Jim Courier: Underated?

[theagassiman]

It puzzles me why Jim Courier is never even mentioned in the top 20 GOAT discussions. Courier, although touted as a boring player with just a forehand, was actually a very strategically intelligent player, who knew WHEN to use that huge forehand. It also helped that his backhand wasn't bad and his serve was also quite good.

His records include:
2 French Open Titles (1991 &'92)
2 Australian Open Titles (1992 &'93)

Head-to-head records:
Stefan Edberg: 6-4
Pete Sampras: 4-16
Andre Agassi: 7-5
Boris Becker: 1-6

Plus, he made it to ever single Grand Slam final something Sampras or Becker NEVER did.

 

[julesb]

Pete Sampras: 4-16
Boris Becker: 1-6

Those are supposed to impress people?

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Agree with OP, he is underated now but at the time he definitely wasn't,

Sampras has obviously stolen alot of the attention and with dre coming back to form in late94, also beckers come back....courier became a bit like hewitt,
a forgotten champion.

That h2h with becker is misleading i think because becker was so inconsistent
outside wimbledon, he never went far enuff in clay events to get his but5t kcked by courier and in events like Indian wells in Miami where Jim was part
of the stadium becker barely turned up half-the time...thus he's left with playing becker on ultra fast carpet.

The sampras h2h is also interesting in that they played 16 matches...
courier consistently reached pete...but by 94 pete level was wicked..

Good thread, courier was pretty fit too winning aussie in tough conditions

 

[Paul Murphy]

I think there are three major factors weighing against him in my opinion.
Firstly, four grand slams is a solid total but not much more.
Secondly, there's no US Open in Wimbledon on the list.
Thirdly he won his slams over a three year period which is too short a timeframe in terms of winning majors in comparison with the elite in my opinion.

I agree though - good topic.

 

[Wuornos]

I agree with the original poster.

For my money Courier is definitely worthy of a place in the top 20 male singles players post WWII.

I am more impressed by his consistency rather than his major title count. In the year ending with Wimbledon in 1993 he managed the following results in major tournaments.

US Open 2002 -Semi Final
ATP Tour World Championship - Final
Australian Open 2003 - Winner
French Open 2003 - Final
Wimbledon 2003 - Final

In my opinion this consistency is sufficient to rate him above both the Wimbledon and US winners during this time. i.e. Stefan Edberg and Pete Sampras.

Of course I would be happy to acknowledge that Pete Sampras went on to eclipse the peak standard of play of Jim at his best.

Tim

 

[bluetrain4]

Absolutely not underrated.

TW is flush with "underrated" and "overrated" threads right now. Most times, these are interesting discussions. But, the terms "underrated" and "overrated" are beginning to lose their meaning as they are constantly thrown around, often meaning nothing more than "Is X player generally liked/respected as much as I like/respect him."

The problem I have with TWs current deluge of "rated" questions is that nobody ever proposes what the initial "rating" is. If we're going to say someone is "overrated" or "underrated", we have to have a starting "rating."

A perfect exampel would be "Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever". That's a clear starting point, and we can then argue whether this is an overstatement or not.

Most GOAT discussions focus on the top 5 or so candidates and don't get into ranking down much further, so Courier, naturally won't be discussed that much when talking about the greatest or best players of all time.

When I hear TV commentators or read commentary by TW posters regarding courier, the "starting rating" for Jim Courier seems to be that he was (1) an incredibly hard worker with an indelible competitive intensity, which his peers feared/respected; (2) he was an excellent player, but was (a) not as naturally talented as some of his peers, and (b) was not the best of his generation, (3) his prime was relatively short, (4) he won 4 Slams and made the finals of all 4 slams (a hard fact), and (5) he is generally considered an excellent player, but a step (or two) below the elite legends of the game.

He seems "rated" accurately.

The fact that he is not discussed more in Top 20 of all time discussions really doesn't make him "underrated" in my opinon, since we hardly ever discuss Top 20 and focus our GOAT and "best" discussions on a relatively small contingent of candidates. So, our constant discussions about Laver, Borg, Fed, Sampras, or even Lendl, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, without mentioning Courier, hardly makes Courier "underrated."

Everyone who knows more than the casual fan knows Jim's accomplishments and his legacy. I don' think he's underrated.

 

[Okazaki Fragment]

Those are supposed to impress people?

How many times have you beaten Sampras or Becker?

 

[GS]

He also became the world's #1 player in February 1992 and held that ranking for a little over a year.

 

[julesb]

How many times have you beaten Sampras or Becker?

