Men's Season with the most achievement

timnz

Legend
in all of tennis history....

I would go with

laver - 1967 - won pro grand slam + Pro Wimbledon + all the other significant pro titles that year like US pro indoor, Madison square garden pro, world professional championships Oklahoma

Laver - 1969 Open era grand slam + top indoor title + top outdoor hardcourt title

Laver - 1962 Amateur Grand slam + other significant titles like German championship, Rome for a total of 21 titles in that year!

Rosewall - 1963 - pro grand slam + World pro h2h challenge

Rosewall - 1962 - 2 pro majors + geneva gold trophy and Milan
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
I can think of numerous years greater than the last 3 on your list.

Not to mention I object to the use of the the words Grand Slam together with Pro ;) The big pro tournaments were majors but not slams.
 

timnz

Legend
I can think of numerous years greater than the last 3 on your list.

Not to mention I object to the use of the the words Grand Slam together with Pro ;) The big pro tournaments were majors but not slams.
Yes, each of the 3 top tournaments for pro's are called pro majors. But it is recognised that to win all three in one year is called the Pro grand slam.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Recognized by who? By people like Bobby trying to coin the term to bring greater significance to it?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
in all of tennis history....

I would go with

laver - 1967 - won pro grand slam + Pro Wimbledon + all the other significant pro titles that year like US pro indoor, Madison square garden pro, world professional championships Oklahoma

Laver - 1969 Open era grand slam + top indoor title + top outdoor hardcourt title

Laver - 1962 Amateur Grand slam + other significant titles like German championship, Rome for a total of 21 titles in that year!

Rosewall - 1963 - pro grand slam + World pro h2h challenge

Rosewall - 1962 - 2 pro majors + geneva gold trophy and Milan
Are you taking into account the field? I don't think Laver's year in 1962 should be considered. Rosewall's seasons in 1962 and 1963 were excellent but what competition did he have in those years? Gonzalez was gone in 1962 and Laver wasn't there yet. In 1963 he had an inexperienced Laver but I guess you could say that with any tour with a new pro. However I do feel Rosewall's competition in those years weren't as high as that of the 1950s when Kramer and Gonzalez were number one over greats like Sedgman, Segura, Hoad, Rosewall, Olmedo, Trabert, Budge, Riggs and of course each other.

Gonzalez in my opinion had a number of superior years to Rosewall's best year. For example in 1958 he won the Tournament of Champions, the US Pro and the World Championship Tour over Lew Hoad. Tilden in 1920 Won the only two majors he entered with Wimbledon and the US Nationals. In 1956 Gonzalez won two Pro Majors and was in the finals of the other, won the Tournament of Champions and also defeated Tony Trabert by a crushing margin in the World Championship Tour. That's basically winning five majors!

In 1930 Tilden won Wimbledon, the championships of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands (Dutch Championships) with 18 tournaments won in a year he would be 37. A number of his years in the early 1920s are to be considered also.

Connors in 1974 I believe had a super year in winning three majors out of three, the US Clay courts over Borg, the Pacific Southwest and the South African Open over Ashe.

Borg in 1978 and 1979 had incredible levels of play.

John McEnroe in 1984 won Wimbledon, the US Open, was in the finals of the French, won the Canadian Open, US Pro Indoor, the Tournament of Champions over Lendl and the year end Masters over Lendl.

If you count the amateurs then Sedgman in 1952 and Trabert in 1955 are viable as is Hoad in 1956 but I wouldn't count them.
 

timnz

Legend
Are you taking into account the field? I don't think Laver's year in 1962 should be considered. Rosewall's seasons in 1962 and 1963 were excellent but what competition did he have in those years? Gonzalez was gone in 1962 and Laver wasn't there yet. In 1963 he had an inexperienced Laver but I guess you could say that with any tour with a new pro. However I do feel Rosewall's competition in those years weren't as high as that of the 1950s when Kramer and Gonzalez were number one over greats like Sedgman, Segura, Hoad, Rosewall, Olmedo, Trabert, Budge, Riggs and of course each other.

