Greatest player of all time
- Thread starter donnyz89
- Start date
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
navratilova. since they make no distinction with gender, i don't think they will ignore that she is the best Singles/Doubles COMBINED player of all time.
who's your pick, AAAA?
who's your pick, AAAA?
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Kevin Patrick said:
Kevin, If you have read all my posts on the subject you'll know I have a leaning towards Borg but based on other measuring metrics and other respected viewpoints, I'd place players like Laver, Borg, Pancho Gonzales, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, and probably Connors and Mac in roughly the same group for different reasons.
Aykhan Mammadov
Hall of Fame
Navratilova won 19 GS while Graff Steffy won 22 slams. Why to take into consideration combination of singles/doubles titles ? I understand if 2 players have the same number of singles titles then it worth to examine their doubles reords. Otherwise such an approach may confuse many accepted orders. Doesn't, Kevin ?
I think Sampras among men and Steffy among girls because first criterion is number of Grand Slam titles in singles.
I think Sampras among men and Steffy among girls because first criterion is number of Grand Slam titles in singles.
shsman2091
Rookie
I don't know much about him, however I've seen him play a few times and he amazed me, what about Patrick Rafter? Anyway, I'm gonna have to go with Pete Sampras. I'm sure Wilander will also be up there.
whistleway
Semi-Pro
>>first criterion is number of Grand Slam titles in singles.
Really? Wonder how many rings does MJ has
Really? Wonder how many rings does MJ has
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
Prince_of_Tennis
Professional
Agassi should be ranked a lot higher than that. All four majors should at least top 10. He holds quite a few records as well.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
wasn't far off on my prediction
9. Agassi
10. King
11. McEnroe
12. Lendl
Surprised they put Lendl above Mac. So we now know the remaining 8, just a question of order.
I'll stick with this order:
1. Navratilova-arguably the greatest singles & doubles player combined, plus she's American(& Tennis is an American magazine) played during the tennis boom(which was probably Tennis Magazine's most succesful time as well)
2. Sampras(again probably a slight American bias)
3. Graf
4. Laver
5. Evert
6. Borg
7. Court
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. King
11. McEnroe
12. Lendl
Surprised they put Lendl above Mac. So we now know the remaining 8, just a question of order.
I'll stick with this order:
1. Navratilova-arguably the greatest singles & doubles player combined, plus she's American(& Tennis is an American magazine) played during the tennis boom(which was probably Tennis Magazine's most succesful time as well)
2. Sampras(again probably a slight American bias)
3. Graf
4. Laver
5. Evert
6. Borg
7. Court
8. Connors
How I think Tennis Mag will rank the 8 best:
8. Evert- Great champion. Along with Connors and Borg caused the flood of players with 2hbh's in following generations. Second best to Navratilova though. Every little girl wanted to be like Chrissie during the tennis boom.
7. Connors- US Opens on three different surfaces. Brought tennis to the blue collar masses. But behind Borg IMO.
6.Court- In her time set the Grand Slam standard and the bar for the women to follow. The "Navratilova" of her era. Described as a stronger and better athlete than the average man. (may trade spots with Evert).
5. Borg- The Wimbledon and Roland Garros titles, still one of the greatest tennis feats ever. The best, except for at the US Open, during a time when Connors and McEnroe were on the same stage.
4. Graf- Golden slam, number of majors everything. Carried on the athleticism that Navratilova brought to the women's game.
3. Sampras- 14 slams, #1 six years in a row, etc (my greatest of all time).
2. Navratilova- Revolutionized the women's game. Made it okay for females to be athletes. Brought ahtletic diet, weight training and superior fitness to the fore in tennis for both the men and women. Ended up dominating the second best female of her era, Chris Evert. As Kevin Patrick said she's the greatest combined singles & doubles player of all time, carrying Pam Shriver around a doubles court much the same way McEnroe carried Fleming. Coming out as being gay before it was cool for any celebrity to do it.
1. Laver. 2 Grand Slams. The "what if" factor. How many more slam titles would Laver have won if he hadn't missed arguably his peak years due to being banned during that time for turning pro? Laver was likely the biggest reason for tennis becoming "Open" to professionals. Put tennis into everyone's vocabulary. Like Pele in soccer, Killy (sp?) in skiing, Peggy Fleming in ice skating, even if you knew nothing of tennis, you still knew one name "Rocket" Rod Laver.
