And Courier is closer to Borg/Sampras in Majors and weeks at #1 than Murray.
Greater Player: Murray or Courier?
- Thread starter The Guru
- Start date
And Courier is closer to Borg/Sampras in Majors and weeks at #1 than Murray.
It's not ignoring everything else. It's saying 4>3 is a solid gap. Most people agree that it's tough, but not impossible, to be better than a player who has 1 more Major than you. It's then saying that 58>41 opens that gap even wider, with Courier leading in the 2 most important stats. Then, I don't ignore everything else. Those secondary stats close that gap some and get Murray close to Courier. They just don't completely close the gap.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
No the solid gap is 46 > 23. That's their number of titles and then when you delve deeper and see about half of Murray's are big titles. So he has at least 18 big titles and Courier only has 23 titles period, big or otherwise. That's why it's clearly Murray. Some weeks gap at #1 is nothing in comparison and neither is a 1 Slam gap when Murray stayed at the top so much longer. No way is Courier's career better than his. Some can make the argument he had a higher peak, 2 Slam year but that's it.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Weeks at #1 is a horrendous stat cause it's so affected by competition. You can have the same results and be between #1-4 dependign on competition if you're nor particularly dominant. That's literally double punishment for playing in strongest, most top heavy era of men's tennis.
Also, Slams are the highest variance stat cause they have the lowest sampe size, and Murray murders Courier in every other stat. Taking #1 time as an important stat by definition requires ignoring all context.
Total titles are a secondary stat. Do you think Nastase > Murray and Vilas > Murray b/c they both lead him in titles, 62 to 46?
Courier's time at #1 came during one of the toughest eras in tennis history. The top 10 in 1992 was incredible.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Like 1998 weeks at #1? What a pathetic year that was.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
You're kidding right?
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Pretty sure you can lay Nadal/Fed/Djoko's results over the 90's and they're #1 like 10 straight years?
| 1992 | |
|---|---|
1 | Jim Courier |
2 | Stefan Edberg |
3 | Pete Sampras |
4 | Goran Ivanisevic |
5 | Boris Becker |
6 | Michael Chang |
7 | Petr Korda |
8 | Ivan Lendl |
9 | Andre Agassi |
10 | Richard Krajicek |
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
They're not secondary when a lot of them are big titles and he has double the titles. It's a big gap. Nastase has like 4 Masters (ATP finals) so if anyone wants to make the argument he's greater than Murray with one less Slam title, they could based on what the Masters meant back then and him having a YE #1. That's apples and oranges though since we are talking about Courier.
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
Ye, no Goffins, Gasquets or Almagros in there.
Breakpointerer
Legend
I think it's pretty clearly Murray.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
The names don't tell the full story though. 2018-19 for example had Big3 at the top but were not amazing years.
I'm not saying Courier had weak competition. But Murray had it tough for a much longer time, as he was competitive for much longer than Courier.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Courier wins ZERO FO in Nadal era.
Muzz 100%
Honestly, Courier wouldn’t beat Fed or Nole on clay either.
Muzz 100%
Honestly, Courier wouldn’t beat Fed or Nole on clay either.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Big3 won more Slams than all those players combined: 56 > 50
They made everyone from this era look small.
Krish0608
G.O.A.T.
Where do these guys come from?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Murray was the non-Big3 who went the deepest in 14-17 Slams:
Names don't tell the full story, but:
#2 Edberg was coming off back-to-back YE#1s and won the U.S. Open and made the Australian Open final in 1992.
#3 Sampras won Cincinnati, made the U.S. Open final and was on the brink of his amazing 1993.
#4 Ivanisevic won Stockholm and made the Wimbledon finals
#5 Becker won WTF and Paris
#6 Chang won the Sunshine Double
#7 Korda made the French Open final
#8 Lendl made back-to-back finals at Canada/Cincinnati
#9 Agassi won Wimbledon and Canada
#10 Krajicek had ten top 10 wins on the year
The top 10 played some legit tennis in 1992.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
What I see is a few one Slam wonders cause Sampras, Lendl and Agassi were basically not dominant enough to consistently beat everyone down mixed in with a few over the hill 80's relics.
Krish0608
G.O.A.T.
I usually consider the guy having more slams and more weeks at #1 greater, unless the other guy has something distinctive that the this guy doesn't have, like winning all 4 grand slams. This is a close one, but Courier over Murray simply because he has achieved more where it matters the most.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Courier played great competition but Murray had it for much longer. The timespan between the first and the last Slam final is 2 years for Courier and 8 years for Murray.
