Did he win the match?
Not relevant
Did he win the match?
- Winning a major, getting to a final, even a few semifinals, or winning a big pro event, would be a big help in ranking the greatness of a shot.
- As you now know from my last post, Froehling beat Emerson at the U.S. Nationals. In any event, the top amatures of the 60's were the future pros of the 60's and 70's. The level was virtually the same, wiht the top amatures being quite able to get wins over any of the pros. A win over an all time great in the mens' division amature or pro is an important gauge. Ashe was an amature when he won the very first U.S.O. and when he lost to Laver in the 1969 W SF. Stan Smith was an amature when he won the 71' U.S.O. and the 72' W Championships. They were both in the Army at the time.
- I'm saying, how can you rank Dibley's serve against one who employed the greatness of his serve to be a champion. It's a different list I suppose.
- Nastase had one of the best serves of his day. All time top 20, probably not.
Talk about coincidences, just this week I was reading about Doeg and getting a few stats for the match where he defeated Tilden.
He served 13 love games, and won possibly as many as 23 straight points on serve. I've looked over dozens of boxscores from the time period, and this is the first time I've seen numbers like that -- including in many great matches involving big servers like Tilden, Vines, Hoad.
Doeg had 28 aces in 29 service games and was broken only twice. The NY Times said he had "one of the most feared services in the game." According to the Hartford Courant "Doeg’s mighty service was an overpowering weapon, outdoing the famous cannon balls of Tilden himself."
He's not known because he wasn't the player that some great servers like Gonzalez and Kramer were. Kramer doesn't mention him in his list of great server from his book but I've read a number of accounts of how great this guy was as a server....
I'm fairly certain John Doeg was a better server than most of the all time greats but he won just one major I believe.
I think its impossible to classify best servers of all time because in the era of laver it was against the rules to pick up your feet of the ground when you were serving. i think its best to classify based on 10 year periods IMO.
The more I think about this dichotomy between great serves and great servers, the less I believe that they can be separated. Even NonP in this thread has spoken about that key word, "clutch" -- and if you talk about clutch under pressure then significant weight has to be given to the greatest champions for facing the pressure of the biggest matches (the Slam finals) more often than everybody else.
To the part I bolded above: if I understand this correctly, Federer's numbers are less impressive when facing lesser opponents. You are taking into account the concept of "clutch", and the pressure of the greatest stages, against the greatest opponents.
But if so, doesn't the same follow for the numbers produced by many of these lesser champions with great serves, like Karlovic or Arthurs? After all they never produced their numbers under the pressure of Slam finals. Wouldn't it follow that their numbers, too, should be seen as less impressive?
My question to you would be, isn't it more impressive to serve at 70% in the USO final than to serve at 70% in the second round of Cincinnatti when relatively few people are watching and relatively little is at stake? (Presuming the returner is the same in each match, and all other things being equal.)
Did he win the match?
IMO, karlovic and isner are #1 and #2 all time (followed by sampras and ivanisevic). their serves are unbelievable but the rest of their game is mediocre. that's why you can't look at their overall results when determining who has the best serve.
it's for this reason that you can't look at # of service games won b/c there is a lot more to holding serve than just the serve.
the way i look at it is would player A hold serve more often with player B's serve than with his own. for example, some clown on here was making the "argument" that federer (who shouldn't be in the top 25) has a better serve than karlovic. that's beyond foolish. nobody in their right mind would argue the fact that federer would hold serve easier with karlovic's serve than with his own.
Since we discussing whether you have to be an all time great to have a great serve (which I don't believe incidentally) let's have some fun and see which all time greats had the best serves. I don't include Goran, Karlovic and Isner as all time greats for example.
Some possible choices
Pancho Gonzalez
Pete Sampras
Jack Kramer
Bill Tilden
John Newcombe
Arthur Ashe
John McEnroe
Edberg
Boris Becker
Lew Hoad
Roger Federer
Ivan Lendl
Bjorn Borg
Incidentally it occurs to me while I was thinking of top players that Lendl's serve hasn't been mentioned here. It may not be as explosive as Boris Becker's serve but top players like Brad Gilbert thought he had a great serve, not just because of his power but also because of his variety on serve.
that's odd. sampras wins in straight sets, but roddick got a higher % of unreturnables
Here are Federer's rates of unreturned serves, from Moose and myself.