The OP was talking about a top 20 player all time. I was talking in that context. Becker himself may or may not be a top 20 player all time (he is borderline at best) and yet the opening thread saying Courier is underrated to not be considered this mentions a 1-6 head to head vs Becker. Seems kind of strange.

 

[theagassiman]

Those are supposed to impress people?

Well, to be honest, they are quite dismal statistics for such a great player,
BUT:
Courier did not match well with Sampras or Becker as:
1. He had a strong forehand, and Sampras and Becker's forehands were only slightly weaker than Courier's (in his prime).
2. His backhand, though solid, was a huge weakness compared to Sampras and Becker's excellent backhands
3. His serve was not a big weapon compared to Sampras or Becker's huge serves

However compared to Agassi and Edberg (both over which he had winning head to head records against):
1. Courier's forehand was approximately equal to Agassi's and better than Edberg's.
2. Courier's backhand, although weaker than Agassi's had more margin for
error. Edberg's backhand was obviously better, but Edberg relied more on finesse and looking for the ball which he could attack, rather than consistency, which shows in their match ups.
3. Courier's serve was better than Agassi's and his serve had more pace than Edberg's.

In conclusion, Courier could not really match up with Sampras or Becker on the baseline, as both had better backhands, and he lacked in the serving department compared to both players.

However, against Agassi, Courier could match Agassi at the baseline, because he was more consistent, and this did not change until Agassi started getting more consistent (about 1994).

Against Edberg, he was the perfect matchup of the 4, because Edberg's groundstrokes were not hit as hard as the other 3, so Courier could outhit him. Charging the net constantly, Edberg just did not hit hard enough to give Courier any trouble, and did not put enough pace on his serve.
As a result, Courier managed to pin Edberg at the baseline, and basically beat him from there. If Edberg did come to the net, Courier's passing shots were good enough to finish him off, and Edberg's serve would become way to inconsistent (a classic example is the 1993 AO final).

That is why Courier's record is so good against Agassi and Edberg and so poor for Becker and Sampras.

 

[egn]

Open Era he makes top 20

all time no not close


Laver
Pancho
Borg
Tilden
Rosewell
Federer
Sampras
Budge
Lendl
McEnroe
Then in no order the following in my opinion are ahead of Courier
Wilander, Connors, Perry, Hoad, Becker, Edberg, Nadal, Agassi, Emerson, Kramer, Lacoste, Newcombe, Cochet, Trabert, Crawford and I would rank Vilas above him. So that puts Courier around 25-30 on my list. Yet I don't feel I have underrated him at all in his short lived prime he was really good but outside of that there is not much of note. He has very few top 10 years and that is not really much. Compared to the ton of others I have listed ahead of him they had a good peak, consistent years and were at the top of the sport at a given time and a long period of top tennis.

 

[bluetrain4]

Well, to be honest, they are quite dismal statistics for such a great player,
BUT:
Courier did not match well with Sampras or Becker as:
1. He had a strong forehand, and Sampras and Becker's forehands were only slightly weaker than Courier's (in his prime).
2. His backhand, though solid, was a huge weakness compared to Sampras and Becker's excellent backhands
3. His serve was not a big weapon compared to Sampras or Becker's huge serves

However compared to Agassi and Edberg (both over which he had winning head to head records against):
1. Courier's forehand was approximately equal to Agassi's and better than Edberg's.
2. Courier's backhand, although weaker than Agassi's had more margin for
error. Edberg's backhand was obviously better, but Edberg relied more on finesse and looking for the ball which he could attack, rather than consistency, which shows in their match ups.
3. Courier's serve was better than Agassi's and his serve had more pace than Edberg's.

In conclusion, Courier could not really match up with Sampras or Becker on the baseline, as both had better backhands, and he lacked in the serving department compared to both players.

However, against Agassi, Courier could match Agassi at the baseline, because he was more consistent, and this did not change until Agassi started getting more consistent (about 1994).

Against Edberg, he was the perfect matchup of the 4, because Edberg's groundstrokes were not hit as hard as the other 3, so Courier could outhit him. Charging the net constantly, Edberg just did not hit hard enough to give Courier any trouble, and did not put enough pace on his serve.
As a result, Courier managed to pin Edberg at the baseline, and basically beat him from there. If Edberg did come to the net, Courier's passing shots were good enough to finish him off, and Edberg's serve would become way to inconsistent (a classic example is the 1993 AO final).

That is why Courier's record is so good against Agassi and Edberg and so poor for Becker and Sampras.

