Is Agassi in the top 15 all time?

[drakulie]

Your best resource would be a book called The History of Professional Tennis by Joe McCauley, which provides the clearest picture of pro tennis in those years. I also commend this Wikipedia article, which frequently cites McCauley's book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_No._1_Tennis_Player

If you want a stylistic breakdown, you might look at some books written in the early Open years, Paul Metzler's Tennis Styles and Stylists and Will Grimsley's Tennis: Its History, People and Events.

I'm familiar with some of the resources you cited. The don't convince me. There is way too many "ifs" in their conclusions.

No analyst argues Emerson's superiority to Laver in virtually any aspect of the game except one, that being physical endurance. Emerson was a true workhorse, and a great athlete, but Laver had the better serve, the better volleys, the better groundstrokes.

In that case, then does than mean Agassi was superior to Sampras? He has undoubtebly (considered by tennis greats), the cleanest strokes ever seen on both sides. He also modernized the game with his taking the ball on the rise, and also the greatest returner ever.

He was the last man to achieve the Grand Slam -- tennis's highest accomplishment -- and he did it twice, in 1962 and '69. On top of which, of course, he utterly dominated Emerson head-to-head once the Open Era rolled around and they were allowed to compete against each other again.

I completely disagree. Emerson won more slams than Laver in the 60's. So is it head to head, # of slams, or who had the better strokes. Or does one get "extra points" for winning the grand slam? Again, I'm referring to the 60's as I think we could both agree neither is the front runner in the 70's.

Laver was the better tennis player by quite a margin. (Comparing Laver and Emerson is, I believe, somewhat akin to comparing Sampras and Courier.)

That doesn't compute. Sampras had both more slams than Courier, and a better head-to-head. Laver may have had a better head-to-head, but he did not win more slams than Emerson.

 

[jhhachamp]

Well, since you won't bother explaining that other post, I'll just forget about it.

If you "essentially" take out Agassi because he didn't "dominate" his era, then you have to apply this same standard to every other player. What you are left with is an example:

90's- Sampras dominated
80's- Lendl dominated
70's- Borg dominated
60's- Emerson dominated, and so on.
etc,
etc,
etc

So essentially, you have already taken out the following players out of the top 5:

Mcenroe, Connors, Laver, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Rosewall, etc, etc, etc.

Dominating one's era does not have to mean dominating a whole decade. Connors dominated the early 70s, Borg the late 70s, McEnroe the early 80s, and Lendl the late 80s. Even though they did not dominate for a whole decade like Sampras did, they still had at least a few years when they were clearly the best in the sport and dominating. Agassi didn't really have this, that is why I rank all of those guys above Agassi.

As far as Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Rosewall, I agree, although I do not really know enough of Rosewall to say without a doubt that he never dominated for a period of time. Edberg and Becker never dominated and they are clearly not on the same level as those other guys. Wilander did dominate, but it was only for a single year, so I don't put as much weight on it as I did with the guys above who dominated for multiple years in a row.

Just because a guy didn't "dominate" his era does not equate to being a worse player than someone who did "dominate" his era.

I think it has to, otherwise these rankings would get way too subjective.

 

[drakulie]

I think it has to, otherwise these rankings would get way too subjective.

They already are subjective. Until there is a clear cut formula there will always be subjectivity.

 

[jhhachamp]

Look, if you think the guys who played tennis with pants can beat Agassi, you're dreaming. It was a lawn activity back then, and now it's a sport.

Not what I posted.

Face it, if Sampras hand't been around, Agassi would have been pretty dominant, so why penalize Andre because Pete was so good? Andre would make mince meat of anyone playing in the pants era.

Maybe you are right, but this same argument can be said to anyone who was a clear number 2 of their era. Once you start trying to use this type of criteria, all objective rankings go out the window.

My point is, I think Andre at is best is top five of all time. By this, I mean if everyone played in their prime, Andre would rank fifth in a round robin.

This is certainly a valid opinion, but I disagree. I think if this scenario happened (somehow adjusting all players so they were born at the same time), Agassi would rank somewhere around 15. I really do not wish to debate this point, however. I do not see it going anywhere, and it is nothing more than guesswork.

I also think if Borg had played another 5 years, he would have been an undisputed #1 based on your career criteria.

I don't think he would have been undisputed, but I think he certainly would be a strong candidate for #1 if he had kept up his pace for a couple more years instead of retiring. I don't know if he would have been able to do that, though.

 

[jhhachamp]

I do think Agassi's career earned himself a place in the top 15, though he fell short of the top 10. Certainly the players with exceedingly long reigns at No. 1 (Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Connors, Lendl and Sampras) belong ahead of Agassi, as do those with much superior tournament records (Rosewall -- of course including his many significant pro titles -- and Borg). Agassi probably falls in a group with Perry and McEnroe, but ahead of such players as Lacoste, Cochet, Vines, Riggs, Hoad, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, and Edberg.

