Greatest USO player of all time?

Who is the USO GOAT?

  • Federer

    Votes: 83 48.3%

  • Sampras

    Votes: 39 22.7%

  • Connors

    Votes: 50 29.1%
  • Total voters
    172
Forget Federer and Sampras, how are either of them better than Connors at the US Open? They aren't, unless you think Federer's 5 in a row makes him better. Overall record, it's clearly Connors by some way. Connors got to the semi finals or better, 14 times. That's as many US Opens as Sampras played in his whole career, and Federer still hasn't played in that many.
 
Mustard said:
Forget Federer and Sampras, how are either of them better than Connors at the US Open? They aren't, unless you think Federer's 5 in a row makes him better. Overall record, it's clearly Connors by some way. Connors got to the semi finals or better, 14 times. That's as many US Opens as Sampras played in his whole career, and Federer still hasn't played in that many.
Click to expand...

This is not a longevity contest here. Sampras has 8 trophies(Wins & Runner-Ups). This should be decisive enough to triumph over Connors and Federer at the USO.
 
Mustard said:
Forget Federer and Sampras, how are either of them better than Connors at the US Open? They aren't, unless you think Federer's 5 in a row makes him better. Overall record, it's clearly Connors by some way. Connors got to the semi finals or better, 14 times. That's as many US Opens as Sampras played in his whole career, and Federer still hasn't played in that many.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm gonna have to give it to Connors too. He wins it through sheer, insane longevity.
 
Had to go with Conners.
He was strong there so long and played so well in that time.

Conners, Fed then Sampras.
Very close, good points for all of them can be made.
 
helloworld said:
Please don't hurt the troll. :(
Click to expand...

I would never hurt anyone, even a useless troll spewing nonsense all over the forums without any regard to the decent folks engaged in a meaningful tennis discussion.

Prisoner of Birth said:
I speak of your post, SoBad, your post. Your post which made about as much sense as your existence.
Click to expand...

Why don't you say "your post" three more times to me and then close your eyes and meditate. Life-changing events could be in the pipeline for you.:lol:
 
Mustard said:
Are you serious? Judge below for yourself, and I think it's obvious who has the best overall record at the US Open as of today:

Jimmy Connors
1970: Round of 128 Loser
1971: Round of 64 Loser
1972: Round of 128 Loser
1973: Quarter Final Loser
1974: CHAMPION
1975: Runner-up
1976: CHAMPION
1977: Runner-up
1978: CHAMPION
1979: Semi Final Loser
1980: Semi Final Loser
1981: Semi Final Loser
1982: CHAMPION
1983: CHAMPION
1984: Semi Final Loser
1985: Semi Final Loser
1986: Round of 32 Loser
1987: Semi Final Loser
1988: Quarter Final Loser
1989: Quarter Final Loser
1991: Semi Final Loser
1992: Round of 64 Loser

Pete Sampras
1988: Round of 128 Loser
1989: Round of 16 Loser
1990: CHAMPION
1991: Quarter Final Loser
1992: Runner-up
1993: CHAMPION
1994: Round of 16 Loser
1995: CHAMPION
1996: CHAMPION
1997: Round of 16 Loser
1998: Semi Final Loser
2000: Runner-up
2001: Runner-up
2002: CHAMPION

Roger Federer
2000: Round of 32 Loser
2001: Round of 16 Loser
2002: Round of 16 Loser
2003: Round of 16 Loser
2004: CHAMPION
2005: CHAMPION
2006: CHAMPION
2007: CHAMPION
2008: CHAMPION
2009: Runner-up
2010: Semi Final Loser
2011: Semi Final Loser
2012: Quarter Final Loser
Click to expand...

When you put it that way, Connors is clearly the greatest.
And on 3 different surfaces.
 