8. Evert- Great champion. Along with Connors and Borg caused the flood of players with 2hbh's in following generations. Second best to Navratilova though. Every little girl wanted to be like Chrissie during the tennis boom.
7. Connors- US Opens on three different surfaces. Brought tennis to the blue collar masses. But behind Borg IMO.
6.Court- In her time set the Grand Slam standard and the bar for the women to follow. The "Navratilova" of her era. Described as a stronger and better athlete than the average man. (may trade spots with Evert).
5. Borg- The Wimbledon and Roland Garros titles, still one of the greatest tennis feats ever. The best, except for at the US Open, during a time when Connors and McEnroe were on the same stage.
4. Graf- Golden slam, number of majors everything. Carried on the athleticism that Navratilova brought to the women's game.
3. Sampras- 14 slams, #1 six years in a row, etc (my greatest of all time).
2. Navratilova- Revolutionized the women's game. Made it okay for females to be athletes. Brought ahtletic diet, weight training and superior fitness to the fore in tennis for both the men and women. Ended up dominating the second best female of her era, Chris Evert. As Kevin Patrick said she's the greatest combined singles & doubles player of all time, carrying Pam Shriver around a doubles court much the same way McEnroe carried Fleming. Coming out as being gay before it was cool for any celebrity to do it.
1. Laver. 2 Grand Slams. The "what if" factor. How many more slam titles would Laver have won if he hadn't missed arguably his peak years due to being banned during that time for turning pro? Laver was likely the biggest reason for tennis becoming "Open" to professionals. Put tennis into everyone's vocabulary. Like Pele in soccer, Killy (sp?) in skiing, Peggy Fleming in ice skating, even if you knew nothing of tennis, you still knew one name "Rocket" Rod Laver.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
Sampras is my best no question. I really dont like how Laver is considered to be so great. I doubt he would be considered even athletic in our day.
As for womens tennis...
eh
In the past its been pretty easy to dominate...ie the ridiclous number of slams that stefi and Martina have.
As for womens tennis...
eh
In the past its been pretty easy to dominate...ie the ridiclous number of slams that stefi and Martina have.
DashaandSafin said:
I think Tennis is ranking not merely on who is the better player, but who has had the most impact on the game and other intangibles. I.E. ranking Agassi behind McEnroe, which, while I'm not an Agassi fan I can't explain any other way. Its definitely not a ranking of who would beat who head to head or who the stronger, better trained athlete is.
Laver's best years are beyond my memory. But he was known for his quickness around the court, his balance and his ability to hit unthinkable shots at the biggest moments. He hit with more topspin than any player around until the arrival of Borg and Vilas. No one hit like him. (Sound like anyone?) As far as the athlete thing goes. I remember Laver competing in ABC's "Battle of the Stars" (a competition bringing together athletes from other "major" and "minor" sports) and getting spanked by the best athletes from other sports. Anyone else remember that? Laver vs. athletes from other sports did not fair well, to say the least. The great thing about it was that he was invited to compete there. He had put tennis on the mainstream athletic stage.
But as great a tennis athlete as Federer is he would get spanked by today's best athlete's in other sports. Spanked. Tennis has different requirements than other sports, requirements which are hard to measure. While quickness and speed are required, the movements are not a true sprint and can't be measured that way. While strength is required it is not brute weight-lifting strength. While endurance is required it is not a long distance run, hand/eye coordination, etc., etc... Like swimming, gymnastics, skiing and so on, great tennis players are great athletes. But historically they will never compare favorably to athletes from other sports in easily measured athletic tests.
Tennis requires a combination of athletic abilities and tennis specific skills unique to itself. And even those attributes vary from tennis great to tennis great. Compare McEnroe to Noah. Who's the better athlete? Who's the better tennis player? Look at Sampras v. Agassi. Who is the better more versatile "athlete"? To me, overall, Sampras, hands down. But measures of endurance, the bench press and hand/eye coordination would go to Agassi. Different, difficult to measure standards for tennis. Then add in tennis strengths v. weaknesses and specific match-ups, forget about it. While the fantasy match-ups on this board are fun, and I do enjoy them, they are impossible to argue with certainty. While I believe Sampras would beat anyone from prior generations and handily, we will never know how good a Laver would be today given the same training, grips, science and equipment.
Laver, in his time, was considered a great tennis specific athlete, as all the Australians of his day were under Harry Hopman. He won 11 majors and is the only man with two slams. This while being barred from competing for more slams for a 5 year period, from age 24 to 28, arguably an athletes prime years because he had turned professional. And before the "yeah but" he won his two slams in 1962 and 1969, one before and one after that five year ban.