Completely agree.

 

[jhhachamp]

They already are subjective. Until there is a clear cut formula there will always be subjectivity.

Well I think these rankings should be based more on accomplishments and less on "what if" arguments.

 

[drakulie]

Well I think these rankings should be based more on accomplishments and less on "what if" arguments.

I agree. However, Emerson won more slams than Laver. That argument has a huge "what if".

What are the "accomplishments" you are talking about? What are the variables and what is the basis of giving each variable points.

For example:
Does winning a US Open count for 2 points, vs Wimbledon 3 points. Also is winning the US open on clay vs hard court more or les points?

How many points does a year end number #1, 2, 3, etc. worth?

How many points for each week at # 1.

How many points for reaching a final?

How about doubles titles?

etc, etc.

 

[urban]

Laver and Emerson came along on the scene in 1959/60, both were great friends, later doubles partners. Laver won 11 majors with Emerson in the field, Emerson two with Laver in the field (indeed over Laver in the Final). Since the Austalian sf and the Wim quarters 1960 until the USO 69, they played each other 9 times in majors, with Laver leading 7-2.

 

[chaognosis]

I agree. However, Emerson won more slams than Laver. That argument has a huge "what if".

I really don't think this is as speculative as you want to make it sound. Emerson's winning more majors than Laver does not prove Emerson was better than Laver, if only for the simple reason that Laver was not allowed to compete in the majors during the years 1963-1967. Instead, Laver, like the other top players of the decade (Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno), was on the pro tour. Emerson won virtually all of his majors against second-tier competition, when it was UNIVERSALLY acknowledged that the best pros were superior to the best amateurs. urban has highlighted the relevant stats -- Laver was the better player, hands down.

drakulie, if you can show me even ONE reputable source that ranks Emerson ahead of Laver, I will be very impressed (and extremely surprised).

 

[drakulie]

I really don't think this is as speculative as you want to make it sound. Emerson's winning more majors than Laver does not prove Emerson was better than Laver, if only for the simple reason that Laver was not allowed to compete in the majors during the years 1963-1967. Instead, Laver, like the other top players of the decade (Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno), was on the pro tour. Emerson won virtually all of his majors against second-tier competition, when it was UNIVERSALLY acknowledged that the best pros were superior to the best amateurs. urban has highlighted the relevant stats -- Laver was the better player, hands down.

drakulie, if you can show me even ONE reputable source that ranks Emerson ahead of Laver, I will be very impressed (and extremely surprised).

In no way, am I saying Emerson was better than Laver. I really don't care where "reputable" sources rank players, as even "reputable" sources can't completely agree with one another.

Laver not playing between 63-67 does not guarantee him anything. In that case, you could make the same argument for every other players not allowed to play between 63-67. Whos to say Laver would have won any majors. Maybe he plays in his first major in 63 and in the first round blows out his knee and never plays again, resulting in him not winning the grand slam in 69 or anything else after that.

In addition, one would have to "pad up" the stats for every other possible circumstance that has existed. For instance, Connors not being allowed to play at the French. Borg not playing the AO Open. Agassi not playing the AO Open before 95. Maybe if Sampras plays with a larger head he wins the French. etc, etc, etc.

Where does it end? I am going by numbers. If we look at total slams, Emerson dominated the 60's-not Laver. Saying Laver would have won more slams than Emerson, regarldess of how you cut it, is a "what if' argument.

In addition, urban stating the head-to-head does not prove anything. Is Hewitt a better player than Agassi? Is Krajicek a better player than Sampras? even your use of urban's post to say Laver is better is speculative.

 

[stormholloway]

Different players match up differently amongst each other. Head-to-heads can be deceiving.

 

[laurie]

I would rank Agassi in the top 15 easily.

After that it gets blurred.

Like Lendl, Agassi won 8 slams. However, Agassi won Wimbledon. But Lendl spent five years at number 1 and played in 8 consecutive US Open finals plus won 5 end of year Masters (World Championships). But Agassi won the Olympic gold medal and won 4 slams between the age of 29 and 32. Lendl has one of the best forehands of all time.

Lendl's game (big serve, big forehand, good movement, professional attitude, strong baseline play) influenced nearly all of the guys who came immediately after him. Both Courier and Sampras used the inside out forehand as a weapon, a shot Lendl perfected. Sampras took the running forehand and forehand down the line from Lendl. Agassi made his serve bigger as time went on to shorten the points and get the forehand into play more often. Serving big down the middle for the short reply without needing to volley. Lendl also had a great topspin backhand down the line and crosscourt.