Gonzalez in my opinion had a number of superior years to Rosewall's best year. For example in 1958 he won the Tournament of Champions, the US Pro and the World Championship Tour over Lew Hoad. Tilden in 1920 Won the only two majors he entered with Wimbledon and the US Nationals. In 1956 Gonzalez won two Pro Majors and was in the finals of the other, won the Tournament of Champions and also defeated Tony Trabert by a crushing margin in the World Championship Tour. That's basically winning five majors!

In 1930 Tilden won Wimbledon, the championships of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands (Dutch Championships) with 18 tournaments won in a year he would be 37. A number of his years in the early 1920s are to be considered also.

Connors in 1974 I believe had a super year in winning three majors out of three, the US Clay courts over Borg, the Pacific Southwest and the South African Open over Ashe.

Borg in 1978 and 1979 had incredible levels of play.

John McEnroe in 1984 won Wimbledon, the US Open, was in the finals of the French, won the Canadian Open, US Pro Indoor, the Tournament of Champions over Lendl and the year end Masters over Lendl.

If you count the amateurs then Sedgman in 1952 and Trabert in 1955 are viable as is Hoad in 1956 but I wouldn't count them.
What's your thoughts on Laver's 1967 and 1969?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
What's your thoughts on Laver's 1967 and 1969?
My gut feeling is that Laver's year in 1967 was one of the greatest ever and arguably the best. I would tend to think that Laver's game was superior to his game in 1969 because Laver suffered a bad wrist injury in 1968 that troubled him apparently for the rest of his career plus he was two years younger. A number of observers believe Laver's genius was already dwindling in 1969 and he already past his best.
 

timnz

Legend
Recognized by who? By people like Bobby trying to coin the term to bring greater significance to it?
How about the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

"In 1967, he won the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the United States Pro titles for what was considered the pro Grand Slam"

It is the modern habit of calling each of the tournaments that make up the Grand Slam ie Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open as 'Slams' that is wrong. What Grand Slam means is - you have the whole set. In 1967 Laver won all of the pro. Majors. - hence he had the whole set ie the Pro Grand Slam. I agree with you that the individual times shouldn't be called Pro Slams (and if you study my thread I never said that) rather they should be called Pro Majors. But if someone wins the whole set (like Rosewall in 1963 and Laver in 1967), then it is entirely legitimate to call the winning of the whole set - the Pro Grand Slam.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
How about the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

"In 1967, he won the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the United States Pro titles for what was considered the pro Grand Slam"

It is the modern habit of calling each of the tournaments that make up the Grand Slam ie Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open as 'Slams' that is wrong. What Grand Slam means is - you have the whole set. In 1967 Laver won all of the pro. Majors. - hence he had the whole set ie the Pro Grand Slam. I agree with you that the individual times shouldn't be called Pro Slams (and if you study my thread I never said that) rather they should be called Pro Majors. But if someone wins the whole set (like Rosewall in 1963 and Laver in 1967), then it is entirely legitimate to call the winning of the whole set - the Pro Grand Slam.

I don't recall anything from the time referring to sweeping those tournaments as the pro slam? Does Mccauley refer to it as such in his book - I haven't got it to hand right now. I feel certain writers since then have tried to boost the prestige of those pro majors and have used that term - people like Geist for example. I'm not sure it was viewed a a slam back in those days especially when I tend to feel the pro majors fluctuated in prestige. The US pro often had weak fields for example, in years like 1964 each tournament was viewed as giving the same points in the tally for the rankings.

