Greatest Forehands of All Time
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
Datacipher
Banned
Ah, thanks for the confirmations. I didn't have time to do more than a 1 min search for either match, and didn't find the forehand stats. Plus, I didn't remember exactly when gonzales did that! Only the numbers! I suspect given his ridiculous style, he'll have many a big numbers match. Of course, if I were to look for UE, I might also suspect him!
Oh no doubt, but not in that match (only 3 ue's from all strokes).
The best rate of forehand winners that I know about belongs to Irina Spirlea, who hit 38 when she beat Seles at the 1997 U.S. Open (stat from Bud Collins), over the course of 35 games (a great sample). I wonder whether that stat might be inflated with more than clean winners (ie, judgment calls) but it's still a phenomenal day on the forehand.
The next best I have for the women:
Ivanovic against Dechy, 2008 Wimbledon, 36 FH winners in 44 games
Graf against Navratilova, 1988 Wimbledon, 22 FH winners in 27 games by my count (18 of those FH's went past Martina as she came to net).
The next best I have for the women:
Ivanovic against Dechy, 2008 Wimbledon, 36 FH winners in 44 games
Graf against Navratilova, 1988 Wimbledon, 22 FH winners in 27 games by my count (18 of those FH's went past Martina as she came to net).
anointedone
Banned
I remember the stats of the Spirlea-Seles quarterfinal and Spirlea-Venus semifinal of the 97 U.S Open being almost the same. Seles and Venus with 30-something winners and 50-something unforced errors and Spirlea with 50-something winners and 70-something unforced errors in both matches. In both the player who had a match point ended up losing.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It would be fascinating if someone got the stats from as far back as possible on all the majors over the years and see how the ratios of winners to unforced errors have changed as equipment has changed. I remember reading during the Budge era the a ratio of 2 to 1 was considered great during that day but now it's rather common and easily surpassed.
johanneskepler
Banned
Harold Solomon. LOL
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Impressive memory. thanks for posting that youtube clip. Not sure if I've seen anyone torch Agassi off the ground like that. Sure he's been overpowered from the baseline before, but it seemed like Berasategui's fh was completely unreadable that day, Andre was nowhere near many of those winners.
I imagine he hit a ton of fh winners when he made it to the '94 FO final as well.
krosero, have you come across any stats on El Aynaoui's fh at the '03 AO?
Here's a boxscore for Spirlea-Seles in the New York Daily News:
GRAPHIC:
US OPEN
SPIRLEA-SELES
MATCH BOX SCORE
Spirlea Seles
First serve 67% 65%
Aces 9 5
Double faults 5 2
1st serve points won 81% 73%
2d serve points won 50% 49%
Winners 75 41
Unforced errors 47 23
Break points 3-6 1-8
Net approaches 31-45 11-18
Total points won 122 115
Time 2:19
GRAPHIC:
US OPEN
SPIRLEA-SELES
MATCH BOX SCORE
Spirlea Seles
First serve 67% 65%
Aces 9 5
Double faults 5 2
1st serve points won 81% 73%
2d serve points won 50% 49%
Winners 75 41
Unforced errors 47 23
Break points 3-6 1-8
Net approaches 31-45 11-18
Total points won 122 115
Time 2:19
No, not on his forehand specifically.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I read it in Budge's book "Don Budge: A Tennis Memoir." It's on page 12 in which Budge states "Most matches, you know, are considered to be excellent technical performances if the number of winning placement equal the number of errors. In this match, both Gottfried and myself were to make twice as many placements to errors."
In reading this I realize that Budge just writes errors and it doesn't say unforced errors. I was mistaken here.
Last edited:
Well his book was published in 1969, so it's not out of the question that he was speaking about unforced errors. I've seen "unforced error" come up in Google News as early as '71.
The quote was used in A Terrible Splendor, referring to the five-setter they played in the Davis Cup.