Edberg was a good matchup for Courier. That's why Edberg's demolition over Courier at the USO was unreal. I realize Jim was young, but considering how Jim beat Edberg at Wimbledon and in 2 AO finals (all in 4 sets), winning only 6 games total against Edberg at the USO is very surprising.

 

[theagassiman]

The OP was talking about a top 20 player all time. I was talking in that context. Becker himself may or may not be a top 20 player all time (he is borderline at best) and yet the opening thread saying Courier is underrated to not be considered this mentions a 1-6 head to head vs Becker. Seems kind of strange.

Don't forget Agassi reguarly killed Becker (head-to-head is 10-4).
Yet Agassi is 5-7 against Courier.
Maybe Courier is closer to Becker than you may think.

 

[theagassiman]

Open Era he makes top 20

all time no not close


Laver
Pancho
Borg
Tilden
Rosewell
Federer
Sampras
Budge
Lendl
McEnroe
Then in no order the following in my opinion are ahead of Courier
Wilander, Connors, Perry, Hoad, Becker, Edberg, Nadal, Agassi, Emerson, Kramer, Lacoste, Newcombe, Cochet, Trabert, Crawford and I would rank Vilas above him. So that puts Courier around 25-30 on my list. Yet I don't feel I have underrated him at all in his short lived prime he was really good but outside of that there is not much of note. He has very few top 10 years and that is not really much. Compared to the ton of others I have listed ahead of him they had a good peak, consistent years and were at the top of the sport at a given time and a long period of top tennis.

Quite right, egn, Courier would not make the top 20 of all time.
But Courier regularly does not even make the top 20 Open era most of the time.

 

[egn]

Quite right, egn, Courier would not make the top 20 of all time.
But Courier regularly does not even make the top 20 Open era most of the time.

Well Courier makes my open era top 20

 

[theagassiman]

Edberg was a good matchup for Courier. That's why Edberg's demolition over Courier at the USO was unreal. I realize Jim was young, but considering how Jim beat Edberg at Wimbledon and in 2 AO finals (all in 4 sets), winning only 6 games total against Edberg at the USO is very surprising.

Yes, but that was the 1 time Edberg got everything perfect. He attacked the net well, his groundstrokes were consistent to hold his own with Courier for once. He did not serve many double faults (also for once).
And his passing shots were unreal.

But it was just a one off thing. When Edberg came short of perfect off the backcourt, he would be beaten soundly by Courier.

 

[theagassiman]

Well Courier makes my open era top 20

He may make yours, but he doesn't for the so called 'established' sports magazines, such as sports illustrated and specialist tennis magazines.
Courier is always sitting at number 28 or so.

 

[ohlori]

He may make yours, but he doesn't for the so called 'established' sports magazines, such as sports illustrated and specialist tennis magazines.
Courier is always sitting at number 28 or so.

He is the 16th male player on this list (since 1965): http://www.tennis.com/features/40greatest/40greatest.aspx?id=738 (Emerson alo on this list)

He falls back one place to No.17 because of Nadal.

 

[thalivest]

1. He had a strong forehand, and Sampras and Becker's forehands were only slightly weaker than Courier's (in his prime).

Sampras's forehand was close to Courier's. Not Becker's.

2. His backhand, though solid, was a huge weakness compared to Sampras and Becker's excellent backhands

Sampras never had anything that would remotedly qualify as an excellent backhand. Courier had a better backhand than Sampras.

1. Courier's forehand was approximately equal to Agassi's and better than Edberg's.

Courier's forehand was easily better than Agassi's, and it is the main reason he so owned him so long.

 

[theagassiman]

Sampras's forehand was close to Courier's. Not Becker's.

I would agree that Sampras's forehand is closer than Becker's in comparison to Courier's. However, Becker's forehand is still very heavy and was better than most people think.

Sampras never had anything that would remotedly qualify as an excellent backhand. Courier had a better backhand than Sampras.

You cannot be serious! Courier's backhand was notoriously crap. True it MAY have been more consitent than Sampras's backhand on a good day, but Sampras could do a lot more with his backhand than Courier could.

Courier's forehand was easily better than Agassi's, and it is the main reason he so owned him so long.

Maybe Courier's was more consistent, but Agassi's and Courier's forehands were probably about the same in terms of power.

 

[theagassiman]

He is the 16th male player on this list (since 1965): http://www.tennis.com/features/40greatest/40greatest.aspx?id=738 (Emerson alo on this list)

He falls back one place to No.17 because of Nadal.

My bad then, sorry.

 

[Wuornos]

Absolutely not underrated.