Considering the nature of pro tennis I feel this term was likely added in hindsight. As far as I'm aware the writing on the goings on of the pro tours is not extensive it would be fairly easy for something like this to be invented after the fact.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
My gut feeling is that Laver's year in 1967 was one of the greatest ever and arguably the best. I would tend to think that Laver's game was superior to his game in 1969 because Laver suffered a bad wrist injury in 1968 that troubled him apparently for the rest of his career plus he was two years younger. A number of observers believe Laver's genius was already dwindling in 1969 and he already past his best.
And yet so great were his abilities, even in decline he was still able to win The Grand Slam in 1969.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
And yet so great were his abilities, he was still able to win the Grand Slam in 1969.
That's the astonishing thing!! I cannot think of perhaps less than a handful who would have any chance of winning the Grand Slam past age 30 but Laver is the only one who has done it.
 

timnz

Legend
I don't recall anything from the time referring to sweeping those tournaments as the pro slam? Does Mccauley refer to it as such in his book - I haven't got it to hand right now. I feel certain writers since then have tried to boost the prestige of those pro majors and have used that term - people like Geist for example. I'm not sure it was viewed a a slam back in those days especially when I tend to feel the pro majors fluctuated in prestige. The US pro often had weak fields for example, in years like 1964 each tournament was viewed as giving the same points in the tally for the rankings.

Considering the nature of pro tennis I feel this term was likely added in hindsight. As far as I'm aware the writing on the goings on of the pro tours is not extensive it would be fairly easy for something like this to be invented after the fact.
Rather than disagreeing on the semantics, the point is that I am expressing the fact that a particular player swept all the pro majors in one year. The thread is about what were the best seasons ever. My pick is Laver's 1967. What are your thoughts?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Rather than disagreeing on the semantics, the point is that I am expressing the fact that a particular player swept all the pro majors in one year. The thread is about what were the best seasons ever. My pick is Laver's 1967. What are your thoughts?

Laver's 1969 was better IMO. While his standard of play was at it's peak in 1967, winning the traditional slams in full fields is the greater achievement. Clearly 1967 was insane dominance but I find it less impressive considering it was over the small pro field which was not as strong as it was 10 years previously.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Laver's 1969 was better IMO. While his standard of play was at it's peak in 1967, winning the traditional slams in full fields is the greater achievement. Clearly 1967 was insane dominance but I find it less impressive considering it was over the small pro field which was not as strong as it was 10 years previously.
Always a tough question. Laver's average level of play imo was probably higher in 1967 and he accomplished great things. Rod's level of player was probably lower in 1969 but he accomplished the ultimate of winning the Grand Slam. What's better?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Always a tough question. Laver's average level of play imo was probably higher in 1967 and he accomplished great things. Rod's level of player was probably lower in 1969 but he accomplished the ultimate of winning the Grand Slam. What's better?

Depends on the question I suppose. We can't say for a fact that 1967 was the highest level of tennis ever, but we can say 1969 was the greatest year in terms of achievements ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Depends on the question I suppose. We can't say for a fact that 1967 was the highest level of tennis ever, but we can say 1969 was the greatest year in terms of achievements ever.
Okay. Totally understandable.

This begs the question on who had the highest level of play for one season? Some possible choices I think would be players like Vines, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Okay. Totally understandable.

This begs the question on who had the highest level of play for one season? Some possible choices I think would be players like Vines, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

All strong choices, I'd probably separate it into era's for simplicity. My caveat would be being a factor from right at the beginning of a season to the end of it.

I'm not so familar with Vines and Kramer's best years. But for myself I'd narrow that list to Laver, Borg, McEnroe and Federer.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
All strong choices, I'd probably separate it into era's for simplicity. My caveat would be being a factor from right at the beginning of a season to the end of it.

I'm not so familar with Vines and Kramer's best years. But for myself I'd narrow that list to Laver, Borg, McEnroe and Federer.
For average level I guess push comes to shove I would add Kramer to that list if I had to pick him or Gonzalez. Of the five Kramer (Laver, Borg, McEnroe and Federer) would have the best serve, arguably the best ever (although all of them had exceptional serves) and he had no stroke weakness. I would think the late 1940s and early 1950s would be years to consider for Kramer.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
For average level I guess push comes to shove I would add Kramer to that list if I had to pick him or Gonzalez. Of the five Kramer (Laver, Borg, McEnroe and Federer) would have the best serve, arguably the best ever (although all of them had exceptional serves) and he had no stroke weakness. I would think the late 1940s and early 1950s would be years to consider for Kramer.