Back in '37 the NY Times published the stats in a boxscore:
Budge made 49 placements, 8 aces, 4 doubles, and 103 other errors (50 into the net).
Von Cramm made 53 placements, 8 aces, 4 doubles, and 124 other errors (59 into the net).
Budge won 185 points overall, von Cramm 168.
I'm not sure that the winner-to-error ratio has changed that much. I mean, in that Budge match, von Cramm had 61 winners/aces in 58 games -- not even including the service winners that he'd be credited with today. That's not a bad number compared to today's matches. There are many matches today that have better numbers, but that was true even then.
Trabert beat Seixas in the US final in '53 with 45 winners/aces over 26 games. He ended 28% of the points in the match with his own winners -- and so did Budge in the '38 Wimbledon final against Bunny Austin. In modern times I've got several players at 28%: Serena Williams blowing out Sharapova at 2007AO; Kohlschreiber beating Roddick in a five-setter a few days earlier; Becker blowing out Wilander in the '89 Davis Cup final indoors.
The highest rates I have in modern times are Edberg against Wilander at the 1990 AO (35%) and Federer over Santoro at 2008 AO (36%). Possibly there may be some pre-Open Era rates that high, I don't know. Stats from back then are rare.
I mean, players today do have incredible technology. You would think they would have more winners than previous eras, but I think one thing holding down their numbers is that everyone has retreated to the baseline. And while players are capable of hitting baseline-to-baseline winners with regularity, they would have even more winners if everyone came into net more; that would produce volley winners and passing shots.
It's incredibly complex. What you're suggesting would be an interesting project and there would be a LOT of questions to ask. For one, the definition of an unforced error. When you were more likely to net the ball or drive it out because of inferior equipment, how should that change your definition of an unforced error?
I guarantee, any claim one way or another about how winner-to-error ratios have changed, or stayed the same, would get immediately bogged down in the question of how the unforced errors were judged.
And then other questions would arise. People would look at other factors, like the amount of net-rushing there is in any given generation, or the depth of play -- or the styles of the particular players whose matches were chosen for the sample.
There is an objective way, which is simply to count clean winners and count up errors without distinguishing between forced and unforced. That's how tennis stats were done for decades, before the unforced error came along. But then people would want to know how many of the errors were unforced, before coming to any conclusions (at least, any conclusions they didn't like).
A lot to think about.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That would probably be the best way.
Changmaster
Rookie
Can anyone find a video of Pancho Segura in action? For all the talk about his legendary forehand, I'd be very curious to actually SEE it for myself.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
There's only one forehand hit by Segura in the Anderson versus Segura here and you may have to register to the site. Marcos originally found this.
Here's his post.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2712548&postcount=78
Here's an interesting interview on Charlie Rose with Pancho Segura, Bud Collins and the late Gene Scott. They discuss Segura's forehand within the first ten minutes and interestingly they like Chang's running forehand and of course Sampras' running forehand as among the best ever.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5379
Last edited:
Changmaster
Rookie
pc1
G.O.A.T.
His forehand is legendary. Unfortunately that clip doesn't do it justice.
Datacipher
Banned
One interview I'll always remember of Segura...which wasn't a big deal, but showed how astute he was even then...was during an early Chang/Agassi encounter in 1988! Watching, he noted how quick both Chang and Agassi were and how, because of that, it was no drawback for them to use the two-hander. He noted how Agassi was using a swinging volley. He noted that despite how these two were really beginning to impact the tour, and could hit the ball hard, that he thought Lendl would be able to hold them off, because he was bigger and rangier, and also served better. And when asked about their future, he noted that they had big ones, and THEN mentioned he thought another boy MICHAEL SAMPRAS, (who would have been only around 16 at the time, and not PARTICULARLY HERALDED), who played a bit differently than these "boys", also had a big future on the tour!
He knew his stuff.