If anyone acts like this is a clear cut choice, they are being dense. All three have strong cases for being the best US Open player of all time. Federer for sheer dominance, Connors for consistency, Sampras for his finals appearances.
 
forzamilan90 said:
he went deep quite a few times, and that's great, but i would have expected more wins out of those deep runs
Click to expand...

Connors won 5 US Open titles, the same number as Federer and Sampras. That, combined with long-term consistency (14 times in the semi finals or better), makes him better overall.
 
MTF07 said:
If anyone acts like this is a clear cut choice, they are being dense. All three have strong cases for being the best US Open player of all time. Federer for sheer dominance, Connors for consistency, Sampras for his finals appearances.
Click to expand...

Mustard disagrees with you.
 
Connors is the greatest IMO. He WAS the US Open for a while. It was his party and every one else was invited. At least it seemed that way.
 
Kirijax said:
Connors is the greatest IMO. He WAS the US Open for a while. It was his party and every one else was invited. At least it seemed that way.
Click to expand...

While I agree that Connors is the greatest USO player of all time, I think the way you worded it leads me to lean more towards Federer. When you say "It was his party and everyone else was invited," I take it that sheer dominance (i.e 5 in a row) is the most important aspect of determining the greater player. It's like Agassi said about Sampras at Wimbledon. In essence he said "Some years you felt like you were playing for second place." I'd think that that's what a lot of people thought during Federer's prime on grass or Nadal's reign at RG.
 
Sampras.

5 titles, most finals appearances I believe or close to Connors anyways. Won the tournament 12 years apart. Undefeated in night matches for his entire career
 
Last edited:
lol, who (apart from Samptards) cares about night matches won? What next, matches won between 2 and 6pm on a Wednesday?

Some stats are just meaningless.
 
Mustard said:
If we're going back to the amateur years, then it probably is Bill Tilden, who won the title 7 times (including 6 in a row), and this was during the 1920s when the amateur players were the best players in the world, as the professional game only really had pro teachers playing at the time.
Click to expand...

Not to mention he was runner-up the two years before his six-year streak. Little Bill Johnston used to work his 4.5 BH with his Western FH (remind you of a current matchup, no?) so bad that it caused Big Bill to go indoors over the '19-'20 winter and make the weak wing stronger. Gave him some time to start his opus "Match Play & The Spin Of The Ball" too.
 
While I didnt vote for him I think Sampras deserves more credit in this poll than he is getting. He is definitely on a level with the other 2.
 
ROFL.. Pete with only 9 votes.

What a JOKE!! He won 12 years apart has more finals appearances then Federer and has the same number of USO titles as Federer yet somehow Fed has 40 votes and pete with 9? . This message board is BEYOND biased ****ism
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
ROFL.. Pete with only 9 votes.

What a JOKE!! He won 12 years apart has more finals appearances then Federer and has the same number of USO titles as Federer. This message board is BEYOND biased ****ism
Click to expand...

So if he was winning the poll it wouldn't be a joke, right?

We know you think Sampras is the best at everything.
 
TMF said:
So if he was winning the poll it wouldn't be a joke, right?

We know you think Sampras is the best at everything.
Click to expand...

Any different than how you think Federer and Graf are the best at everything. :lol: Pot kettle black.


He is right on one thing that is for sure. Sampras, Nadal, and Serena are by far the 3 most underrated players on this forum and I dont say that just because I like them (I also like Haas, Gasquet, Djokovic, Azarenka, and Clijsters, but would never say they are underrated here, if anything overrated).
 
90's Clay said:
ROFL.. Pete with only 9 votes.

What a JOKE!! He won 12 years apart has more finals appearances then Federer and has the same number of USO titles as Federer yet somehow Fed has 40 votes and pete with 9? . This message board is BEYOND biased ****ism
Click to expand...

Some people reckon the 5 in a row done by Federer gives him the edge over Pete.

If more finals matters then I suppose you'd say that Federer has a better record at Wimbledon?