The problem I have with TWs current deluge of "rated" questions is that nobody ever proposes what the initial "rating" is. If we're going to say someone is "overrated" or "underrated", we have to have a starting "rating."

I agree with you on this entirely in relation to many of the posts on this site.

However, in this case the OP was one of the few who did provide a rating for this thread. He defined Jim Courier as being worthy of a place in the top 20 of all time. By definition then he is defining his opinion of Jim Courier's 'popular' rating as being outside the top 20.

It's difficult to be more specific than that

Tim

 

[hoodjem]

Open Era he makes top 20

all time no not close


Laver
Pancho
Borg
Tilden
Rosewell
Federer
Sampras
Budge
Lendl
McEnroe
Then in no order the following in my opinion are ahead of Courier
Wilander, Connors, Perry, Hoad, Becker, Edberg, Nadal, Agassi, Emerson, Kramer, Lacoste, Newcombe, Cochet, Trabert, Crawford and I would rank Vilas above him. So that puts Courier around 25-30 on my list.

A good solid list. You should go ahead and do a numbered top-30 list.

Mine is similar, but with slightly different order.

I would put Courier in the 30-35 range.

 

[anointedone]

I would put Courier in the 30-35 range.

Where would you put him in the Open era alone?

 

[droliver]

I did a little digging beyond the short list, but Courier actually had a much better head to head against his contemporaries then I would have though.

Courier v Muster 7-5
Couier v Chang 12-12
Courier v Stich 5-7
Courier v edberg 6-4
Courier v Krajicek 7-1
Courier v. Thomas Enqvist 6-2
Courier v. Kafelnikov 1-5
Courier v. Medvedev 2-2
Courier v. Bruguera 5-2
Courier v. Todd Martin 6-1
Courier v. Rafter 0-2
Courier v. Rusedski 4-0
Courier v. Pioline 5-4
Courier v. Magnus Larsson 2-2
Courier v. Henman 3-1

Who the heck was he losing to so regularly late in his career?

 

[theagassiman]

I did a little digging beyond the short list, but Courier actually had a much better head to head against his contemporaries then I would have though.

Courier v Muster 7-5
Couier v Chang 12-12
Courier v Stich 5-7
Courier v edberg 6-4
Courier v Krajicek 7-1
Courier v. Thomas Enqvist 6-2
Courier v. Kafelnikov 1-5
Courier v. Medvedev 2-2
Courier v. Bruguera 5-2
Courier v. Todd Martin 6-1
Courier v. Rafter 0-2
Courier v. Rusedski 4-0
Courier v. Pioline 5-4
Courier v. Magnus Larsson 2-2
Courier v. Henman 3-1

Who the heck was he losing to so regularly late in his career?

Hmmmm. I don't know whether the statistics you got are reliable.
His record against Edberg is better than 6-4.
Did you get it from the ATP website?

 

[GuyForget]

id actually rather watch Courier than Fedalovic, his forehand was sick, if he hadnt choked AO 95 and 96/burnt out, could have been another Lendl or Agassi

 

[quirotkicks]

I think he is regarded about right. People know he had a fairly brief but truly exceptional peak for 2-3 years. Many still debate him as possibly the best clay courter of the 90s.

His overall career does not stack up to someone like Edberg despite being successful against him in head to head.

 

[slipgrip93]

Courier was a good grinder. Interesting "baseball" backhand and attire. Similar in win streak period to Wilander.

 

[bluetrain4]

It puzzles me why Jim Courier is never even mentioned in the top 20 GOAT discussions. Courier, although touted as a boring player with just a forehand, was actually a very strategically intelligent player, who knew WHEN to use that huge forehand. It also helped that his backhand wasn't bad and his serve was also quite good.

His records include:
2 French Open Titles (1991 &'92)
2 Australian Open Titles (1992 &'93)

Head-to-head records:
Stefan Edberg: 6-4
Pete Sampras: 4-16
Andre Agassi: 7-5
Boris Becker: 1-6

Plus, he made it to ever single Grand Slam final something Sampras or Becker NEVER did.

I've seen him mentioned multiple times. I don't think he's underrated.

 

[hoodjem]

Absolutely not underrated.

TW is flush with "underrated" and "overrated" threads right now. Most times, these are interesting discussions. But, the terms "underrated" and "overrated" are beginning to lose their meaning as they are constantly thrown around, often meaning nothing more than "Is X player generally liked/respected as much as I like/respect him."

The problem I have with TWs current deluge of "rated" questions is that nobody ever proposes what the initial "rating" is. If we're going to say someone is "overrated" or "underrated", we have to have a starting "rating."