Federer has taken all of these elements and applied them to his game.

Connors also won 8 slams. He won Wimbledon twice, is third on the all time list at weeks spent as world number 1. Won the US Open 5 times. Has one of the best return of serves of all time.

So really (as usual) it comes down to opinions about where Agassi or anyone else ranks in history.

 

[chaognosis]

In no way, am I saying Emerson was better than Laver. I really don't care where "reputable" sources rank players, as even "reputable" sources can't completely agree with one another.

Laver not playing between 63-67 does not guarantee him anything. In that case, you could make the same argument for every other players not allowed to play between 63-67. Whos to say Laver would have won any majors. Maybe he plays in his first major in 63 and in the first round blows out his knee and never plays again, resulting in him not winning the grand slam in 69 or anything else after that.

In addition, one would have to "pad up" the stats for every other possible circumstance that has existed. For instance, Connors not being allowed to play at the French. Borg not playing the AO Open. Agassi not playing the AO Open before 95. Maybe if Sampras plays with a larger head he wins the French. etc, etc, etc.

Where does it end? I am going by numbers. If we look at total slams, Emerson dominated the 60's-not Laver. Saying Laver would have won more slams than Emerson, regarldess of how you cut it, is a "what if' argument.

But in order to be "dominant," wouldn't you agree that a player should be competing against (and beating) the other best players of the decade? In the 1960s the best players were professionals, and were not allowed to enter the majors before 1968. Emerson dominated the second-tier amateurs from 1963-1967, when Laver, Rosewall, etc., where not in the field. I'm not arguing any "what ifs" -- I'm just suggesting you look at ALL the numbers, not just the traditional majors, because the tournaments with the strongest field in the 1960s were the Pro majors (US Pro, Wembley, French Pro), and on these stages Laver pretty solidly established himself as the No. 1 player of the decade. You cannot rate players from before the Open Era by the same criteria you use to rate players nowadays. (For example, Pancho Gonzales was very clearly the dominant player of the 1950s, even though he did not win a single traditional major during that decade. Instead he dominated the US Pro and Wembley, and beat all the top amateurs in head-to-head series when they turned professional.)

 

[anointedone]

Who cares if Agassi might rank just outside the top 15 all time, Federer ranks just outside the top 150 all time. I would much rather rank just outside the top 15 all time then just outside the top 150 all time would you not.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Pancho Gonzalez beat Emerson at the 1968 French Open, when Emerson was the defending champion. Gonzalez was 40 & playing in his 1st major since 1949.

Its not really that speculative, the main reason that the Open Era came into existence was the the banned pros were so obviously superior to the amateurs playing the majors, especially in the early to mid 60s.

Emerson was a fine player, but that he was able to win so many majors prior to 1968, but then not be able to even reach a major final once the pros were allowed in '68 is a fact that's hard to ignore.

thanks for posting this, chaognosis. its a shame that the mainstream tennis media(McEnroe, Carillo & the like) aren't bringing this stuff up more often, since so many tennis fans know very little about the history of the sport, especially with all this GOAT nonsense.

Most Years as No.1 or Co-No. 1:

9 years Pancho Gonzales, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961
7 years Bill Tilden, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931
6 years Jack Kramer, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953
6 years Pete Sampras, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
5 years Fred Perry, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1941
5 years Don Budge, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942
5 years Rod Laver, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969
5 years Jimmy Connors, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978
4 years Ken Rosewall, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
4 years John McEnroe, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984
4 years Ivan Lendl, 1986, 1987, 1989
3 years Henri Cochet, 1928, 1929, 1930
3 years Ellsworth Vines, 1932, 1935, 1937
3 years Bobby Riggs, 1941, 1946, 1947

 

[oberyn]

Who cares if Agassi might rank just outside the top 15 all time, Federer ranks just outside the top 150 all time. I would much rather rank just outside the top 15 all time then just outside the top 150 all time would you not.

Is Federer's all-time ranking actually dropping in your estimation? Didn't you used to at least have him in the top 100?

Poor Fed.

 

[anointedone]

Is Federer's all-time ranking actually dropping in your estimation? Didn't you used to at least have him in the top 100?

Poor Fed.

Well I went through all the names over him and realized I had him too high initialy since there were more names that I had excluded over him the first time. Remember when I made that long list, I realized I left out some worthy people over the Fed.

 

[oberyn]

Well I went through all the names over him and realized I had him too high initialy since there were more names that I had excluded over him the first time. Remember when I made that long list, I realized I left out some worthy people over the Fed.

Interesting.

 

[anointedone]

Interesting.