I'll also remember how Agassi dissed him in 1993! Lame!
borg number one
Legend
Segura coached Connors during the 1970's. You had a guy with a 2 handed forehand coaching a guy with a 2 handed backhand. Segura must have been a "tough cookie" though, given his success after a very tough childhood in terms of illness.
http://blog.tennisweek.com/?p=487
April 2009 Interview With Segura. It's quite interesting!
http://blog.tennisweek.com/?p=487
April 2009 Interview With Segura. It's quite interesting!
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Jack Kramer (who was known to exaggerate) thought that (considering Connors' two handed lefty backhand was in a way the equivalent of Segura's two handed righty forehand) Segura's two handed forehand was far superior to Connors two hand backhand. If that's true, since we know how great a shot Connors' backhand was, that Segura's forehand is very possibly the greatest forehand ever.
I believe Segura is one of the most underrated players of all time. The man had speed, could volley very well, had a good backhand and a forehand that Kramer and Gonzalez thought was the greatest shot they ever seen.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Which Gonzalez? Ricardo Alonso or Fernando?
1. Segura
2. Federer
3. Lendl
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Nadal
7. Laver
8. Agassi
9. Courier
10. Cochet
Last edited:
joe sch
Legend
Some nice selections, I believe this is another GOAT type of list, maybe GFOAT, that needs to consider era or technology:
Wood - Vines, Kramer, Hoad, (Nastase, Borg - Spin)
Metal - Connors
Graphite - Sampras, Federer, Nadal (Spin)
Last edited:
Changmaster
Rookie
I think you need more evidence for putting Segura at #1. I mean, you're just going by what his contemporaries have said about his fh; they thought it was maybe the best shot at the time. Do they still think Segura has the best fh ever, even now? Many more people think Fed's fh is the best ever. I can understand why you have Segura at #1, but to me, there's just not enough evidence for it.
I think you initially did have Fed at #1 on your list, correct? I don't see why you changed it, have you seen some actual footage of Segura's fh, or some evidence that strongly suggests Segura's fh was better than Fed's?
ontennis.com had an article discussing the best shots in history with a large panel of experts. Federer's fh of course was thought of as the best ever.
http://www.ontennis.com/content/forehand:-roger-federer
^the part discussing the greatest forehand ever.
http://www.ontennis.com/content/tennis-shots
^here you can read on what they thought the other greatest shots were.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
A lot of people have mentioned Segura's forehand as the greatest ever, to this day. I was reading a comment Kramer said about Segura's forehand and how it was far better than Connors' backhand so that's very impressive. Kramer thought Segura's forehand was the greatest individual shot in the history of tennis. Gonzalez and Laver both thought Segura's forehand was fantastic.
I don't see the experts on the ontennis panel. Is it a group or just one person expressing their opinion?
Now Federer's forehand is possibly the greatest ever but I noticed my friend that you used the words Federer's fh OF COURSE was thought of as the greatest ever. It's a great shot but I don't think any individual shot in tennis history is a slam dunk to be the greatest ever.
One problem we all have with Federer now is that we don't have the advantage of hindsight. Federer is playing now and we see him and we all are impressed by his play. It is vivid in our minds so we may tend to rank him number one in many areas. Federer's record is great but I've noticed that he is ranked number one by some in serves, volleys, backhand, forehand, groundstrokes, speed everything. He's good but not that good.
I noticed some people rank his serve and volley better than Sampras on these forums and there is no way I can see that.
There is a tendency to always rank the current top player the greatest ever and that simply cannot be. Connors was ranked the GOAT as was Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Federer and that's just in the Open era.
Segura is a player from the past and we cannot excluded him simply because fewer and fewer people have seen him play. It's reasonable to call his forehand the greatest ever as it is reasonable to call Federer's forehand the greatest ever.
Last edited:
Changmaster
Rookie
Hmmm, the article is still up, but for some reason they don't show who contributed to the article anymore. Maybe it's out there somewhere, but I know that it was a list of at least ten experts whom tennis junkies would find familiar. I'm almost certain that John Yandell was one of them, and John Newcombe another.