2001 Wimbledon vs. Sampras, 89 of 181 serves unreturned (25 aces), 49.2%
2007 TMC vs. Nadal, 21 of 48 (10 aces), 43.8%
2005 USO vs. Agassi, 44 of 107 (19 aces), 41.1%
2007 Wimbledon vs. Nadal, 58 of 156 (25 aces), 37.2%
2006 TMC vs. Blake, 31 of 86 (11 aces), 36%
2008 AO vs. Djokovic, 33 of 109 (10 aces), 30.3%
2008 USO vs. Murray, 22 of 81 (3 aces), 27.2%
2006 TMC vs. Nadal, 16 of 60 (7 aces), 26.7%
2004 USO vs. Hewitt, 23 of 89 (10 aces), 25.8%
2006 RG vs. Nadal, 24 of 119 (8 aces), 20.2%
2006 Rome vs. Nadal, 31 of 180 (9 aces), 17.2%
And from Slice Serve Ace:
2003 Wimbledon vs. Flipper, 21 aces, 43 unr, 46.2%
2009 Wimbledon vs. Roddick, 50 aces, 88 unr, 44.7%
well IMO becker's clutchness is a bit over-rated in comparison to federer. I'd put federer above all but Sampras in terms of clutch serving. I wouldn't say he's been very clutch vs Nadal at all times, but he's done fairly well as far as clutch serving is concerned vs him.
As far as the 2009 matches are concerned, AO 2009 final, he was playing very well from the ground . The serving problem really had almost nothing to do with Nadal
USO 2009 final, even when federer was toying around with delpo in the first set and half , his serve was pretty bad. His crappy serving didn't have much to with delpo IMO. In fact his best serving in the match ( relative of course) came in the 3rd set after delpo had snatched the 2nd set.
The 2007 WTF was an anomaly IMO. Don't think he's served at that percentage vs roddick/Nadal or anyone else in an imp match. He just happened to hit very good serving rhythm in those 2 matches. He demolished ferrer in the final as well, but didn't have that high a serving %
Smith's serve was pretty awesome in his day but Newcombe's was generally considered a bit better than Smith's at that time. I think John Alexander and Arthur Ashe mentioned that. But of course it's debatable when you look at serves of this great level. I could see Smith's serve in his day being ranked above the others with the exception of Kramer. Kramer's serve is considered by many to be as great a serve as you could have when you include his second serve.
Then I can't agree with either Alexander or Ashe, and I don't think that opinion was widely held, either. I remember how Smith's serve was generally regarded - as the best in the game. It was talked about as a major weapon from the time he started at UCLA. IMO, Smith's serve was the best serve in the game during his 2 year run at the top. Newk had a great serve, but, his serve didn't win championships. Smith's serve did.
Thanks, this is exactly what I was asking about. I was just wondering how you viewed the stats of such lower-ranked servers in light of the fact that they don't progress as far into later rounds as champions do, and this answers my question clearly.But then, as I explained in my last post, a Karlovic or an Arthurs hasn't had to face the best players as often, on pressure-filled stages, which has the opposite effects on their service stats. This is a delicate balance we've been trying to sort out in our rankings.
Agreed to that, since I think some weight should be given to the fact that champions do progress farther and have greater pressure to deal with. How much weight should go to that intangible is entirely up to the list-maker and I think it can vary widely and still be reasonable. I think the Times article puts a lot of weight on it; in a list like yours the pure shot is emphasized while the mental side of the stroke is being given less weight than usual, and under those terms I can see Federer being ranked much lower.Like I said his serve as a pure shot probably isn't top 25 all-time, but given the clutch factor perhaps we should assign him a ranking, however low it may be.
Just in case you haven't seen this discussion on that article: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=332138&page=3He should either add some more kick a la Roddick or Krajicek, which would make it harder to return, or just bite the bullet and practically go for two 1st serves, as a recent NYT article suggests might be best for a great # of players.