While I do think Sampras is the greatest over the span of a career to date, one cannot deny how great Laver was, how much greater his legend could have been and the impact he had on our sport.
shsman2091
Rookie
How could Serena be #17, and Federer #19, holy crap. What the hell is Tennis Magazine smoking.
Doubles means nothing. It should be either Graf or Laver.
Navratilova = no Grand Slam, not as long at Number 1 as Graf, less Slams overall (and more than 2/3 of them were won on grass only), weaker opposition, etc
But it's an American Mag so they probably put Navratilova and Sampras 1 2.
Navratilova = no Grand Slam, not as long at Number 1 as Graf, less Slams overall (and more than 2/3 of them were won on grass only), weaker opposition, etc
But it's an American Mag so they probably put Navratilova and Sampras 1 2.
joe sch
Legend
AAAA, I also liked Borg and Sampras but dont think they outperformed some of the earlier players before the open area like Gonzales, that you mentioned. Kramer was better than Gonzales and Vines and Budge may have been better than Kramer. Tilden may have been better than all of them and he played as long as Gonzales. I think that you really can only claim a best player for each era or possibly decade.AAAA said:
One note on that Superstar competition regarding Laver's athletic abilities. That competition was held in 1973 in Florida with pol vaulter Bob Seagren winning. Laver at 35 reached 3rd place, in front of all basketball, baseball and football- players. I recall, that Joe Frazier, competeting in swimming, almost sunk and had to be rescued by helpers. Laver was not tall, but very athletic and fast. He was not broadshouldered, but had muscular legs and a left wrist and underarm, that was bigger than Nadal's.
urban said:
Wow. 3rd place. You're sure on that? That wasn't my recollection. I vividly remember Laver fading quickly to last place in the dash as I covered my eyes with my hand, embarassed for him. I do remember Frazier doing his imitation of a rock in the swimming competition too. That was hysterical, once everyone knew he survived.
Yes, FiveO, i think, the ranking was Seagren, Killy, Laver. In a later similar competition in England at around 1980, Borg won - and he won all disciplines including canooing. Borg (together with Emerson) was maybe the best athlete in tennis ever. I always thought that you can see the athletic ability of a tennis player on his legs. Rosewall was small, but had very muscular legs. Stich and Leconte both had very thin legs, and always stamina problems. Becker's legs were thick, but relatively undefined, and he had not much mobility. McEnroe had also almost no muscular definition on his legs. Agassi at first had very thin legs, now they are well built up - but you can't see them on his long 'shorts'.
Guys, just remember, Tennis Magazine isn't picking the best players of all time. What they're doing is picking the best players during the period of time that Tennis Magazine has been in existence. If you have a look at the blurb for Ken Rosewall you'll see they mention that he would have ranked much higher if they were picking the best of all time but due to the format and as most of his accomplishments pre-dated Tennis magazine he ended up with a lowish rating.
AAAA said:
I think the Tennis Magazine listing is limited to the last 40 years and the Open era. I think that would leave out Richard Pancho Gonzalez. Correct me if I'm wrong.
From what I have read and heard about Gonzalez, he is certainly a contender for the GOAT. He dominated pro tennis from 1951 to 1962, and he beat every Wimbledon champ 10 years in a row. If he had been allowed to play against the amateurs, no telling how many grand slams he would have amassed. Amateurs regularly got trounced whenever they played against the top pros. And Gonzalez won on grass, clay, wood, concrete, carpet, canvas over ice, you name it.
And the fact that he would have none of the hypocracy that permeated "amateur" tennis is to his credit.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
urban & FiveO,
espn classic repeats that Superstar episode frequently on Cheap Seats(it's a show which has 2 guys goofing on the show as we watch it)
Laver did do pretty well actually(especially in table tennis & golf)
He did well in the 100 meter dash as well. An NBA player blew every one away in that event, but Laver finished 3rd.
Joe Frazier was horrible in every event.
espn classic repeats that Superstar episode frequently on Cheap Seats(it's a show which has 2 guys goofing on the show as we watch it)
Laver did do pretty well actually(especially in table tennis & golf)
He did well in the 100 meter dash as well. An NBA player blew every one away in that event, but Laver finished 3rd.
Joe Frazier was horrible in every event.