A perfect exampel would be "Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever". That's a clear starting point, and we can then argue whether this is an overstatement or not.

Most GOAT discussions focus on the top 5 or so candidates and don't get into ranking down much further, so Courier, naturally won't be discussed that much when talking about the greatest or best players of all time.

When I hear TV commentators or read commentary by TW posters regarding courier, the "starting rating" for Jim Courier seems to be that he was (1) an incredibly hard worker with an indelible competitive intensity, which his peers feared/respected; (2) he was an excellent player, but was (a) not as naturally talented as some of his peers, and (b) was not the best of his generation, (3) his prime was relatively short, (4) he won 4 Slams and made the finals of all 4 slams (a hard fact), and (5) he is generally considered an excellent player, but a step (or two) below the elite legends of the game.

He seems "rated" accurately.

The fact that he is not discussed more in Top 20 of all time discussions really doesn't make him "underrated" in my opinon, since we hardly ever discuss Top 20 and focus our GOAT and "best" discussions on a relatively small contingent of candidates. So, our constant discussions about Laver, Borg, Fed, Sampras, or even Lendl, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, without mentioning Courier, hardly makes Courier "underrated."

Everyone who knows more than the casual fan knows Jim's accomplishments and his legacy. I don' think he's underrated.

Well stated. Two RRs.

 

[KG1965]

In 2016 I started a thread titled "Who the number one most underrated player? Jim Courier? !! Or not?".
I didn't know that there was an identical content thread from 2009 ....

Yes, I think it is very underestimated, and probably IMHO the most underestimated in the OE.
I think that has to do with the fact that 2 of the 4 slams won them in Melbourne, a tournament that had no impact in the early 1990s.

 

[GuyForget]

his all court record was pretty impressive, W FO91, F US91, F YE91, W AO92, WFO92, F YE92, W AO93, FO93, FW93, SF AO 94, SF FO 94 with ferocious competition - Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Stich, Goran ... his record during those 3 years arguarbly beats Murray's whole career. Should have got to AO finals in 95 and 96 as well

 

[jrepac]

He was a tough player, great on clay. Then he went on a mental bender, which was pretty freaking ridiculous.
I think he alienated his fan base along the way
And, then, he was gone.
So, he's rated about right.

 

[Mainad]

his all court record was pretty impressive, W FO91, F US91, F YE91, W AO92, WFO92, F YE92, W AO93, FO93, FW93, SF AO 94, SF FO 94 with ferocious competition - Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Stich, Goran ... his record during those 3 years arguarbly beats Murray's whole career. Should have got to AO finals in 95 and 96 as well

Well, I guess you might think that if you didn't know squat about Murray's whole career!

 

[BGod]

He's firmly in the Top 20 of the Open Era. Is anyone arguing that? In terms of all-time I'd have to look but off the top I'd have him ahead of guys like Murray and Kuerten so probably in there too (there's not too many pre-OE guys that get put in anyway).

Yes he made all 4 Slam Finals, which for that time period was only achieved by a few of guys like Lendl, Agassi and Edberg.

 

[vandre]

i can't really say he was underrated as a player. i don't think he gets enough credit for innovating the game. as far as i remember, he was the one who demonstrated what a weapon the inside out forehand could be. i am sure other players ran around their backhands a bit but he was the first player i remember who won multiple slams doing so.

 

[Fedinkum]

Of all the 90s number 1, Courier was definitely the most boring to watch. I was shocked to find out his personality as a commentator was a complete mirror to his games.

 

[magnut]

One of the strangest things in Tennis was watching Courier go from mental tough warrior winning majors to a complete choke artist in the span of about a year. Courier was a force on the tour that seemed to come from nowhere to the casual tennis fan. Jim was beyond fit.

I am a Courier fan but I am very realistic. He achieved a lot in a very short time. After burning himself out his ego never let him get back to what he once was. He was very close a few times though. Losses at 95, 96 aussie open and 96 french open sealed his fate. Then he lost to Muster in 97 in australia and it was over other than davis cup. His biggest problem was his own ego. When faced with it he would turn to other interests to deal with his own lack of self belief.

He was fun to watch though. Strange looking game and he liked to battle... a little too much sometimes. After his fall from the top it almost looked like he didnt want to put oponents away sometimes. Sort of like he wanted to show everyone how long he could play and not get tired LOL. He has one of the alltime great forehands. More powerful and versitile than Agassi or anyone else in that era. Probably top 3-5 forehands of all time in his prime years. Underated serve... especially on clay. In his prime he had one of the best returns in the game. He lost that and his backhand went from good to major weakness.