I'm not arguing with you at all over whether or not Segura's fh was an all-time great shot. My argument is, should Segura's fh be rated as the BEST ever, over Federer's? No one said anything about "excluding" Segura, it's just that myself and many, many others feel that, as of now, Federer is sort of the default choice for best forehand, similar to how Sampras's serve is the default choice for best serve ever. It's a combination of the overall greatness and achievements of Fed, along with the fact that no shot has contributed more to his success than his fh (and his movement as well, which is also the greatest of all time along with his fh).
Datacipher
Banned
This makes no sense to me. Why would Federer be your "default"? Best of those you're familiar with?
One could argue that they don't have enough data to give it to Segura, but by that same token, if true, you don't have enough data NOT to give it to Segura. If you feel you then must fallback on Federer, that's sound, but then, you're really saying, you don't feel comfortable arriving at an ultimate judgment about it, and you dont' feel anybody else should be able to either?
PS. Note, I also don't really buy into "overall greatness/achievements of Fed"....it may be related to his FH being great, but is a very poor measure overall, don't you think? The confounding variables are boggling.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Agreed.
Here's a brief flash of Segura hitting a forehand
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=59026
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=26953
Form looks good but I can't see the result of the shot.
Here's a Pancho Segura, Bud Collins and Gene Scott interview with Charlie Scott on the 1997 US Open.
http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4025
Here's a description of Segura's style from Vines' great book Tennis, Myth and Method.
Two-fisted forehand is most outstanding stroke in game's history; unbeatable unless opponent could avoid it. Improved as professional by taking advantage of volleying ability he rarely used as an amateur. Backhand also better later in career. Returns serve brilliantly, particularly off right side where quicksilver moves give him unusual positioning talent. Serve only average for his class of player but well placed, as is overhead. Very deft volleyer, particularly off forehand. Lob and dropshot unsurpassed. Superb passing shots, change of pace, and absolute consistency make him the great "little man" to ever play the game.
Last edited:
Changmaster
Rookie
(sigh) It's not just ME who thinks Fed's fh is the best ever, it's MANY people's opinion, including many tennis experts and former pros.
By "default" I meant that for MANY people, if you asked them, "who has the greatest forehand?" they would automatically think of Federer.
I guess the bottom line for me is this: If you were to make a list of the greatest forehands of all time, there are many more reasons to put Federer at #1 instead of Segura.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Again as I wrote before Federer is not an unreasonable choice but he is too much in the public eye and people see him and forget about other greats. Also many have not seen that many greats over the year. Lendl had a great forehand but many have never seen him play. Maybe years from now people will think Lendl blooped the ball back all the time and that isn't true. Maybe years from now people will think that Sampras had a soft serve because they never saw him and can't imagine a person serving better than their champion of the moment. There are a ton of reasons to put Segura as number one
Changmaster
Rookie
Thanks for those clips, unfortunately, they are completely useless in determining the greatness of Segura's fh. Like you said, you can't even see how good those couple of fhs were!
That excerpt from Vines is fairly useless for the obvious reason that many of the game's great forehands have been from much more recent players (Fed, Sampras, Lendl...) that players from Segura's era obviously couldn't have judged on in writing, because the more modern players hadn't existed yet! I know BACK THEN they thought Segura's fh was the best. Do they STILL think so today? Especially since many more players in the modern era have huge fhs than back in the old days. As a sidenote, thank goodness tennis doesn't look like that anymore!!! It's incredible the difference in appearance and athleticism between the modern era and the "long pants" era.
As for the Charlie Rose interview, they didn't even really discuss Segura's fh much at all, so that's no help. But again, thanks for providing the links.
Changmaster
Rookie
hmm, so you're suggesting that you're discriminating against Fed because he's well-known today? So you're favoring Segura BECAUSE he's more obscure to the average person? That doesn't make sense at all.