Speaking of which, I tend to think, if anything, players today are too afraid to DF. This isn't unlike what I said about 1st-serve %'s: yes, high first-serve %'s are good, but if you're averaging close to 70% regularly, you're probably not getting as many freebies as you can. Similarly, if you're committing next to no DFs on average, you're probably playing it too safe on your 2nd serves. And those above stats (and others compiled by bricks), which show a noticeable drop in # of DFs, reinforce my impression.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true for someone like Federer. For someone who relies more on pure power it could be a mistake to take speed off just to get a high percentage. But Federer mixes up his serve well and relies on superb placement, as much as pure speed, for his aces, service winners and set-ups.BTW, I wouldn't call serving at/over 70% necessarily impressive, because if you're getting so many 1st serves in, then you're probably not getting enough free points!
Limpin, we really don't disagree as much as you seem to think. Again, results do matter. But the point everyone has been trying to make here, which you apparently reject wholesale, is that results alone do not paint the complete picture regarding a single shot, especially one as important and independent (relatively speaking, compared to other shots) as the serve.
Let me try one more time. As pc1 noted upthread, the ATP stats show that Karlovic has by far the worst return of serve among the current top players, significantly worse than even Isner's (8% vs. 13%), which occupies the penultimate place. Yet even so, he has managed to reach the QF of a major ('09 Wimbledon). That's one step further than Isner or Arthurs ever did/has done (both failing to advance further than the 4th round in their career).
So if making the SF of a major is a reasonable threshold by your standard, isn't it then also reasonable to say that Karlovic's serve is up there, since he's almost certainly the worst player on the list but still managed to fall just one round short of the SF? Like I said, a Karlovic or an Isner would never win a major no matter how good their serve was, since the rest of their game doesn't quite measure up to that of the top pros. But they can still pull off an occasional upset against the best of them--yes, including Fed, Rafa and Djoko. It's quite implausible that these upsets were not due in large part to their serves. That's what we're trying to say, not that results don't matter.
If you still disagree, then take us through how a Karlovic could serve all the way to a championship despite his limited arsenal. What could he possibly do that would beat the odds, which would be heavily stacked against him?
Well, I was talking about top amateurs who spent the bulk of their prime years separated from the best (pro) players, so big names like Newcombe, Smith or Ashe don't qualify. Again, if what you say is true--that Froehling never played on the pro tour--then it's really all but impossible to guess how well his serve would've matched up against the best players during his heyday, for the simple reason he never played them and thus never had a chance to "attain great results against other champions," as you put it. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how one's service stats are affected by his opponent.
Again this isn't exactly what I had in mind. Let me put it somewhat differently, then: Did Dibley have as big a serve as Karlovic, Ivanisevic or Arthurs? And was it consistent?
No beef here.
It's a shame that accounts of Doeg's serve are hard to come by. Are there any others that you guys can share? Maybe he deserves an honorary mention as well?
For the record this rule was in effect before Laver's heyday (Wikipedia says 1908-1961). Plus, more importantly, it's not a given that a big serve requires a big leap. Just on this list you have servers like Tanner and Stich, who used a minimal knee bend but still could serve as big as anybody (especially in Tanner's case).
Right, you really can't separate the mental aspect completely. That's why I do give out bonus points for being able to come up with the goods in the clutch, and also why I emphasize that we're trying to rate these serves as stand-alone shots, just so people understand that the mental side of the stroke is being given less weight than usual. But, as I've been saying for some time now, it's more than just being able to come up with big serves, but also how your serve (and, of course, service stats) is influenced by the quality of your opponent's return, or by the quality of your opponent period. I once wrote a dissertation on this very topic, which I won't quote in full (too long) but people can read here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5267685#post5267685
I wouldn't quite put it like that (that the numbers are "less impressive"), but yes, that's what makes comparing these service stats even trickier. After all, how many times have we seen players get hot for nearly two weeks only to fall apart (or short) in the finals? It'd be nice to have someone do a comprehensive analysis of some of these servers' stats, to see how well they serve under pressure in big matches compared to how they do on average.
BTW, I wouldn't call serving at/over 70% necessarily impressive, because if you're getting so many 1st serves in, then you're probably not getting enough free points! Not even Karlovic makes that many 1st serves on average, and with good reason. On the other hand, you also don't want to get just barely half of your 1st serves in. I'd say low to mid-60s are probably the best of both worlds. High 60s are most likely a little too high, unless you've got the ground game of a Nadal to compensate for the relatively low # of freebies (though, I should also note, even Rafa beefed up his serve to get that elusive USO and career GS) or unless you're a near 7-footer like Karlovic or Isner. By contrast, mid- to high 50s, while pretty good, could be better still.