Well if you want I could make another list with my top 150 all time later. What I look at is peak level. Guys like Vitas Gerulatis, Roscoe Tanner, Andy Roddick, Tommy Haas, Lleyton Hewitt, may not have won as much as Roger but their peak level was higher, they just did not happen to be at their peak when Roger was.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Well if you want I could make another list with my top 150 all time later. What I look at is peak level. Guys like Vitas Gerulatis, Roscoe Tanner, Andy Roddick, Tommy Haas, Lleyton Hewitt, may not have won as much as Roger but their peak level was higher, they just did not happen to be at their peak when Roger was.

federerhoogenbandfan & co, how long are you going to keep this "joke" going? Its really not that funny.

 

[jukka1970]

Pancho Gonzalez beat Emerson at the 1968 French Open, when Emerson was the defending champion. Gonzalez was 40 & playing in his 1st major since 1949.

Its not really that speculative, the main reason that the Open Era came into existence was the the banned pros were so obviously superior to the amateurs playing the majors, especially in the early to mid 60s.

Emerson was a fine player, but that he was able to win so many majors prior to 1968, but then not be able to even reach a major final once the pros were allowed in '68 is a fact that's hard to ignore.

thanks for posting this, chaognosis. its a shame that the mainstream tennis media(McEnroe, Carillo & the like) aren't bringing this stuff up more often, since so many tennis fans know very little about the history of the sport, especially with all this GOAT nonsense.

Most Years as No.1 or Co-No. 1:

9 years Pancho Gonzales, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961
7 years Bill Tilden, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931
6 years Jack Kramer, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953
6 years Pete Sampras, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
5 years Fred Perry, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1941
5 years Don Budge, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942
5 years Rod Laver, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969
5 years Jimmy Connors, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978
4 years Ken Rosewall, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
4 years John McEnroe, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984
4 years Ivan Lendl, 1986, 1987, 1989
3 years Henri Cochet, 1928, 1929, 1930
3 years Ellsworth Vines, 1932, 1935, 1937
3 years Bobby Riggs, 1941, 1946, 1947

The problems that I see with many people on the list was the time that they played. I mean you can't tell me that tennis from the 40's is the tennis it is today. I don't think half of these big time players would have as many titles as they do if one the game was played then like it is now, and second I doubt there were as many professional players then as there are now.

 

[oberyn]

federerhoogenbandfan & co, how long are you going to keep this "joke" going? Its really not that funny.

At least the "ranking" wasn't limited to Switzerland.

 

[jukka1970]

Who cares if Agassi might rank just outside the top 15 all time, Federer ranks just outside the top 150 all time. I would much rather rank just outside the top 15 all time then just outside the top 150 all time would you not.

Ok this statement is just beyond absurd. Federer outside of the top 150, how in the world could you possibly justify this? It's just as ridiculous as saying Agassi isn't in the top 15 of all time.

Let me guess you're going to fill the spots above Federer with all these people from the late 1800's and early 1900's because they have so many titles. Well one of the reasons that they have so many titles is because there weren't as many professional players. The game back then also wasn't played like it is today, including all the different surfaces.

 

[laurie]

The problems that I see with many people on the list was the time that they played. I mean you can't tell me that tennis from the 40's is the tennis it is today. I don't think half of these big time players would have as many titles as they do if one the game was played then like it is now, and second I doubt there were as many professional players then as there are now.

That's a total irrelavance. Why discredit them because they happened to born when they were.

I'm sure they had a good life and loved their job. Fifty years from now people will probably say the same thing about today's players; when the world record serve will probably be 245mph.

 

[jukka1970]

That's a total irrelavance. Why discredit them because they happened to born when they were.

I'm sure they had a good life and loved their job. Fifty years from now people will probably say the same thing about today's players; when the world record serve will probably be 245mph.

I think it is relevant. I mean yes things will change in the future, but the competition will still be at the same level. When I talk about speed, I'm not talking about just the serve, I'm talking about the whole game. I agree that one shouldn't be discredited just because they were born at a certain time, which is one of the reasons I still think there are other great players from this time era. They just happen to be playing while Nadal and Federer are playing. But even with that, I still think one needs to look at what was happening at the time of their playing. I would still keep players from that far back in the top 20 or top 15 possibly higher, I'd have to really look at all the stats etc, but I don't think they should be top 3 because of how many titles they've won. I mean lets face it, playing against a field of 10 people that were good enough to take a grandslam title, versus playing against hundreds is a huge difference. And you have to take into consideration the different playing surfaces.

 

[laurie]

Hard to say whether Nadal can maintain this level with his style of play. Time will tell on that. Thanks for your reply Jukka.