I don't that's a very good comparison with the Sampras serve, it's been more than a decade since Sampras's prime and people still think he had the best serve ever. His serve will always be regarded as one of the best. Same with Fed's fh, until someone comes along and does more with his fh and proves it with accomplishments/stats/visual proof, Fed's fh will still be considered by many to be the best ever.
If there a ton of reasons to put Segura as #1, then there are millions of reasons to put Fed as #1.
Changmaster
Rookie
Ah, I found out who wrote the article, it was Joel Drucker, a contributing editor at TENNIS magazine, not John Yandell. It also says, "The author is grateful for the assistance of many experts and former pros, including Brent Abel, John Barrett, Steve Flink, Mary Carillo, Trey Waltke, Chris Lewis, John Newcombe, Owen Davidson, Fred Stolle and Brian Gottfried."
Definitely a distinguished group. Interesting that they didn't even give Segura an honorable mention in their article on greatest fh.
I remember reading a different article in TENNIS magazine in the early 2000s I think, discussing the greatest shots of all time. This article was written before Federer's rise to power, and naturally didn't include him in their discussion of greatest forehand ever. Did they pick Segura? No, they picked Lendl as having the greatest fh ever, although Segura did get an honorable mention under "two-handed forehand". As for some of their other picks, they picked Budge for greatest bh, and Pancho Gonzalez for greatest serve.
Datacipher
Banned
OH OK, wel in that case, sure, it's a given that many would currently think of Federer, but that doesn't give the "default" position much weight!
You've shifted to a populist argument. I think it's pretty questionable how much weight such an argument should carry, since it is skewed for so many reasons, not the least of which is the one already pointed out, such an argument will always be skewed by a bias towards recent memory, and by the fact that many expert observers of Segura's forehand are no longer around.
Nevertheless, if you want to argue that Federer's is the best because many would currently choose it as the best, it is your right!
REALLY??! That seems strange to me because you just finished proposing that we dont' know enough about Segura's forehand, so I 'm not sure what the many reasons you're referring to are. To be honest, I'm skeptical that I would find them valid. I can think of few reasons, based on the footage I've seen why I would rate Federer at #1 (which is one of the reasons I never weighed in on Segura) .....one of the few I can think of is that he had better reach on the forehand, though that was said not to ever really be a drawback for Segura. As his deceptive lightning speed compensated, despite a rickedy legged appearance! Do you have others you've observed?
NonP
Legend
This. Some of these "experts" have never seen or have a hazy recollection at best of Segura's forehand. And as you noted there's the unavoidable bias towards the present, to which these pundits are particularly susceptible. Given all this a little bit of skepticism should be in order, but apparently not.
Datacipher
Banned
No...apparently not! We should not even consider him, a question mark, because if we lack enough data, we must "default" to Federer because more people would pick him!
The extreme bias we often see pep[;e are often prone to declare that everything from now MUST be better than in the past, even though, some have even admitted having only been watching tennis for a few years! And further reveal a lack of knowledge in various errors and questions they have asked!
I might note that the ideal people to make this judgement would be expert observers OVER 70+ years old. And of course, even they may have memory skewed by the vast length of time.
Personally, I haven't seen a much of Segura so I am reserving judgment on it...though I wager what I have seen is MORE than the majority here! I do know that people like Kramer have called it the best shot in tennis history! So, I am certain that it was very likely quite comparable to Federer or any other great forehand. Of course, everyone else is entitled to make their opinion based on what info they have, but saying that we should give it to Federer based on current popular opinion, or simply saying there are innumerable "reasons" to give it to Federer.....well....not too convincing!
borg number one
Legend
I agree with many of the remarks above Datacipher. Yes, it is true that Federer does have one of the greatest forehands of all time. Yet, this standard argument that he is the best NOW and of course we can assume that tennis is better NOW than ever before in just about EVERY respect, so necessarily Federer is the best ever in many areas of the Game is very simplistic and satisfying to many, but this line of reasoning ignores so many intricacies and nuances to be properly considered in these discussions.