Last edited:
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
Like Fed made his generation look small? I like that logic.
Lendl turned 32 in March. Everyone else was 26 or younger (Edberg turned 26 in January. Becker turned 25 in November).
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
It's better than the logic that has the weak era starting in 2003 when Thomas Johansson and Albert Costa won Slams in 2002
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Yeah so Big3 did with Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, etc.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Never have I said it's not close between them. In fact I rank them equally and always have.
I understand it can be irritating if some people make unrealistic claims for a player that we may not be able to agree with but we should never let what other people may or may not say affect our judgement of the player himself. After all, the player is not to blame if some of his fans get a bit carried away. Players should only ever be judged on what they have actually achieved and we can only make our own judgements about that.
Courier’s peak was better. Murray better body of work.
If I could choose a career I would take murray if I had to pick one guy to win one match it would be courier.
Murray recency bias and courier being a jerk is prob why most said murray. But ive seen a 20 year old courier practice and blast FHs like no other consistently and it was incredible with that pro staff. of course other parts of his game were questionable.
If I could choose a career I would take murray if I had to pick one guy to win one match it would be courier.
Murray recency bias and courier being a jerk is prob why most said murray. But ive seen a 20 year old courier practice and blast FHs like no other consistently and it was incredible with that pro staff. of course other parts of his game were questionable.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
That's like asking Philippoussis or Soderling?
Mobility i would say tie, Courier really ran around that BH a lot
Return is hard. In terms of sending it back hard it would be courier imo. He had a strong return off both sides despite a bad BH. But returning overall, chip and charge and not getting aced I would say Murray. I guess Murray but its close.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Would give Courier serve.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Last time I followed a discussion here people were comparing Murray to Agassi, not it is even Borg/Sampras. It gets crazier by each day.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Courier would be about like Berdych in this era—a very good player outclassed by greats.
skaj
Legend
I really can't see Courier's mobility being on a par with Murray's.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
NatF
Bionic Poster
Every time that guy posts he comes out with gold.
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
It is a hard comparision. Murray has way more longevity. Courier had a higher peak, albeit quite brief. Murray has so much on Courier in so many different areas, does 1 more slam and marginally better #1 stats really overcome? I would probably have to say Murray.
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
Ridiculous comment.
Mr Backhand
Rookie
And backhand
D
Deleted member 769694
Guest
Hewitt was the dominate player for like 2 years, murray was never the favorite vs the big 3. Nor was Stan
flutzingitaway
Semi-Pro
Hewitt was not facing the big 3 during the period he was dominant period (more like 1.5 years than 2). Well Federer a bit I guess, young headcase Federer who was losing 1st round or 4th round of every slam, the odd quarter final. Nadal and Djokovic not at all, I don't think even baby Nadal existed yet. So that isn't exactly a fair comparision to say "oh Murray was never favorite vs the big 3." Hewitt never was either.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
Courier's backhand, like Edberg's forehand, was one of those strokes that caused people to underrate it through sheer ugliness. Whilst it was a very limited stroke, it was exceptionally reliable and very good for returning. It was also very stable for hitting down the line, which helped him feed his forehand. His backhand slice, possibly even uglier, had a very nasty corkscrew that players regularly struggled with.
The accepted wisdom that Courier's main weakness was his backhand worked in his favour for several years, as players would do everything in their power to target it. Courier had no issue camping out in the backhand corner and bunting the ball back, waiting to pounce on the run-around forehand with his exceptional fitness.
To get an idea of what I mean, take a look at this footage of the Indian Wells final between Courier and Guy Forget in 1991. Courier won the match, but focus on the points where Forget gets Courier on the run. You will see that it is generally the shot to Courier's running forehand that draws the weak reply - not the backhand.
This weakness was exploited to full effect by Marc Rosset at Barcelona in 1992, dumping him out in the third round 6-4 6-2 6-1. It was an absurd result as Courier had looked unstoppable that year, especially on clay.
Last edited:
That is prob one of the best quality video from early 90s Ive seen. This is mainly bc Guy is lefty when JC was hitting that IO FO crosscourt it was very difficult to change direction on that ball and hit it well into the duece side. But if you were a lefty it made it a little easier. Also Brugera on clay would just punish him with his backhand since he wasnt scared of the courier FH on clay. In the end courier kept doing the same thing and didnt evolve his game (IO FH all day) like the big 3 have which led to his early and accelerated decline.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