With Kramer and Gonzalez we'd be comparing dominance in h2h tours versus dominance in tournaments I suppose. Interesting that you would pick Kramer over Gonzalez.

Did you agree with the 4 I mentioned then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
With Kramer and Gonzalez we'd be comparing dominance in h2h tours versus dominance in tournaments I suppose. Interesting that you would pick Kramer over Gonzalez.

Did you agree with the 4 I mentioned then?
Kramer and Gonzalez are players I often (as I do many) switch back and forth with. Kramer to me has a clearly superior forehand and backhand. I would venture to argue that Kramer's forehand is one of the best of all time. It was consistent, powerful and a great shot to approach on. Volleys are close with both having superb volleys. Gonzalez imo is more athletic but Gonzalez may be arguably more athletic than just about any player so that's not bad. If you have possibly the greatest overall serving game (I'm referring to Kramer) plus one of the best volleys, forehand and a solid backhand well you're going to be tough in every match. You add Kramer's great tennis brain and to me he's never a huge underdog to any player.

The four players you picked are about as good as anyone. It's possible that Djokovic and Nadal could be there but Nadal really never had the dominant type year on all surfaces that Federer has had. Djokovic is a better possibility in that area for peak play for perhaps someday supplanting someone on that list.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Kramer and Gonzalez are players I often (as I do many) switch back and forth with. Kramer to me has a clearly superior forehand and backhand. Volleys are close and Gonzalez is more athletic but Gonzalez may be arguably more athletic than just about any player so that's not bad. If you have possibly the greatest overall serving game (I'm referring to Kramer) plus one of the best volleys, forehand and a solid backhand well you're going to be tough in every match. You add Kramer's great tennis brain and to me he's never a huge underdog to any player.

The four players you picked are about as good as anyone. It's possible that Djokovic and Nadal could be there but Nadal really never had the dominant type year on all surfaces that Federer has had. Djokovic is a better possibility in that area for peak play for perhaps someday supplanting someone on that list.

Nadal has never been dominant from end to end IMO, he's never made all 4 slam finals in a year and combined it with a YEC like Federer. Neither has Djokovic though he might do that this year.

Nice breakdown of Kramer and Gonzalez, I personally feel from what I've read and their records that Gonzalez was the superior player - and possibly superior to any other player ever. If you had to single out single years for all the players you mentioned in your previous post - their top years so to speak. What would they be?
 

urban

Legend
One note on Nadal. Wasn't he the only modern player, who won Majors on all 3 surfaces in 2010? But good discussion, and i agree with those choices. Kramer vs. Gonzalez is tough. Kramer was, from what i read, sounder from the baseline, but probably Gonzalez was swifter and more mobile. McCauley makes some remarks about Big Jake's mobility, but maybe he mentions it on the older Kramer.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Tilden in 1921 won Wimbledon, US, WHCC and Davis Cup. Apparently he went 78-1 in 1925.

I think Don Budge deserves a mention. Not for 1938, but for 1939.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

krosero

Legend
I think Don Budge deserves a mention. Not for 1938, but for 1939.
Good call I think. That year stands out in a number of ways. For the first time since '35 all the top pros met one other. And for the first time (in history, essentially), all the top players were now pros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
How about the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

"In 1967, he won the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the United States Pro titles for what was considered the pro Grand Slam"

It is the modern habit of calling each of the tournaments that make up the Grand Slam ie Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open as 'Slams' that is wrong. What Grand Slam means is - you have the whole set. In 1967 Laver won all of the pro. Majors. - hence he had the whole set ie the Pro Grand Slam. I agree with you that the individual times shouldn't be called Pro Slams (and if you study my thread I never said that) rather they should be called Pro Majors. But if someone wins the whole set (like Rosewall in 1963 and Laver in 1967), then it is entirely legitimate to call the winning of the whole set - the Pro Grand Slam.
The problem is that McCauley and Geist did mention it earlier than 2009.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Nadal has never been dominant from end to end IMO, he's never made all 4 slam finals in a year and combined it with a YEC like Federer. Neither has Djokovic though he might do that this year.

