginia Wade. She was an exceptional athlete in her era. Connely was an awesome player.

I actually prefer to watch old matches out of my library than current stuff.
¿Will you upload some for us nostalgics ?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Taking an easy way out, huh?

Now until someone win 40 titles after their's 30th birthday, you let me know. I'm all ears !
Laver. I gave you the info already.

There are a ton of huge tournaments among the 76.

A quick count of 19 WCT tournaments, five Grand Slams, Italian Open, Madrid, four Philadelphia Indoors (big tournament), NY Champions Classic (Won 13 straight without a loss against greats like Ashe, Okker, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Emerson, arguably the strongest tournament ever!), Canadian Open, Australian Indoors, South African Open, Queens Club, two Bretton Woods, Boston US Pro, Pacific Southwest, another New York Champions Classic. These are but a few of the big tournaments Laver won from 1968 on. This is a small count of 40. I can name more. These are not weak tournaments.

Laver won more tournaments after 30 than most won in their entire careers.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Laver. I gave you the info already.

There are a ton of huge tournaments among the 76.

A quick count of 19 WCT tournaments, five Grand Slams, Italian Open, Madrid, four Philadelphia Indoors (big tournament), NY Champions Classic (won 13 straight without a loss against greats like Ashe, Okker, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Emerson), Canadian Open, Australian Indoors, South African Open, Queens Club, two Bretton Woods, Boston US Pro, Pacific Southwest, another New York Champions Classic, . These are but a few of the big tournaments Laver won from 1968 on. This is a small count of 40. I can name more. These are not weak tournaments.
I was referring to today's tennis, and no one is even close to 40 titles after their 30s. Anyway, i think it's a knock on the players today when you are trying to suggest it's an apple to apple comparison. Winning titles today is harder, my opinion.

It's just like Chamberlain scored 100 pts in a game back in the 60s and believe he would have done the same against today's players.

We just have to disagree.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Notwithstanding, you only have to see how many time per year some of the top players faced each other in the pre-Open era (often 20+ times) to see many tournaments had 8 man draws or were part of an organised series which had the same group of players at each tournament.

Laver etc were great no doubt but the amount of tournaments they competed in final in having only played 1 or 2 matches to get there was quite high. Earlier yet many tournaments even ran by the challenge round system where the defending champ went directly to the final to play whoever made it through the draw to earn the right to be the challenger in the final.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to today's tennis, and no one is even close to 40 titles after their 30s. Anyway, i think it's a knock on the players today when you are trying to suggest it's an apple to apple comparison. Winning titles today is harder, my opinion.

It's just like Chamberlain scored 100 pts in a game back in the 60s and believe he would have done the same against today's players.

We just have to disagree.
I
Nope.



Most single titles won:

1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 67
5. Pete Sampras 64
6. Björn Borg 63
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Boris Becker 49
10. Ilie Năstase 48


There's no way Laver could have won 199 single titles when Connors set a record for most single finals:
Incorrect. You've changed your argument completely while failing to acknowledge your original ignorance, or thanking a number of people who tried to correct you. To compound it, you then went on to attack others of "taking the easy way out".

Frankly, I'm amazed anyone give you the time of day.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Incorrect. You've changed your argument completely while failing to acknowledge your original ignorance, or thanking a number of people who tried to correct you. To compound it, you then went on to attack others of "taking the easy way out".

Frankly, I'm amazed anyone give you the time of day.
But I had to correct you. :grin:


I'm sorry but in today's era, i don't think so. Players after 25 yrs of age have won very little. Most of their wins are in early 20s.


1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 67
5. Pete Sampras 64
6. Björn Borg 63
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Boris Becker 49
10. Ilie Năstase 48


Connors after 1982 won only 13 titles.
Lendl after 1990 won only 6 titles.

Anyone in their right mind would agree that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a player at 30 yrs old to win 40 titles.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I was referring to today's tennis, and no one is even close to 40 titles after their 30s. Anyway, i think it's a knock on the players today when you are trying to suggest it's an apple to apple comparison. Winning titles today is harder, my opinion.

It's just like Chamberlain scored 100 pts in a game back in the 60s and believe he would have done the same against today's players.

We just have to disagree.
My friend, whether it's harder or not doesn't mean anything. Chamberlain's 100 points is still considered a record in the NBA as is his rebound totals.

You can't downgrade records because of time. I would hate to see Federer's amount of majors downgraded 25 years from now because people feel the tour is stronger in 2036 than now.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
Notwithstanding, you only have to see how many time per year some of the top players faced each other in the pre-Open era (often 20+ times) to see many tournaments had 8 man draws or were part of an organised series which had the same group of players at each tournament.

Laver etc were great no doubt but the amount of tournaments they competed in final in having only played 1 or 2 matches to get there was quite high. Earlier yet many tournaments even ran by the challenge round system where the defending champ went directly to the final to play whoever made it through the draw to earn the right to be the challenger in the final.


exactly. Pretty silly to try and even attempt a comparison
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I'm sorry but in today's era, i don't think so. Players after 25 yrs of age have won very little. Most of their wins are in early 20s.

Anyone in their right mind would agree that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a player at 30 yrs old to win 40 titles.
Impossible? No.

Just extremely difficult. (Maybe Djokovic will win 199 tournaments at his present rate.)

Or one could say too much high-quality competition.

Or today's players just are not good enough.



You pick.
 

The-Champ

Legend
Some claim tennis today is much more physical than in the past. That probably contributes to the fact that no player can maintain a high level of exellence for a long period of time.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Notwithstanding, you only have to see how many time per year some of the top players faced each other in the pre-Open era (often 20+ times) to see many tournaments had 8 man draws or were part of an organised series which had the same group of players at each tournament.

Laver etc were great no doubt but the amount of tournaments they competed in final in having only played 1 or 2 matches to get there was quite high. Earlier yet many tournaments even ran by the challenge round system where the defending champ went directly to the final to play whoever made it through the draw to earn the right to be the challenger in the final.
Today's event, you have to win 4 to 7 matches to win it all. And top players very little play mickey mouse tourney, unlike e.g. Connors did during his heyday. And even if they want to play a lot, it's not possible b/c the game is way more taxing on the body. Plus, players in those days benefitted from playing so much on grass to preserved their knees, ankles.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Impossible? No.

Just extremely difficult. (Maybe Djokovic will win 199 tournaments at his present rate.)

Or one could say too much high-quality competition.

Or today's players just are not good enough.
You pick.
Yeah, just like many sprinters today can run < 10 seconds per 100mm. But they can't win 4 gold medals in one Olympic. Unlike Jesse Owen who won 4 medals in 1936. These sprinters are not as fast as Jesse. :roll:
 

urban

Legend
Not so smart logic. Those records still stand. Owens could jump as well, so well, that his 8,13m still would place him in 5th place at last years world champs. I don't understand, why Lucio's thread, who only argued for the mentioning (not comparing)of those records, is challenged by people, who only know and love the present. They should compare only the present players, for example, who is more dominant: Federer 2005 or Djokovic 2011.
 
Top