 

[Moose Malloy]

The problems that I see with many people on the list was the time that they played. I mean you can't tell me that tennis from the 40's is the tennis it is today. I don't think half of these big time players would have as many titles as they do if one the game was played then like it is now, and second I doubt there were as many professional players then as there are now.

check back in 30 years. fans will say you shouldn't consider Federer or Agassi because their level of play is a "joke" compared to current players & that they weren't real pro players.

its seems a bit arbitrary to just 'decide' when tennis became a real sport. many here think borg & mcenroe circa 1980 played a lower level than amateurs of today, just by looking at clips, which is nonsense.

by all accounts gonzalez & hoad hit considerably harder than mcenroe(pancho could get it up to 120)

face it, without tennis players of the 40s, players of the 50s wouldn't exist, players of the 60s, 70s,80s etc. without gonzalez there would be no sampras. without laver there would be no mcenroe or federer. without hoad there would be no laver. without laver hitting topspin, there would be no borg, without borg there wouldn't be a "modern game" etc. each generation created the blueprint for the next generation. read tilden's strategy book, it doesn't sound like the basic game has changed since the 30s.

in the 70s, no one thought it was silly to compare players to the 40s, since they played basically the same game(with wood)
its a shame, they stopped using wood, the game would not be similar at all to what it is today. james blake has said that the strings have drastically changed the game in just a few years. its mostly about the equipment, not the player, in the way the pace has changed. what hasn't changed is the basic strategy, mental aspects, etc. tennis is still a thinking man's sport for the most part. why do you think federer has an old fart like roche in his corner? or roddick have connors? did you know connors was coached by one of those inferior 40s players- pancho segura? maybe the greats in any era, know quite about the game period.

if tennis players of today looked like nba/nfl guys, then I would say you are right, you can't consider past greats as real players. but they don't, they look like roger federer. would it be that farfetched to think lew hoad could run faster than andy roddick? a tennis court is only 39 feet wide, & 39 feet wide, tennis players haven't really become that much better athletes, since their sport doesn't & never will require much raw speed, because of the basic dimensions.

its funny, i never hear boxing fans dismiss jou louis' place in the sport or baseball fans with babe ruth. yet tennis fans seem to have so little regard for its all time greats.

I mean lets face it, playing against a field of 10 people that were good enough to take a grandslam title, versus playing against hundreds is a huge difference.

what the hell are you talking about? majors have had 120/64 draws going back to the 40s. I guess you think they just allowed fans from the stands to play.

 

[jhhachamp]

I agree. However, Emerson won more slams than Laver. That argument has a huge "what if".

What are the "accomplishments" you are talking about? What are the variables and what is the basis of giving each variable points.

For example:
Does winning a US Open count for 2 points, vs Wimbledon 3 points. Also is winning the US open on clay vs hard court more or les points?

How many points does a year end number #1, 2, 3, etc. worth?

How many points for each week at # 1.

How many points for reaching a final?

How about doubles titles?

etc, etc.

Regarding Laver and Emerson, I support what chagnosis has said. As for accomplishments used to gauge one's career, it has changed over time. Nowadays, number of slams is very important, but before the Open Era it was not very important.

 

[DashaandSafin]

Its crap you put all the old players before him. Pancho? Laver? Budge? Kramer? Im sick of this crap. They wouldn't hold a candlestick to Agassi in thier V neck sweaters and chinos.

 

[drakulie]

But in order to be "dominant," wouldn't you agree that a player should be competing against (and beating) the other best players of the decade?

Yes, but even that has it's problems. Just look at Connors/Borg. In the 70's they played 18 times. Borg 10-8 over Connors. They split 6 meetings, including 4 finals in majors.

As someone else pointed out, the year end rankings play a part, but Connors many times ended # 1, when he was not "really" the # 1 player.

On the other hand, Connors was not allowed to play the French (when Borg Dominated there-he won 3 FO's during this time) between 74-78.

So which one is 'really the dominant player?

As I said before, although "I" belive Laver was without a doubt the best player in the 60's, it does not guarantee him anything. Maybe if "second tier" players and "pros" were mixed together and competing against each other during that time, their is a different dynamic and the field becomes even deeper and much harder to win a "slam". Maybe there would be a much more diverse field of different players winning slams, rather than "speculating" Laver wins them all.

Sorry, but too many "what ifs".

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

Yes, but even that has it's problems. Just look at Connors/Borg. In the 70's they played 18 times. Borg 10-8 over Connors. They split 6 meetings, including 4 finals in majors.

As someone else pointed out, the year end rankings play a part, but Connors many times ended # 1, when he was not "really" the # 1 player.

On the other hand, Connors was not allowed to play the French (when Borg Dominated there-he won 3 FO's during this time) between 74-78.