(BTW, as I explained in that long post I linked to earlier, these general "rules" should apply to the more recent service stats only, because of the changes in technology and strategy.)
But to answer your question, yes, everything else equal it'd obviously be a greater feat to serve at a high percentage in a major final rather than in the 2nd or 3rd round of a smaller event, especially if we're assuming the same opponent. To me this is just common sense.
Then I can't agree with either Alexander or Ashe, and I don't think that opinion was widely held, either. I remember how Smith's serve was generally regarded - as the best in the game. It was talked about as a major weapon from the time he started at UCLA. IMO, Smith's serve was the best serve in the game during his 2 year run at the top. Newk had a great serve, but, his serve didn't win championships. Smith's serve did.
Had a long chat with a former NCAA champ and US top ten'ner who played the greats from Gonzalez, Laver, Ashe etc etc. He said out of them all, Stan Smith was the toughest to play, largely due to his serve (almost impossible to break during his peak...). His height (angles) and smooth action (deceptively fast delivery) made it difficult to read and return consistently.
Since I'm a little younger, along with Newcombe, I'd like to think Roscoe Tanner's delivery was up there as one of the best serves...
Had a long chat with a former NCAA champ and US top ten'ner who played the greats from Gonzalez, Laver, Ashe etc etc. He said out of them all, Stan Smith was the toughest to play, largely due to his serve (almost impossible to break during his peak...). His height (angles) and smooth action (deceptively fast delivery) made it difficult to read and return consistently.
Since I'm a little younger, along with Newcombe, I'd like to think Roscoe Tanner's delivery was up there as one of the best serves...
OK, I'm dying to know who you had your chat with! Was it Dick Stockton?
PS: Bob Lutz?
PPS: Jeff Borowiak? C'mon I'm dyin' ovah heeah!
haha! Ok, only if you keep it a secret between us... its Allen Fox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Fox
that's odd. sampras wins in straight sets, but roddick got a higher % of unreturnables
do you have winner counts for this match?
have you stats on any isner matches?
thanks
Good points. But you have to remember, Karlovic for much of his career was pretty highly ranked, so he did have to play against the top players frequently. And he often played them close or even won, despite his abysmal return stats. Also with modern equipment, returning serve is easier than ever before. So most opponents facing Karlovic would know that they just have to get the serve back, and they will usually win the point (unlike with other dominant servers who backed up their serves better) Yet despite this, the man still made a Grand Slam quarterfinal, losing to Federer. This proves the greatness of his serveLimpin, we really don't disagree as much as you seem to think. Again, results do matter. But the point everyone has been trying to make here, which you apparently reject wholesale, is that results alone do not paint the complete picture regarding a single shot, especially one as important and independent (relatively speaking, compared to other shots) as the serve.
Let me try one more time. As pc1 noted upthread, the ATP stats show that Karlovic has by far the worst return of serve among the current top players, significantly worse than even Isner's (8% vs. 13%), which occupies the penultimate place. Yet even so, he has managed to reach the QF of a major ('09 Wimbledon). That's one step further than Isner or Arthurs ever did/has done (both failing to advance further than the 4th round in their career).
So if making the SF of a major is a reasonable threshold by your standard, isn't it then also reasonable to say that Karlovic's serve is up there, since he's almost certainly the worst player on the list but still managed to fall just one round short of the SF? Like I said, a Karlovic or an Isner would never win a major no matter how good their serve was, since the rest of their game doesn't quite measure up to that of the top pros. But they can still pull off an occasional upset against the best of them--yes, including Fed, Rafa and Djoko. It's quite implausible that these upsets were not due in large part to their serves. That's what we're trying to say, not that results don't matter.
If you still disagree, then take us through how a Karlovic could serve all the way to a championship despite his limited arsenal. What could he possibly do that would beat the odds, which would be heavily stacked against him?
Well, I was talking about top amateurs who spent the bulk of their prime years separated from the best (pro) players, so big names like Newcombe, Smith or Ashe don't qualify. Again, if what you say is true--that Froehling never played on the pro tour--then it's really all but impossible to guess how well his serve would've matched up against the best players during his heyday, for the simple reason he never played them and thus never had a chance to "attain great results against other champions," as you put it. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how one's service stats are affected by his opponent.