It's funny to see these arguments shift around depending on the Sampras fan. You know one minute it's your CONVERSION rate in finals that matters, so Pete's 7 wimbledon titles and no finals beats Roger's 7 wimbledon titles and a final. But then more finals beats better conversion rate so 5/8 US Open's beats Fed's 5/6.

Not saying this of you personally, but going by your arguement here, Federer MUST have the bettr Wimbledon record.

Personally I give Roger the edge at Wimbledon, and Pete the edge at the US Open, though not by much considering Federer's 5 titles in a row, 6 finals in a row, where he came within 2 points of 6 titles in a row, and basically 2 points away from making 8 finals in a row. Though Connors beats both of them.
 
I dont think he is neccessarily saying Sampras should be winning the poll though, just that he should be much closer than he is. Which is definitely true. The poll makes it look like Sampras is not even in the same league as the other 2 at the U.S Open and this is clearly wrong, although Connors is my pick slightly over the other two.

Meanwhile the fact the majority of Federer fans (99.99% of this General Player Section forum is *******s, so basically when I say Federer fans = entire TW GP forum, exact same thing) would pick Federer over Sampras at Wimbledon, yet Federer is owning Sampras in a U.S Open poll, only more emphatically proves the inconsistencies you speak of, but that they mostly all relate to the ****s of Planet TW, like they pretty much always do.

I dont even know why ****s (again all that exists on Planet TW especialy the GP section) feel the need to start any polls with Federer involved. He is certain to win them all, do they really need the extra reassurance of some sort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NadalAgassi said:
Any different than how you think Federer and Graf are the best at everything. :lol: Pot kettle black.


He is right on one thing that is for sure. Sampras, Nadal, and Serena are by far the 3 most underrated players on this forum and I dont say that just because I like them (I also like Haas, Gasquet, Djokovic, Azarenka, and Clijsters, but would never say they are underrated here, if anything overrated).
Click to expand...


I don't think Federer is the best in every categories, but overall he's the best. The long list of his records/streaks is astonishing.

Federer and Nadal are underrated on the former pro player talk forum. I'm not sure how you can say Serena is underrated if she's place behind players like Graf/Martina.
 
TMF said:
Federer and Nadal are underrated on the former pro player talk forum. I'm not sure how you can say Serena is underrated if she's place behind players like Graf/Martina.
Click to expand...

Federer is not at all underrated on the former pro player talk forum. He is to everyone there a GOAT contender, he just isnt crowned by all the undisputed, untouchable, hands down, landslide GOAT like he is on GP forum, so in other words they evaluate him as a human rather than god as it should be. He might be the GOAT but he is not the Michael Phelps of tennis which is what the GP section seems to have deluded themselves he is.

I agree Nadal is underrated on the former pro player talk forum. Most there rate him behind Borg who most in the real World now rate him ahead of.

Serena is not underrated so much in the former pro player forum, but she is hated with a passion in the general players forum.
 
kiki said:
Connors owns the USo since no one else won it on three diferent surfaces
Click to expand...

But you can argue that Connors might not win 5 USO had it was play only on deco turf. Federer/Sampras could have easily won it had it was play on grass, and Nadal would win on clay. I don't think it's fair to give Connors extra credit.
 
TMF said:
But you can argue that Connors might not win 5 USO had it was play only on deco turf.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking. Connors best surface by far was decoturf. He would have won MORE than 5 U.S Opens 100% guaranteed had it been on decoturf each year. In 1975 and 1977 he lost to clay court specialists Orantes and Vilas, two guys he would have beaten for certain on fast decoturf, giving him 7 titles.
 