So which one is 'really the dominant player?

As I said before, although "I" belive Laver was without a doubt the best player in the 60's, it does not guarantee him anything. Maybe if "second tier" players and "pros" were mixed together and competing against each other during that time, their is a different dynamic and the field becomes even deeper and much harder to win a "slam". Maybe there would be a much more diverse field of different players winning slams, rather than "speculating" Laver wins them all.

Sorry, but too many "what ifs".

connors did dominate borg and borg also dominated connors. connors dominated borg from 74-77. 78 was even and borg dominated connors 79-81. connors was the dominate player of his era, borg his. the torch was handed from connors to borg. connors was arguably number # 1 74-78 and 82-83, 7 years. only 5 on the computer, though. thats as dominant as any player in history. connors didn't play the french 5 years in his prime, and the ao only twice, otherwise he ends up with maybe 12 slams.

 

[wildbill88AA]

statiscally agassi falls short of a lot of the alltime greats. however, every generation is better than the last. but, you simply can't compare players of different eras. if agassi were born in 60's, playing with a wood racket, and wasn't able to benefit from growing up watching and learning from the greats of the past, not making millions every year, and have an entourage of trainers, coaches, etc., he wouldn't be near the player he is today. if todays games swithched back to 60's-70's era equipment, it would change the entire landscape. no more hitting winners off balance from behind the baseline. margin for error would be much smaller, and you'd really have to construct the points. and if agassi couldn't make millions playing tennis, agassi may have never even played tennis.

 

[drakulie]

connors didn't play the french 5 years in his prime, and the ao only twice, otherwise he ends up with maybe 12 slams.

I already commented on Connors not being allowed to play the French.

In addition, Borg only played the AO once, his second year on tour. IF, (and that is a big "IF") he would have played it every year after, maybe he ends up with 18 slams.

Again, these are "what if" arguments, and are inadmissable. Once you start specualting, you have to apply it to every player--not just Connors.

 

[drakulie]

statiscally agassi falls short of a lot of the alltime greats. however, every generation is better than the last. but, you simply can't compare players of different eras. if agassi were born in 60's, playing with a wood racket, and wasn't able to benefit from growing up watching and learning from the greats of the past, not making millions every year, and have an entourage of trainers, coaches, etc., he wouldn't be near the player he is today. if todays games swithched back to 60's-70's era equipment, it would change the entire landscape. no more hitting winners off balance from behind the baseline. margin for error would be much smaller, and you'd really have to construct the points. and if agassi couldn't make millions playing tennis, agassi may have never even played tennis.

Same applies to Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, etc. etc, etc.

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

I already commented on Connors not being allowed to play the French.

In addition, Borg only played the AO once, his second year on tour. IF, (and that is a big "IF") he would have played it every year after, maybe he ends up with 18 slams.

Again, these are "what if" arguments, and are inadmissable. Once you start specualting, you have to apply it to every player--not just Connors.

borg did play the french. connors skipped both the french and the ao. your assuming borg wins the ao 7 times? lol. i think ud have to assume all the top players were playing as well. he'd a been burned out by 22 instead of 26 if he'd played the ao. in the seventies, the emphasis was more on being #1, not just winning slams. i think its more recent where tha emphasis seems to be on just winning slams.

 

[drakulie]

your assuming borg wins the ao 7 times?

Your assuming Connnors wins the French 4 times? LOL

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

Your assuming Connnors wins the French 4 times? LOL

no, the ao 2-3 and the french 1-2.

 

[drakulie]

no, the ao 2-3 and the french 1-2.

Regardless, those assumptions the same as my rebuttle, cannot be proven. Therefore as I said before, they are "what if" arguments.

Maybe if AA plays the AO more (he skipped it 11 years), Wimbledon (skipped it 7 years), and the French (skipped 4 years) he ends up with 17/18?? slams. It is a "what if" argument, and does not apply.

 

[jjames]

Regardless, those assumptions the same as my rebuttle, cannot be proven. Therefore as I said before, they are "what if" arguments.

Maybe if AA plays the AO more (he skipped it 11 years), Wimbledon (skipped it 7 years), and the French (skipped 4 years) he ends up with 17/18?? slams. It is a "what if" argument, and does not apply.

Unlikely, since he was not the best player in his era. Skipped wimbledon 7 years? He won it at 22. Are saying you think he had a chance of winning it at age 15? And like who skips wimbledon? Only someone with a serious attitude problem or someone who doesn't believe they can win it. Grass was not his cup of tea and he knew it. Only managed two uso's(one of those when sampras was injured). And he played the french in his prime.