Again this isn't exactly what I had in mind. Let me put it somewhat differently, then: Did Dibley have as big a serve as Karlovic, Ivanisevic or Arthurs? And was it consistent?
No beef here.
It's a shame that accounts of Doeg's serve are hard to come by. Are there any others that you guys can share? Maybe he deserves an honorary mention as well?
For the record this rule was in effect before Laver's heyday (Wikipedia says 1908-1961). Plus, more importantly, it's not a given that a big serve requires a big leap. Just on this list you have servers like Tanner and Stich, who used a minimal knee bend but still could serve as big as anybody (especially in Tanner's case).
Right, you really can't separate the mental aspect completely. That's why I do give out bonus points for being able to come up with the goods in the clutch, and also why I emphasize that we're trying to rate these serves as stand-alone shots, just so people understand that the mental side of the stroke is being given less weight than usual. But, as I've been saying for some time now, it's more than just being able to come up with big serves, but also how your serve (and, of course, service stats) is influenced by the quality of your opponent's return, or by the quality of your opponent period. I once wrote a dissertation on this very topic, which I won't quote in full (too long) but people can read here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5267685#post5267685
I wouldn't quite put it like that (that the numbers are "less impressive"), but yes, that's what makes comparing these service stats even trickier. After all, how many times have we seen players get hot for nearly two weeks only to fall apart (or short) in the finals? It'd be nice to have someone do a comprehensive analysis of some of these servers' stats, to see how well they serve under pressure in big matches compared to how they do on average.
BTW, I wouldn't call serving at/over 70% necessarily impressive, because if you're getting so many 1st serves in, then you're probably not getting enough free points! Not even Karlovic makes that many 1st serves on average, and with good reason. On the other hand, you also don't want to get just barely half of your 1st serves in. I'd say low to mid-60s are probably the best of both worlds. High 60s are most likely a little too high, unless you've got the ground game of a Nadal to compensate for the relatively low # of freebies (though, I should also note, even Rafa beefed up his serve to get that elusive USO and career GS) or unless you're a near 7-footer like Karlovic or Isner. By contrast, mid- to high 50s, while pretty good, could be better still.
(BTW, as I explained in that long post I linked to earlier, these general "rules" should apply to the more recent service stats only, because of the changes in technology and strategy.)
But to answer your question, yes, everything else equal it'd obviously be a greater feat to serve at a high percentage in a major final rather than in the 2nd or 3rd round of a smaller event, especially if we're assuming the same opponent. To me this is just common sense.
We've counted unreturned serves for two Newcombe matches and two involving Stan Smith. Since we're comparing their serves, I've put those stats below along with some other matches from the time period.
1975 AO final
Newcombe served on 135 points and 45 serves did not come back: 33.3%
Connors served on 140 points and 39 serves did not come back: 27.9%
1972 Wimbledon final
Smith served on 179 points and 31 serves did not come back: 17.3%
Nastase served on 157 points and 34 serves did not come back: 21.7%
1974 Wimbledon SF
Rosewall served on 163 points and 37 serves did not come back: 22.7%
Smith served on 180 points and 45 serves did not come back: 25%
1970 Wimbledon final
Newcombe served on 158 points and 34 serves did not come back: 21.5%
Rosewall served on 143 points and 30 serves did not come back: 21%
1976 Wimbledon final
Borg served on 112 points and 32 serves did not come back: 28.6%
Nastase served on 108 points and 23 serves did not come back: 21.3%
1975 Wimbledon final
Ashe served on 105 points and 34 serves did not come back: 32.4%
Connors served on 131 points and 28 serves did not come back: 21.4%
1969 Wimbledon SF
Laver served on 92 points and 30 serves did not come back: 32.6%
Ashe served on 117 points and 31 serves did not come back: 26.5%
1969 USO final
Laver served on 122 points and 34 serves did not come back: 27.9%
Roche served on 126 points and 33 serves did not come back: 26.2%
1976 WITC SF
Borg served 58 points and 9 serves did not come back: 15.5%
Laver served 64 points and 10 serves did not come back: 15.6%
1968 USO final (1ST 26 GAMES ONLY)
Ashe served on 69 points and 36 serves did not come back: 52.2%
Okker served on 95 points and 34 serves did not come back: 35.8%
Right now these are all the unreturned counts we have for Smith, Newk, Ashe, Nastase, Roche and unfortunately even Laver.