TMF said:
But you can argue that Connors might not win 5 USO had it was play only on deco turf. Federer/Sampras could have easily won it had it was play on grass, and Nadal would win on clay. I don't think it's fair to give Connors extra credit.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree that it's not really anyone's fault that connors played at a time where it switched surface twice - that's just luck. But still, I'd give Federer an added distiction at the AO for winning it on 2 surfaces (Wilander as well)

If the US Open switched to clay after 2005, Federer might not have 5 titles. I say might not, because har-tru is still not like red clay and looking at his H2H vs Nadal at Hamburg and Madrid clay, it's actually even and Federer has more Madrid titles, telling us that Fed has a good chance on certain clay. Also Nadal's difficulty a lot of years late in the season mean that Fed still has a chance. But much less. Sampras has little chance if the US Open is on clay, even if it is Hartru. Then again, since he won the title sporadically, maybe it wouldn't hurt.

But Connors stood a chance on every surface. Maybe he wouldn't have won 5 on deco turf, but nothing to suggest he couldn't really, he was an excellent HC player.
 
TMF said:
So if he was winning the poll it wouldn't be a joke, right?

We know you think Sampras is the best at everything.
Click to expand...

I have no problem for Fed being slightly ahead of Pete in the poll or even tied, but 40 to 9? BWAHAHA.

Based on what exactly? Sampras has more finals appearances and the same number of titles.

How is it Connors and Fed had 2 times or even 3 times more votes?

AGain.. thats pure biased ****ism at its worst. Pete was one of if not thee best in Flushing. He certainly has dibs for "best of all time" status there. This isn't a 1 time USO winner we are talking about
 
90's Clay said:
I have no problem for Fed being slightly ahead of Pete in the poll or even tied, but 40 to 9? BWAHAHA.

Based on what exactly? Sampras has more finals appearances and the same number of titles.

How is it Connors and Fed had 2 times or even 3 times more votes?

AGain.. thats pure biased ****ism at its worst. Pete was one of if not thee best in Flushing. He certainly has dibs for "best of all time" status there. This isn't a 1 time USO winner we are talking about
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sampras not winning this poll outright is understandable but the # of votes he has is a clear indication of the bias on this forum. One would think it was Roger Federer vs Andre Agassi or even Patrick Rafter at the U.S Open. This forum is always good for a laugh though, I mostly like to view the polls for that reason alone, comedic purposes.


Meanwhile I cant believe there are numerous people who are saying Connors might have won less than 5 U.S Opens had it been on decoturf every year. Is there anyone that seriously does not know Connors's best surface was hard courts by far. Is there actually anyone that is so dumb to have believed Connors was better on grass or clay than hard courts (well given this forum of clueless Federer worshipping ****s I already know the answer to that) and would benefit from those surfaces in the era of the combined clay/grass GOAT Bjorn Borg. That is what makes Connor's U.S Open record so exceptional and why I voted for him. Connors is not even an exceptionally great clay or grass (despite winning 2 Wimbledons, 8 years apart) player, yet still delivered time and time again when it came to the U.S Open, any place, anytime, and any surface.
 
US GOAT is obviously Tilden, no-one even comes close. 7 wins (including 5 consecutive) out of 10 finals (inc. 8 consecutive), he leaves the other three in the dust.

In the Open era, Connors gets it, imho, by virtue of his winning on different surfaces, all the rest being more or less equal. Of course, Federer could still add to his tally, and if he does, he'll pass Jimbo.
 
90's Clay said:
ROFL.. Pete with only 9 votes.

What a JOKE!! He won 12 years apart has more finals appearances then Federer and has the same number of USO titles as Federer yet somehow Fed has 40 votes and pete with 9? . This message board is BEYOND biased ****ism
Click to expand...

Thing is, according to *your* logic, having as many titles but less final appearances shows that you're better (see Wimbledon), so how did you vote Sampras with that logic?
 
merlinpinpin said:
US GOAT is obviously Tilden, no-one even comes close. 7 wins (including 5 consecutive) out of 10 finals (inc. 8 consecutive), he leaves the other three in the dust.

In the Open era, Connors gets it, imho, by virtue of his winning on different surfaces, all the rest being more or less equal. Of course, Federer could still add to his tally, and if he does, he'll pass Jimbo.
Click to expand...