 

[drakulie]

Unlikely, since he was not the best player in his era. Skipped wimbledon 7 years? He won it at 22. Are saying you think he had a chance of winning it at age 15? And like who skips wimbledon? Only someone with a serious attitude problem or someone who doesn't believe they can win it. Grass was not his cup of tea and he knew it. Only managed two uso's(one of those when sampras was injured). And he played the french in his prime.

Unlikely? Prove it. If you can't, then shut up.

 

[illkhiboy]

Unlikely? Prove it. If you can't, then shut up.

A few of those Slams that you mentioned Agassi missing were due to injury, like Wimbledon 2004/2005. He missed 3 Slams in 1997, and he definitely was not in his prime then, he was losing to every other player that year.
I think a case can be made about Agassi being the best player in 1995. He had the best winning percentage, and was number one until he got injured and could not defend points. Was the most consistent player in Slams, led Sampras H2H 3-2.

 

[jjames]

Unlikely? Prove it. If you can't, then shut up.

prove it? ok, just go look at the record books. agassi 1 wimbledon, 2 uso's, 1 yearend #1 right?

 

[drakulie]

A few of those Slams that you mentioned Agassi missing were due to injury, like Wimbledon 2004/2005. He missed 3 Slams in 1997, and he definitely was not in his prime then, he was losing to every other player that year.
I think a case can be made about Agassi being the best player in 1995. He had the best winning percentage, and was number one until he got injured and could not defend points. Was the most consistent player in Slams, led Sampras H2H 3-2.

You need to go back and read all my posts. The only reason I'm saying that is because other people want to use "what if arguments" for Connors, Borg, Laver, etc. I'm being sarcastic.

 

[drakulie]

prove it? ok, just go look at the record books. agassi 1 wimbledon, 2 uso's, 1 yearend #1 right?

That doesn't prove he couldn't have won more majors if he entered those other 18??? tournaments he didn't play.

If someone could say Connors would have won 12 slams if he would have been allowed to play the French between 74-77, and played the AO more, then the same applies to every other player in the history of tennis.

 

[jhhachamp]

As I said before, although "I" belive Laver was without a doubt the best player in the 60's, it does not guarantee him anything. Maybe if "second tier" players and "pros" were mixed together and competing against each other during that time, their is a different dynamic and the field becomes even deeper and much harder to win a "slam". Maybe there would be a much more diverse field of different players winning slams, rather than "speculating" Laver wins them all.

Sorry, but too many "what ifs".

With respect to the above, the only "what if" argument I see is you when you say what if the pros and amateurs were combined in the 60s, and that maybe Laver would not have dominated. What actually happened is that Laver dominated a large portion of that decade, and there is no "what if" in that.

Unlike nowadays, before the Open Era, the important tourneys were not the Grand Slams, they were the US Pro, Wembley, and I don't know the names of the other 2 or 3.

 

[drakulie]

With respect to the above, the only "what if" argument I see is you when you say what if the pros and amateurs were combined in the 60s, and that maybe Laver would not have dominated.

I never said Laver wouldn't dominate. I said (in response to someone else), it doesn't mean he wins EVERY SLAM in the 60's.

What actually happened is that Laver dominated a large portion of that decade, and there is no "what if" in that.

Yes there is a "what if" in that argument. If not, then prove it concretely without any doubt. This way, you could decisively end this thread and all others like it. If you are too comsumed to prove your facts, give me your formula (that the rest of us do not have), and I will gladly do the work for you.

 

[chaognosis]

Yes there is a "what if" in that argument. If not, then prove it concretely without any doubt. This way, you could decisively end this thread and all others like it. If you are too comsumed to prove your facts, give me your formula (that the rest of us do not have), and I will gladly do the work for you.

The point you don't seem to be getting, is that it does not matter what Laver or Emerson WOULD have won had there been Open competition in the 1960s. What DID happen, is that Laver won the Grand Slam in 1962, then turned pro, and beginning in 1965 he dominated the pro circuit and the major pro events; then, when the Open Era rolled around in 1968-69, Laver fully proved his dominance by dominating EVERYBODY. Emerson was the top amateur for 1963-67, winning ten majors in Laver's absence. By saying Emerson "dominated" the decade, you are arguing that Emerson's record as an amateur is more significant than Laver's record as a pro -- something every reasonable historian would disagree with. The fact of the matter is, given the state of tennis in the 1960s, you must look at a whole host of factors, not just a simplistic criterion like "who won the most majors." Judging from his success as an amateur, as a pro, and then in head-to-head competition with amateurs AND pros in 1968-69, Laver established himself as the top player of the decade -- head and shoulders above Emerson. Laver is universally considered the No. 1 player in the world for 1965-69, and some also include 1964. For how many years is Emerson considered to have been No. 1? 0. In fact, for how many years is Emerson considered to have been No. 2? 0. The Laver vs. Emerson contest is not even close, and it would take a staggering level of ignorance for one to look at all the data and still consider Emerson the dominant player of the decade.