There is a huge bias towards the current, here and now. This was certainly true in the past, but we may be even worse now at always focusing on the "latest" and supposedly "greatest". Hey, I used to be guilty of it myself. When I was about 10, and first immersing myself in tennis, I used to think "Borg is the very best right now, and they say, EVER, so there's just no way guys from the past like Tilden, Budge, Kramer, and Laver should even be put in the same league as him in every aspect of the game". I could not believe it when Kramer would say that Budge or Tilden would give Borg a tough time by trying to take his high balls out of the air for putaways!
As I grew up and started studying more players, modern and early players, I started appreciating just how many great players there have been. Well, I was wrong for looking at it in a way that did not fully appreciate all those that came before Borg and not appreciating some of the nuances to be considered when comparing across eras. I believe the same thing is happening now with Federer.
There is a huge bias towards the current, here and now. This was certainly true in the past, but we may be even worse now at always focusing on the "latest" and supposedly "greatest". Hey, I used to be guilty of it myself. When I was about 10, and first immersing myself in tennis, I used to think "Borg is the very best right now, and they say, EVER, so there's just no way guys from the past like Tilden, Budge, Kramer, and Laver should even be put in the same league as him in every aspect of the game". I could not believe it when Kramer would say that Budge or Tilden would give Borg a tough time by trying to take his high balls out of the air for putaways!
As I grew up and started studying more players, modern and early players, I started appreciating just how many great players there have been. Well, I was wrong for looking at it in a way that did not fully appreciate all those that came before Borg and not appreciating some of the nuances to be considered when comparing across eras. I believe the same thing is happening now with Federer.
NonP
Legend
Agreed. One can simply say Fed's FH is the best of the modern era. That would be the fair and rational thing to do, given the lack of data and reliable sources on the old-timers. Too bad the overenthusiastic fans don't get this.
Changmaster
Rookie
Sure, I agree with that. My argument was about hoodjem's list, putting Segura's fh at #1. I agree there's no way we can PROVE, one way or another, whose fh was the best. I can understand why Fed's fh shouldn't automatically be rated as the best ever. But it makes even less sense to put Segura's fh at the very top, a shot certain people have only read about, and not observed carefully for themselves. What's more absurd: singing the praises of a shot you have seen for yourself time and time again, and may have a certain bias towards, or saying a certain shot is the best ever that you don't even really know that much about!?
My argument here is not really about who has the best fh. It's about the illogical nature of rating Segura's fh as #1 when you haven't even seen and observed it carefully for yourself.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Agreed. Like you wrote before many of these experts have never seen Segura's forehand. Drucker is an excellent tennis writer but he was a kid during Jimmy Connors' early days and couldn't possibly have seen Segura in his prime and I would include the entire panel with the possible exception of Newcombe.
Here's some who thought Segura's forehand was the best, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Ellsworth Vines among others. Guys like Laver, Rosewall, Gene Scott, among others at worst thought Segura's forehand was one of the best they have ever seen.
I would say this is a pretty impressive panel too.
Like I mentioned before, Kramer said that Connors' backhand was not nearly the stroke Segura's was and I think Connors' backhand is very close to Federer's forehand as far as effectiveness is concerned so if Segura's is better, well the least you can do is believe it is possible.
Put it this way, some have said in recent years that Nadal's forehand is superior to Federer's. My point with this remark is that Federer's forehand is not the default for even today. There is doubt. Now I do believe it is the best forehand of today but people have argued against it.
It has been said that Segura's forehand has ungodly control and power and any shot to mid court was put away. This is with a regular wood racket. How good is that? I think it's arguably the best ever.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
exactly. there is much more evidence of federer's fh or lendls or sampras fh as being a phenomenal shot. No doubt segura is up there but the evidence is just more present in the latter three and when discussing the GOAT fhs, you have the give the benefit of the doubt to the KNOWN...not the LESSER KNOWN.