I thought of mentioning Tilden but the competition in the 20s was pretty dire. It is why it is hard to accurately evaluate the records and standing of people like Wills Moody and Lenglen too.
 
merlinpinpin said:
Thing is, according to *your* logic, having as many titles but less final appearances shows that you're better (see Wimbledon), so how did you vote Sampras with that logic?
Click to expand...


I give Pete the nod over Fed at wimbledon mainly because the grass field at the time during Pete's prime was superior Fed's grass court competition and Pete still manage 7 wimbledon's in the process.

Older Becker, Goran, Dre, Krajicek, Courier, Rafter among others is vastly superior to Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Nole, Young-in Nadal

Sure Fed has no control over it.. But it makes Pete's 7 wimbledon's look more impressive IMO then Fed's. Also, I believe Pete's highest level on grass was superior Roger's

But I dont think Sampras should win a 40 some to 9 vote on grass either, like some ****s here think Fed should have over Pete at the USO. Thats ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
I give Pete the nod over Fed at wimbledon mainly because the grass field at the time during Pete's prime was superior Fed's grass court competition and Pete still manage 7 wimbledon's in the process.

Older Becker, Goran, Dre, Krajicek, Courier, Rafter among others is vastly superior to Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Nole, Young-in Nadal

Sure Fed has no control over it.. But it makes Pete's 7 wimbledon's look more impressive IMO then Fed's. Also, I believe Pete's highest level on grass was superior Roger's

But I dont think Sampras should win a 40 some to 9 vote on grass either, like some ****s here think Fed should have over Pete at the USO. Thats ludicrous.
Click to expand...

When the numbers don't go your way, you resort to grasping for straws by comparing competition. Your weak competition argument has been debunked by many posters in here. Sampras had a joke draw in 2000, he met and beat less top 10 players.

You believe he play at higher level but he faced more 5 setters, losing straight set, early round during his prime. He also has a lower winning %. The stats don't support your claim.

And we have no control over you in believing Sampras is the best at everything.
 
90's Clay said:
I give Pete the nod over Fed at wimbledon mainly because the grass field at the time during Pete's prime was superior Fed's grass court competition and Pete still manage 7 wimbledon's in the process.

Older Becker, Goran, Dre, Krajicek, Courier, Rafter among others is vastly superior to Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Nole, Young-in Nadal

Sure Fed has no control over it.. But it makes Pete's 7 wimbledon's look more impressive IMO then Fed's. Also, I believe Pete's highest level on grass was superior Roger's

But I dont think Sampras should win a 40 some to 9 vote on grass either, like some ****s here think Fed should have over Pete at the USO. Thats ludicrous.
Click to expand...

During Fed's prime, his main rivals on grass were 2 guys; Nadal the dirtballer, and Roddick the ball basher. :lol:

Pete has the most perfect serve of all time. That's why he is superior on grass to Rodgey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYa1bSRoOzs
 
I agree that Sampras is getting the shaft, but I'd say some of the votes he should get are going to Connors. It seems that a lot of people vote for Federer just because he's Federer which I concede is very strange. For example, I'm a Federer fan, but I voted for Connors, and if this poll was only Fed and Sampras, I'd vote for Sampras based on his 2 extra finals over Fed. 5 in a row is pretty insane, but I'd still vote for Sampras considering you could make an opposite case for his time between his first and last titles as opposed to Federer's 5 year run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Poll Poll
Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?
6 7 8
Replies
369
Views
31K
NadalAgassi
N
P
Myth : Federer is consistent only because of homogenization
Replies
39
Views
6K
nereis
N
M
Federer and Most Consecutive Records
Replies
14
Views
3K
DMan
D
M
Federer Streaks that Are Still Going
Replies
15
Views
2K
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
BGod
Rank Federer's Greatest Streaks.
Replies
24
Views
2K
BGod
BGod
Back
Top