 

[Chadwixx]

Unfortunatly agassi is not top15 of all time. He is the greatest example of "what if". If he would have been more fit in the beginning of his career, if he didnt take every other year off in the mid 90's. If he played smarter vs pete (not standing on the service line trying to return a bomb. Going down in history as the man who was aced the most time, yet reguarded as the greatest returner (headscratcher there)).

He was a simple player that was flashy, no volleying skills, no serve (first part of his career), all baseline. If were from another country, the people here would be bashing the the same way they do the 1 dimentional clay courters.

 

[jukka1970]

Hard to say whether Nadal can maintain this level with his style of play. Time will tell on that. Thanks for your reply Jukka.

Thanks, I always enjoy discussions with people, especially when thoughts been put into it, as opposed to some of these 3 word posts. Even when I disagree, because I learn different views.

And I completely agree, he may drop, or he may continue to play well, who knows. I was just using Federer and Nadal, because of Federer taking 3 slams, while Nadal took the French Open, and pretty much dominated the clay season. So was just using those two players to say, look at all the other players around, there are still good ones they just ran into these two this year. I guess that's the piece I should have said were the two words this year.

Jukka

 

[jukka1970]

check back in 30 years. fans will say you shouldn't consider Federer or Agassi because their level of play is a "joke" compared to current players & that they weren't real pro players.

its seems a bit arbitrary to just 'decide' when tennis became a real sport. many here think borg & mcenroe circa 1980 played a lower level than amateurs of today, just by looking at clips, which is nonsense.

by all accounts gonzalez & hoad hit considerably harder than mcenroe(pancho could get it up to 120)

face it, without tennis players of the 40s, players of the 50s wouldn't exist, players of the 60s, 70s,80s etc. without gonzalez there would be no sampras. without laver there would be no mcenroe or federer. without hoad there would be no laver. without laver hitting topspin, there would be no borg, without borg there wouldn't be a "modern game" etc. each generation created the blueprint for the next generation. read tilden's strategy book, it doesn't sound like the basic game has changed since the 30s.

in the 70s, no one thought it was silly to compare players to the 40s, since they played basically the same game(with wood)
its a shame, they stopped using wood, the game would not be similar at all to what it is today. james blake has said that the strings have drastically changed the game in just a few years. its mostly about the equipment, not the player, in the way the pace has changed. what hasn't changed is the basic strategy, mental aspects, etc. tennis is still a thinking man's sport for the most part. why do you think federer has an old fart like roche in his corner? or roddick have connors? did you know connors was coached by one of those inferior 40s players- pancho segura? maybe the greats in any era, know quite about the game period.

if tennis players of today looked like nba/nfl guys, then I would say you are right, you can't consider past greats as real players. but they don't, they look like roger federer. would it be that farfetched to think lew hoad could run faster than andy roddick? a tennis court is only 39 feet wide, & 39 feet wide, tennis players haven't really become that much better athletes, since their sport doesn't & never will require much raw speed, because of the basic dimensions.

its funny, i never hear boxing fans dismiss jou louis' place in the sport or baseball fans with babe ruth. yet tennis fans seem to have so little regard for its all time greats.



what the hell are you talking about? majors have had 120/64 draws going back to the 40s. I guess you think they just allowed fans from the stands to play.

Ok, maybe I did leave that paragraph a bit ambiguous and open to too many interpertations. Let me try it a different way. There really was no speed on the court back in the 40's. The wooden racquets were only going to generate so much speed. So to me a big part of the game was volleying, that's not to say people couldn't play from the baseline, but with the speed low, to me, players didn't need to worry as much about covering the entire court. Or to put it simply, didn't have to plan as hard to cover the entire court. Now during this time era, we are at a speed where there has to be a game plan as to how to cover the entire court, whether it be baseline, cutting off the angle at net, etc. The speed is a big factor, now you really do need to possess all the different parts of the game. Ok, so how does that eliminate things in the future. I guess the best way that I can explain it, is this. Even if the game gets even faster, including the serve getting faster, I think we've already reached a certain level of speed that it doesn't matter how much faster it gets. If someone can serve 175, will it change the game, well maybe to a small degree, it can mean more free points. But unless the person can serve at 100%, they're going to need the court coverage and speed. To me, once players switched over to graphite and got used to it a couple of years later, the game changed forever.

This is why I say there's a big difference between the tennis in the 40's and nowadays. But the other piece is there too, which is that there weren't as many professional players.

Jukka