Nice breakdown of Kramer and Gonzalez, I personally feel from what I've read and their records that Gonzalez was the superior player - and possibly superior to any other player ever. If you had to single out single years for all the players you mentioned in your previous post - their top years so to speak. What would they be?
I'm parked in my car now so I don't have time to verify everything but I would guess Gonzalez in 1956, Kramer in 1948, Laver in 1967, McEnroe in 1984 although some claim for level of play McEnroe was superior in 1979, Federer in 2006.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
While I don't think it stands up to some of the above, I'd have to give Bill Tilden a mention for his years in 1920 and 1921
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Borg in '79 had highest level of play of his career in my opinion (and maybe anybody's in the Open Era), even if he accomplished more at the majors in the prior and subsequent seasons. He just accelerated past Connors and everyone else.

The achievements versus level of play question in terms of individual seasons is an interesting one - you've got Borg '79 versus '80, Connors '76 versus '74, Fed '05 versus '06, Laver '67 versus '69, etc. Also Mac '81 versus '84 to a certain extent (given his classic Wimbledon/Open/Davis Cup triple in '81, as well as his conclusive superiority over Borg that year).

The two seasons are often very close together time-wise for the players - it's one reason why I like pc1's 5 year peak concept as opposed to a shorter time frame (though the "best season ever" threads are always a fun exercise in and of themselves).
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Tilden's great years are up there with anyone's.

The early days of men's tennis are still somewhat foggy to me as I'm still reading so I may not be great in this discussion but a few others that popped up...these are mostly amateur years before they turned pro.

Crawford in 1933
Perry in 1934
Vines 1932 & 1935
Hoad in 1956
 

urban

Legend
Laver himself in his new book calls the 4 Major Events he won in 1967 simply the 4 most important events of the 19, he won overall, and calls it "a good year". It was always the quadruple thing, which reminded me on a real Grand Slam. Maybe his level was higher, but i still rank the 1969 GS higher, because he had also to face (alongside the usual suspects of his contemporaries) the younger, hungrier generation of Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Okker and Smith, who threw virtually the whole kitchen on him, as we can see in some matches recorded on video.
On the great amateur years a i would add Sedgman in 1952, Trabert in 1955 and Emerson in 1964.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
7

70sHollywood

Guest
The early days of men's tennis are still somewhat foggy to me as I'm still reading so I may not be great in this discussion but a few others that popped up...these are mostly amateur years before they turned pro.

Crawford in 1933
Perry in 1934
Vines 1932 & 1935
Hoad in 1956

I think this might be the most underrated year ever. Another often overlooked amateur year is Kramer in 1947 when he only lost 1 match.

Still, Laver in 69 is pretty tough to beat. Not just the GS, but all the other tourneys, and with decent fields too, unlike the other early open years. The only question mark would be his win/loss %, but in terms of just plain achievements I would probably go with Rod in 69.
 

timnz

Legend
Laver himself in his new book calls the 4 Major Events he won in 1967 simply the 4 most important events of the 19, he won overall, and calls it "a good year". It was always the quadruple thing, which reminded me on a real Grand Slam. Maybe his level was higher, but i still rank the 1969 GS higher, because he had also to face (alongside the usual suspects of his contemporaries) the younger, hungrier generation of Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Okker and Smith, who threw virtually the whole kitchen on him, as we can see in some matches recorded on video.
On the great amateur years a i would add Sedgman in 1952, Trabert in 1955 and Emerson in 1964.
Laver has a habit of being always overly humble. Hardly a fault.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Laver has a habit of being always overly humble. Hardly a fault.
Yes, he's always gives credit that others are better than him which often backfires on these forums because posters often point out that if Laver said so and so is superior he must be. I would guess however that Laver, as with many great champions thoroughly believes in his ability to win a big tournament final over anyone.
 

NonP

Legend
Still, Laver in 69 is pretty tough to beat. Not just the GS, but all the other tourneys, and with decent fields too, unlike the other early open years. The only question mark would be his win/loss %, but in terms of just plain achievements I would probably go with Rod in 69.