In the same way I think Smith's numbers would be higher if not for good returning by Nastase and Rosewall.A couple of points here, Stan Smith was NOT considered the greatest returner in the world so that stats for his opponents may look better than with some greats.
They played 39 more games and we do know that Ashe fell off that pace, which is no suprise. In those first 26 games he had 16 aces; in the remainder of the match he served just 10 more.Despite that, Ashe's servicing in the 1968 US Open final against Okker seems incredible with 52.2% not returned in the first 26 games.
Some Goran stats from Moose and myself:few for goran i did recently
vs edberg, stuttgart 92, 58 of 143 (32 aces) = 40.6 %
vs martin, grand slam cup 95, 55 of 97 (28 aces) = 56.7 %
vs becker, frankfurt 92, 50 of 101 (23 aces) = 49.5 %
Sam Querrey holds the record for serving 10 straight aces.
Was there any players remotely come close to this number in the old days? Doubt it.
In the same way I think Smith's numbers would be higher if not for good returning by Nastase and Rosewall.
They played 39 more games and we do know that Ashe fell off that pace, which is no suprise. In those first 26 games he had 16 aces; in the remainder of the match he served just 10 more.
I don't think we have enough stats to confirm that. You may be right in the sense that great returners will force server stats down, at least some of the time. But offhand I know Tanner always had large numbers of aces against Connors and Borg, even when losing to them. Newk against Connors, had 13 aces at the '73 USO, in just 3 sets, and a whopping 18 aces at the 75 AO.I don't know if you can check the stats but when I watched Laver and Rosewall years ago it just seemed to me that big servers like Tanner, Smith and Newcombe had far fewer aces against them than regular opponents. I guess you could include Borg in that also.
Sam Querrey holds the record for serving 10 straight aces.
Was there any players remotely come close to this number in the old days? Doubt it.
An Aussie named James Anderson served 4 in a row in Davis Cup against "Little Bill" Johnston. It was in 1923 at Forest Hills, and he celebrated by rolling on the ground while the crowd cheered.Of course, it is no secret that servers like Tilden, Tanner, and Gonzales have all been the subject of 4 aces in a row stories,
OK, so we disagree. No big deal. But just out of curiosity, would you be willing to name a couple of Becker's big matches where his serve let him down?
Here I disagree strongly. And I don't say that just because of that infamous post-match crying incident. One of my most vivid memories of the match is Fed talking to the umpire early in the 5th set, and then seemingly fading away almost completely, as if he'd already given up on the match. For me it's hard to believe that it was some minor grievance that threw him off like that. I do think Nadal had gotten to him, perhaps even before the first ball was struck.
Now this is more plausible. True, maybe Fed was just having a bad day. But I also remember him getting less and less of his 1st serves in later in the match (though, of course, I could be wrong). And here I also didn't see much fight from him in the last sets, a view I think is widely shared.
It was really surprising to see him come out flat (serving-wise) in this match, because he'd been playing well in this tournament. His serving exhibition against Soderling earlier was one of the best I've seen from him (along with another against the same opponent in the '09 FO final).
1. Sampras
2. Ivanisevic
3. P. Gonzales
4. Roddick
5. Krajicek
6. Stich
7. Tanner
8. Newcombe
9. Tilden
10. Curren
11. Edberg
12. Federer
13. McEnroe
14. Becker
15. Dibley
16. Karlovic
17. Rusedski
18. Kramer
19. Fraser
20. Dent
21. Noah
22. Borg
I have written about this much but I think one person severely shortchanged on this list is Jack Kramer. Kramer was considered by many to have the greatest overall serve ever. Pancho Gonzalez mentioned that he was the greatest server he ever face. Sedgman mentioned the two best servers (tied) he ever faced was Gonzalez and Kramer.
Kramer was also known for the best second serve ever plus he had a slice serve that could pull you really wide. Vic Braden mentioned this in his book Tennis 2000. Kramer is to my mind top ten, perhaps top five in serving. He had pace on his first serve, a great second serve and he had a great slice and kick serve. What else do you need?