I have the greatest respect for Gonzales, who is certainly in my mind one of the 5 best players of all time. But his record on the internet - there is a link about him, and several Wikipedia articles obviously by a friend - is a bit exaggerated. If you go to the real records of the pre open pro era, you better go with the book of Joe McCauley, History of Professional Tennis, 2001. Gonzales was trounced in 1950 in his first pro tour by Kramer (who lead him 40-2 sometimes and finished 96-27). In the following years Kamer played very little tournaments and concentrated on head to head tours vs. Segura and Sedgman and remained official Nr. 1 until 1953. In the years 1952-3 Segura was probably the real Nr. 1, beating Gonzales for the US pro title. In 1954 Gonzales became World Champion and defended his title in 100 matches, mano a mano series vs. the best amateurs, Trabert in 1956, Rosewall 1957, Hoad 1958, which was a close call, with Hoad dominating the Australian part of the tour on grass. Most of these series were played indoors, which - like the format - was uncommon for the amateurs. So Gonzales had a distinct advantage. Gonzales dominated the US pro indoors at Cleveland, winning it 8 times (the last 1961), but at the most important pro tournament at Wembley, which he won 4 times in the early 50s, he was beaten since 1955 by Rosewall, Hoad or Sedgman. On clay he never won the French pro, which was played at Roland Garros then, losing to Trabert and Rosewall. He remained pro Nr.1 until 1960, then Rosewall with a better overall record took over, although he never beat Gonzales on a head-to-head tour. Gonzales came out of semi-retirement in 1964 and was beaten in the finals of the US pro, now at Boston, and the semis at Wembley by Laver. Although he won no more major title, he remained a factor going into the open era, with victories over the best players like Laver, Newcombe and even the young Connors. He was primarly a fast court player with one of the best serves ever, a cat like movement, a deep analytical understanding of the game and a fierce will to win. The use to say: You better beat him fast, if the match goes too long - you don't beat him at all.
R
roblobster
Guest
I love the term "all time", cause it is relative up to a particular point in time!! While I think Sampras is the "All Time" great to date, 15 years ago it would have been McEnroe, 30 years ago Laver.....So, lets pick them by decade, then after 10 decase (100 yrs for the slow kids), we'll crown the Best Player "All Time" of the century. But wait. we'll probably all be dead by then and it won't really matter huh?
Taram_Nifas
Rookie
Andy Roddick...
P
p1625
Guest
It's Laver or Sampras. Laver has this unbreakable 2 Gland Slams but
he was playing at this controversial time of amateur/pro transition time.
Sampras has the most number of slams but had questionable fitness
level for a world class athelete and couldn't win French.
he was playing at this controversial time of amateur/pro transition time.
Sampras has the most number of slams but had questionable fitness
level for a world class athelete and couldn't win French.
A
Apprentice
Guest
Yeah, Roddick is a good pick and probably the GOAT, but its hard to judge todays players with players of the past. Players of past decades are just toooooo old!! times have changed man!! They were pretty good but times are different these days!!!! Man they are nothing!! Believe me level the has risen!! in addition there are more good players out there than in the past!! man it is a neverending discussion but listen up!!
More people are playing tennis then having sex in your house!!! this fact is SO!!!! The discussion is officially finished!!
More people are playing tennis then having sex in your house!!! this fact is SO!!!! The discussion is officially finished!!
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
This is NOT a good "first ever" post, Apprentice. But welcome to TW, anyway....
- KK
Even Andy wouldn't place his name in consideration for this.Apprentice said:
You have no idea what you are posting about. Mac is almost 50 ... and he regularly can take sets off today's top players. Where've you been???
- KK
Aykhan Mammadov
Hall of Fame
Greatest player of all time ?
Aykhan Mammadov, and then:
ROOOOOOGGGGGGERRRRRRRRR FEDDDDDDDERRRRREEEEERRRRRR.
Aykhan Mammadov, and then:
ROOOOOOGGGGGGERRRRRRRRR FEDDDDDDDERRRRREEEEERRRRRR.
shsman2091
Rookie
Aykhan Mammadov said:
I think they already said Roger Federer is 19th, and Serena is 17th, can you believe it, tennis magazine can #@&$ it!
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Federer in a landslide.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Federer in a landslide
Mr Feeny
Hall of Fame
What have i just read?
D
Deleted member 756486
Guest
Rogr Fedr
Rhino
Legend
Whatever happened to Aykhan Mammadov?? I remember this guy being quite entertaining.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
since when did Paint let you rotate text?
Similar threads