This may well be the single most overrated stat in these GOAT debates. If you go back and look at the guys with crazy good win-loss %s you'll find that nearly all of them are baseliners who played relatively high-% tennis (obviously there are some variations between, say, Borg and Federer). Those with a riskier game like Laver generally will lose more matches, but I suspect it helps them against the best opponents because chances are they will make you play outside your comfort zone but then you'll be already more used to it than your more baseline-oriented peers. (One might say Mac proves me wrong, but John was such a unique player no label can accurately describe what kind of tennis player he was.) And just ask yourself, what does matter that Rod didn't put up a 90+% season when he won pretty much all the important tournaments there was? I think the answer is clear.

Yes, he's always gives credit that others are better than him which often backfires on these forums because posters often point out that if Laver said so and so is superior he must be. I would guess however that Laver, as with many great champions thoroughly believes in his ability to win a big tournament final over anyone.

No need to guess, because Rod has said on record (uncharacteristically, yes) that he'd put himself against anyone playing with wood. Like you said all champions have a fair amount of ego and in his book (the one with Bud Collins--haven't read the new one yet) he actually fesses up to being envious of the attention Gonzales was still getting and to being annoyed with Ashe for declaring the newcomers had already surpassed the veterans, which he used as extra motivation in his much-discussed '69 Wimbledon SF against Arthur.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
This may well be the single most overrated stat in these GOAT debates. If you go back and look at the guys with crazy good win-loss %s you'll find that nearly all of them are baseliners who played relatively high-% tennis (obviously there are some variations between, say, Borg and Federer). Those with a riskier game like Laver generally will lose more matches, but I suspect it helps them against the best opponents because chances are they will make you play outside your comfort zone but then you'll be already more used to it than your more baseline-oriented peers. (One might say Mac proves me wrong, but John was such a unique player no label can accurately describe what kind of tennis player he was.) And just ask yourself, what does matter that Rod didn't put up a 90+% season when he won pretty much all the important tournaments there was? I think the answer is clear.



No need to guess, because Rod has said on record (uncharacteristically, yes) that he'd put himself against anyone playing with wood. Like you said all champions have a fair amount of ego and in his book (the one with Bud Collins--haven't read the new one yet) he actually fesses up to being envious of the attention Gonzales was still getting and to being annoyed with Ashe for declaring the newcomers had already surpassed the veterans, which he used as extra motivation in his much-discussed '69 Wimbledon SF against Arthur.

Excellent points although I do believe that winning percentages are very important. However considering that Laver was 106-16 in 1969 for a winning percentage of 86.9 in a year he would be 31 I find that amazing. In this particular case it was as good as an over 90% winning percentage in a lesser schedule in my opinion. The reason is that I believe that the more a top player may play in a year or a period of years, the odds are that the winning percentages would tend to be lower because of the great workload and the exhaustion and injuries that come with it. Laver played a huge amount of matches over a period of many years.

Connors played over 100 matches (or close depending on the source) and had a great winning percentage I believe of 99-4 but he also played a lot of matches on the weaker Bill Riordan circuit. However I would tend to believe that Connors would have won over 90% of his matches that year even if he played the toughest circuit.
 

urban

Legend
I often considerate, if not differences of won-lost matches are as equally important as win-loss percentages, at least in evaluating great years, because it gives more room for the amount of matches played and won. Percentage wise a 1-0 is better than say a 10-1. McEnroe has imo the highest win-loss percentage in 1984 with 81-3 (or 84-3), but indeed he played ca. 40 matches less than Laver in 1969. And as we saw with Djokovic in 2012, players get tired at the specific point late in the year, and begin to lose more. I think, that probably Federer's 91-6 or 91-5 in one year, i think 2006, was quite equal to Mac's 1984, despite Mac's numerically better percentage. On Connors in 1974, i think he stepped out out of at least two, if not more tournaments, and so he avoided more losses. I think, 100 wins and more in a year were pretty seldom in open era. Regarding only tournaments (not exos and invitationals) I only have Laver in 1969, Vilas in 1977, and Lendl in 1982. That's is from top of my head, maybe there were more. Lendl's 1982 was very productive, and with -from top of my head - 106-7 had a great difference, but he lost the big ones, he played.
 