I think Fraser's serve was every bit as good as Kramer's serve. He didn't have quite the power, but, he had a bigger kick and he was a lefty. Having said that Stan Smith had a bigger, better serve than either of them. I can't imagine a greatest serve list without Stan Smith high in the mix.
PS: Wherever you would rank Newcombe's serve, Smith's serve should be at least one place above that!
I think, the discussion depends mainly, how you can isolate a single shot or see the effectiveness in the combination with other shots. Newcombe subsided his serve with one of the best punch forehand volleys in the game, also his second serve was one of the best alltime (similar to Sampras), as was his big forehand. In this context i would prefer his serve ahead of that of Stan Smith.
Kramer is a bit of an enigma for me. I have seen not that much of him. The clips from his Wimbledon wins in 1947 indicate, that he primarily played from the baseline before turning pro. From what i have read, not unlike Newcombe, the combination of his serve and volley and his big forehand was deadly in his day.
Let's cut to the chase:
1. Ivanisevic
2. Karlovic
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Krajicek
6. Roddick
7. Arthurs
8. Newcombe
9. McEnroe
10. Tanner
11. Becker
12. Isner
13. Stich
14. Noah
15. Curren
16. Rusedski
Honorary mentions:
McLoughlin, Maurice - perhaps the first distinguished cannonball serve in tennis history
Tilden - yet another storied cannonball serve, which he bolstered with spin and accuracy
Vines - by all accounts, the best and fastest serve of the pre-WWII era
Kramer - in addition to a formidable 1st serve, perhaps the best 2nd serve before Newcombe and Sampras
Denton - his unusual service motion notwithstanding, could bring enormous heat
Edberg - for his legendary kicker, arguably the best serve ever for S&V
Johansson, Joachim - Denton of the 2000s
The list remains the same, except that Isner now stands at #12, largely due to his relative lack of longevity among the top and also due to his slightly underwhelming # of freebies (% of unreturned serves).
And do note that Arthurs, Tanner and Curren have already been ranked, and Denton and J. "Pim-Pim" Johansson given honorary mentions. The problem with Pim-Pim, again, is that he didn't last on the tour for long, which means a limited # of matches against top players. That in turn makes it hard to compare him with a Goran or a Karlovic, who obviously has played more relevant matches that we can look at. That said, what stats we do have from Pim-Pim are impressive, very comparable to Goran/Ivo's own eye-popping numbers, hence the honorary mention. Denton is a special case because of his unusual (and now illegal) service motion.
Here are a few more contenders:
Gerald Patterson
Geoff Brown
Bob Falkenburg
Mike Sangster
John Alexander
John Feaver
Chip Hooper
From this list, Olmedo, Ralston, Annacone and Zivojinovic have been omitted since the last update. Here you can see why and also more info on these candidates:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5549832#post5549832
Let us know if you disagree with any of the omissions, or have any further relevant input.
These names also have been mentioned since my last update (listed as usual by order of birth--from now on I'll include their year of birth in parentheses so you can see which era they belonged to):
Yvon Petra (1916)
Frank Froehling (1942)
Colin Dibley (1944)
Dick Stockton (1951)
Hank Pfister (1953)
Scott Carnahan (1953)
Victor Amaya (1954)
Fritz Buehning (1960)
Again, Dibley was ruled out due to his inconsistency. I eliminated Pfister and Amaya last time because they were active more in doubles than in singles, and it looks like the same applies to Buehning. I'll postpone my decision on Froehling until Limpin responds to my earlier question about his serve.
That leaves us with Petra, Stockton and Carnahan. I have nothing to share re: Petra's serve. I do know Bud Collins recently named Stockton's overhead as the best of the Open era, but I don't remember his serve ever being spoken of in such exalted terms. And this is all I could dig up about Carnahan:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/TinaCheung.shtml
Now we come to the last round, so to speak. Some of these names will no doubt be added to the list:
Ashe
Smith
Eric Korita
Forget
Rosset
Philippoussis
Ljubicic
With the sole exception of Korita, all these guys were/are (relatively) elite players, and have been discussed one time or another. As Limpin and I agreed upthread, Ashe is probably a slight notch below the likes of Becker, Noah and Curren. And here's Limpin's last post on Smith:
So does anyone else agree? Is Smith's serve really better than Mac's and as good as Newk's, both all-time great serves?