NonP

Legend
Excellent points although I do believe that winning percentages are very important. However considering that Laver was 106-16 in 1969 for a winning percentage of 86.9 in a year he would be 31 I find that amazing. In this particular case it was as good as an over 90% winning percentage in a lesser schedule in my opinion. The reason is that I believe that the more a top player may play in a year or a period of years, the odds are that the winning percentages would tend to be lower because of the great workload and the exhaustion and injuries that come with it. Laver played a huge amount of matches over a period of many years.

I've made this same point before but I actually don't think Rod in '69 was that that old in "real" tennis years. As you know Rod like most guys then turned pro fairly late, so he'd probably accumulated less intensive mileage than he would have without the amateur/pro split.

The mileage factor seems to apply across all eras when you consider that guys like Tilden and Gonzales were probably able to main such unreal longevity by taking intermittent breaks from the game (not to mention Gonzales' own late entrance into the pro jungle), and when you see recent cases like Agassi and Haas still going strong in their 30s no doubt due to their prolonged absence from the tour and like Nadal having an unprecedented 10-year run with at least one Slam likely for the same reason.

Connors played over 100 matches (or close depending on the source) and had a great winning percentage I believe of 99-4 but he also played a lot of matches on the weaker Bill Riordan circuit. However I would tend to believe that Connors would have won over 90% of his matches that year even if he played the toughest circuit.

Jimmy's lack of serious opposition (not entirely his fault, I know) is why I'm generally reluctant to put his '74 up there with Laver's '69, Mac's '84 and Fed's '06, but yes, a 90 win % isn't an unreasonable projection for '74 Connors even with the incorporation of the WCT circuit.

The comparison with the pre-Open guys is even trickier because the format was so different. For example I just don't see how you can compare Gonzales' '56 season with any of the more recent ones I just mentioned.

I often considerate, if not differences of won-lost matches are as equally important as win-loss percentages, at least in evaluating great years, because it gives more room for the amount of matches played and won. Percentage wise a 1-0 is better than say a 10-1. McEnroe has imo the highest win-loss percentage in 1984 with 81-3 (or 84-3), but indeed he played ca. 40 matches less than Laver in 1969. And as we saw with Djokovic in 2012, players get tired at the specific point late in the year, and begin to lose more. I think, that probably Federer's 91-6 or 91-5 in one year, i think 2006, was quite equal to Mac's 1984, despite Mac's numerically better percentage. On Connors in 1974, i think he stepped out out of at least two, if not more tournaments, and so he avoided more losses. I think, 100 wins and more in a year were pretty seldom in open era. Regarding only tournaments (not exos and invitationals) I only have Laver in 1969, Vilas in 1977, and Lendl in 1982. That's is from top of my head, maybe there were more. Lendl's 1982 was very productive, and with -from top of my head - 106-7 had a great difference, but he lost the big ones, he played.

To be fair to Mac he was also active in doubles, unlike Fed in '06, so that kinda balances it out. If pushed I'd place '84 Mac second only to Laver's unbeatable season, just above '06 Fed, but to me this is little more than hairsplitting. After all we're talking less than a 2% difference here.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The early days of men's tennis are still somewhat foggy to me as I'm still reading so I may not be great in this discussion but a few others that popped up...these are mostly amateur years before they turned pro.

Crawford in 1933
Perry in 1934
Vines 1932 & 1935
Hoad in 1956
As good as Hoad's year was in 1956, I think that the best year of his career, indeed, the best year of any player in history, was in 1959, when he compiled a hth edge over Gonzales on the four-man tour, and won the world pro tournament series, against an unparalleled field of opponents.
Rosewall and Laver faced lesser opposition in their greatest years.