As for Korita, his serve was feared by none other than Noah, who once described it as "one of the toughest I've ever faced." But then he only managed to win all of one doubles title and zero in singles, and he was never ranked higher than No. 30 on either tour. That pales in comparison to the career records of even Karlovic, Arthurs or Isner, the weakest players on our list. So Korita is probably out. (As always, shout if you disagree.)
Forget and Rosset are borderline cases. Both had been eliminated earlier, but their names were brought up still. Anybody else wanna stick up for them?
Flipper and Ljubicic I feel should be on the list. The question is, where?
You know the drill by now. Let us know what you think. And stats are always welcome.
Had a long chat with a former NCAA champ and US top ten'ner who played the greats from Gonzalez, Laver, Ashe etc etc. He said out of them all, Stan Smith was the toughest to play, largely due to his serve (almost impossible to break during his peak...). His height (angles) and smooth action (deceptively fast delivery) made it difficult to read and return consistently.
Since I'm a little younger, along with Newcombe, I'd like to think Roscoe Tanner's delivery was up there as one of the best serves...
haha! Ok, only if you keep it a secret between us... its Allen Fox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Fox
I think, the discussion depends mainly, how you can isolate a single shot or see the effectiveness in the combination with other shots. Newcombe subsided his serve with one of the best punch forehand volleys in the game, also his second serve was one of the best alltime (similar to Sampras), as was his big forehand. In this context i would prefer his serve ahead of that of Stan Smith.
Kramer is a bit of an enigma for me. I have seen not that much of him. The clips from his Wimbledon wins in 1947 indicate, that he primarily played from the baseline before turning pro. From what i have read, not unlike Newcombe, the combination of his serve and volley and his big forehand was deadly in his day.
wow...roddick lower than stich
ok. interesting choice.
roddick wins more 1st serve % pts than stich and sampras i believe.
that too in this reduced court speed era.
The veteran American Art Larsen said that Lew Hoads serve was faster than Roddicks, Hoad is not on any ones list. TomWill.
Don't have the time to reply to everyone. Just a bump. Will follow up later.
Isner is coming on strong. And anyone dare to rank now the recently departed Ljubicic?
I have written about this much but I think one person severely shortchanged on this list is Jack Kramer. Kramer was considered by many to have the greatest overall serve ever. Pancho Gonzalez mentioned that he was the greatest server he ever face. Sedgman mentioned the two best servers (tied) he ever faced was Gonzalez and Kramer.
Kramer was also known for the best second serve ever plus he had a slice serve that could pull you really wide. Vic Braden mentioned this in his book Tennis 2000. Kramer is to my mind top ten, perhaps top five in serving. He had pace on his first serve, a great second serve and he had a great slice and kick serve. What else do you need?
You asked for some confirmation about the greatness of Stan Smith's serve. Perhaps you overlooked these posts:
So, now you have the opinion of one player who has seen many if not most of the players on your list play live, and you have a former World class player who has actually played against the top players of the 60's and 70's who says that Smith was the toughest to play because of his serve.
Once again, IMO, wherever you rank Newcombe's serve, Smith's serve has to be at least one place above him.
PS: I didn't see your latest question about Froehling, and I can't find it at this point.
As for Dick Stockton, he did have a great smash, as did Ken Rosewall. But, IMO, his serve was not of an all time great calibre. It was a very good serve, nothing more. Stockton's strength was that he had a complete game with no real weaknesses, and he was nearly Borg like in his focus and competitiveness. But, he didn't have any real weapons from what I saw. He was certainly an underacheiver as a pro considering his standout junior and collegiate records.
Newcombe serve was superior because of the great quality of his second ball.Let´s also add John Sadri and Bob Seguso in the list.
Panatta had also a great serve, with very high %.Not inferior´s to Noah, IMO.
I'm very impressed with Isner's serve but it's a little early to rank him. Even red clay doesn't seem to slow the effectiveness of his serve much.
For discussion purposes this is one of the best threads I've seen here by the way.
I've seen the both. IMO, Smith's first and second serve were better than Newk's, as great as Newk's serve was.