Hoad played upwards of 150 matches in 1959, much more than later champions. His winning percentage on the two championship tours that year was exactly 70%, against great opposition.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
As good as Hoad's year was in 1956, I think that the best year of his career, indeed, the best year of any player in history, was in 1959, when he compiled a hth edge over Gonzales on the four-man tour, and won the world pro tournament series, against an unparalleled field of opponents.
Rosewall and Laver faced lesser opposition in their greatest years.

Hoad played upwards of 150 matches in 1959, much more than later champions. His winning percentage on the two championship tours that year was exactly 70%, against great opposition.
Hoad was no doubt a far better player in 1959 than in 1956.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Hoad was no doubt a far better player in 1959 than in 1956.
And there was much more pro play in 1959 than perhaps any other season in the old two-tier tennis world. All of top twelve pros were involved at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
How about the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

"In 1967, he won the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the United States Pro titles for what was considered the pro Grand Slam"

It is the modern habit of calling each of the tournaments that make up the Grand Slam ie Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open as 'Slams' that is wrong. What Grand Slam means is - you have the whole set. In 1967 Laver won all of the pro. Majors. - hence he had the whole set ie the Pro Grand Slam. I agree with you that the individual times shouldn't be called Pro Slams (and if you study my thread I never said that) rather they should be called Pro Majors. But if someone wins the whole set (like Rosewall in 1963 and Laver in 1967), then it is entirely legitimate to call the winning of the whole set - the Pro Grand Slam.
Did Laver win a clay court event in 1967?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
He won the most important pro clay event that year at Oklahoma over Rosewall.
That hardly looks like anyone's idea of a major, really a backwater event, with some humour billed as "The World Professional Championships" (shades of Cleveland in the fifties), and set in Oklahoma City, where the pros sometimes played on city streets to drum up business.

The final, Laver over Rosewall 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, yup, that's right folks, a best-of-three final, minor stuff.

This was no bigger than the adjacent events that year at St. Louis, Berkeley California, Cincinnati.

In April, 1967, there was something called "The Paris Pro Championships" where Laver beat Rosewall in the final 6-0, 10-8, 10-8. Could that have been on clay? The Coubertin event was later in October, also won by Laver.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
That hardly looks like anyone's idea of a major, really a backwater event, with some humour billed as "The World Professional Championships" (shades of Cleveland in the fifties), and set in Oklahoma City, where the pros sometimes played on city streets to drum up business.

The final, Laver over Rosewall 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, yup, that's right folks, a best-of-three final, minor stuff.

This was no bigger than the adjacent events that year at St. Louis, Berkeley California, Cincinnati.

In April, 1967, there was something called "The Paris Pro Championships" where Laver beat Rosewall in the final 6-0, 10-8, 10-8. Could that have been on clay? The Coubertin event was later in October, also won by Laver.
I would guess the Paris Pro Championship was played indoors on wood. It was played at Stade Coubertin.

The Oklahoma event had a good field in Laver, Rosewall, Segura, Anderson, Raltson, Buchholz, Stolle, Olmedo, MacKay and Gimeno.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
So, there were TWO Coubertin events in 1967? Both won by Laver.
The Paris Pro champs in April, the French Pro Champs in Oct. both five-set affairs.

The Oklahoma event was only a best-of-three set tournament.

The problem for this year is the lack of a great clay event. That gives 1969 the edge for Laver.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
So, there were TWO Coubertin events in 1967? Both won by Laver.
The Paris Pro champs in April, the French Pro Champs in Oct. both five-set affairs.

The Oklahoma event was only a best-of-three set tournament.

The problem for this year is the lack of a great clay event. That gives 1969 the edge for Laver.
However, I would acknowledge that Laver's best ever showing was probably the Wimbledon Pro final against Rosewall, where Rosewall reportedly played brilliantly against an awesome Laver,
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
However, I would acknowledge that Laver's best ever showing was probably the Wimbledon Pro final against Rosewall, where Rosewall reportedly played brilliantly against an awesome Laver,
Laver, who is generally very modest once said that if he (Laver) played his best against Rosewall that he would win. Rosewall just didn't have the firepower that Laver, Hoad or Gonzalez had.
 
Top