Rate the first tier all time greats in terms of their competition

BTURNER

Legend
The 'competition' in an era is too narrowly defined by looking for some obvious patterns. Its nature changes, and the shape it takes changes, but it is inherently the same. Sometimes it comes in the form of two or three players driving each other and leaving a pack behind while other eras bring greater depth, but fewer GOAT contenders rising to the surface often enough to get the requisite quota of major titles. Sometimes there is greatest depth on one surface and more dominance by a royal few in another. There are brief spasms of time, where one glorious star soars over the horizon but rather than that being evidence of a 'weak' era, even that should be seen as illustrative of a predatory greatness early on. They were the baby bird that shoved their siblings out of the nest, or starved them into chronic weakness and a runted state. It only lasts one spring/summer until there are new offspring in the nest, next year growing strong.

Normally this whole argument on strong/v weak eras, loses ground because it lacks imagination and a panoramic view of what competition must look like.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The 'competition' in an era is too narrowly defined by looking for some obvious patterns. Its nature changes, and the shape it takes changes, but it is inherently the same. Sometimes it comes in the form of two or three players driving each other and leaving a pack behind while other eras bring greater depth, but fewer GOAT contenders rising to the surface often enough to get the requisite quota of major titles. Sometimes there is greatest depth on one surface and more dominance by a royal few in another. There are brief spasms of time, where one glorious star soars over the horizon but rather than that being evidence of a 'weak' era, even that should be seen as illustrative of a predatory greatness early on. They were the baby bird that shoved their siblings out of the nest, or starved them into chronic weakness and a runted state. It only lasts one spring/summer until there are new offspring in the nest, next year growing strong.

Normally this whole argument on strong/v weak eras, loses ground because it lacks imagination and a panoramic view of what competition must look like.

I think you're right although to be fair people do discuss this all the time in all sports and frankly about life in general.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer Sampras and nadal and djoker are 4 best of all time

They have probably played in absolute terms the highest level of tennis ever - though Sampras is debatable after 20 years.

The thing is going by this Goffin is greater than Borg.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Clearly the 80s had the best depth ,I think

Connors
Mac
Lendl
Edberg
Becker
Wilander

Scary talent

Early 90s you got the Agassi and samp

Always felt Sampras had the weakest competition in his era; '75 thru '85 or so, was incredibly competitive....for a time, you had Borg, Connors, Mac, Vilas, Lendl and Gueralitis in the mix, along w/dangerous guys like Tanner and Kriek. Very tough draws to get through. Even Borg on clay, was not a gimmee....he lost to Jimmy at 2 of the 3 USO's on clay....so no easy sledding for anyone.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Always felt Sampras had the weakest competition in his era; '75 thru '85 or so, was incredibly competitive....for a time, you had Borg, Connors, Mac, Vilas, Lendl and Gueralitis in the mix, along w/dangerous guys like Tanner and Kriek. Very tough draws to get through. Even Borg on clay, was not a gimmee....he lost to Jimmy at 2 of the 3 USO's on clay....so no easy sledding for anyone.

He had Agassi , courier , rafter , Becker and Chang
Sampras would have crushed those guys
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Of the current crop only Federer has a claim to be in the Big Four's range, at least regarding achievements. Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver did much more than Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic!

Nadal s 10 French opens is more than enough
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Of the current crop only Federer has a claim to be in the Big Four's range, at least regarding achievements. Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver did much more than Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic!

Federer is clearly at least in their league.

NatF, At least Goffin's racquet is greater than Laver's racquet...

So is the distance from his toes to the top of his head :D
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Most of those pro events were small and weak fields
They only count as half slams !!!

So pancho should only get half credit for each pro
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Vines had short career
Fred perry was always behind the other 2
Kramer mostly only played private circuits
Hoad did not win a ton
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
pc1, No love left for your old darlings, Laver and Gonzalez?
Don't be petty Bobby. They were never my darlings. Your term darlings is very condescending. I would hope you would be better than that. I rank them extremely high because they deserve it but I am open to change in adding others to the top.

I really try to have a nice dialogue with you but it's not easy.

Djokovic incidentally has many years at number one, won four straight true open majors, won Year End Championships and has been virtually unbeatable for years.

Nadal is obviously a brilliant player with many majors and years at number one.

You never answered my question about how you would rank the top players today.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Vines had short career
Fred perry was always behind the other 2
Kramer mostly only played private circuits
Hoad did not win a ton
Vines did do a lot over his career in that he was number one for many years from the early 1930s to the late 1930s until Budge took over.

Kramer did defeat greats like Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Riggs easily on tour. He was number one for years.

Players like Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Riggs, Bromwich among others rank Kramer as the best they have seen. Gonzalez ranks Kramer second to Hoad. Vines ranks Kramer second after Budge after WWII. They are many others who rank Kramer at the top.

I spoke with Vic Braden a few years ago and he still ranked Kramer the best ever.
 
Last edited:

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
I'm a leftist but I do believe in the virtue of competition. Open competition push all players to improve. Boundaries to competition allow players to dominate without progressing. Therefore I will answer the question by looking at which historical circumstances enable competition and which one limit competition.

The 50's to 68 had the amateur/pro divide which was a clear obstacle to competition. Some very good amateur never turned pro (Emerson is the best example but not the only one). It's likely that these players who remained amateurs wouldn't have consistently beaten the top dogs Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Cie, but they could certainly have provided better opposition that the second tier pros who inhabited the early rounds of the tournaments way long after they had declined. There wasn't a fluid system to guarantee that all the players on the entry list of a tournaments were the best in the world at the moment. It was the best name in the world. If this system was still used today, Roddick and Ferrer would still be seeded in every tournament, while Murray and Berdych would be winning amateur titles left and right.
However, the economic circumstances of the pros (less money and less access to star power than during the open era) certainly pushed them to take tennis really seriously, and there was definitively a huge emulation at the top. There's no question that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were extremely dedicated and hungry.

The early Open era was meant to clear the competition obstacle by clearing the divide between pros and amateurs, and it certainly worked, as shown by Laver grand slam during the first full open year: the amateurs were discovering a whole new level, and they needed some time to adapt, and they adapted. However the turmoil of the tour, with competing organizations struggling to control the tour was detrimental to open competition. The AO was strong in the early day only because it happened that half the top players were Australian. Once they grew too old, it became a joke. The FO likewise was often depleted, there was the Wimbledon stike, etc.
This was the right circumstances for a huge Borg-Connors and later McEnroe domination in the second part of the 70's. These three personnalities made also sure that they would push themselves a lot.

Enter the 80's. Better structure of the tour enabled better competiting conditions, with most of the turmoils of the 70's behind. The playing conditions allowed most players to compete on all surfaces with very different play styles. Wilander won on the AO grass or at the USO, Noah at the FO, Lendl in Wimbledon finals. The only blemish of the 80's comes from Borg early retirement and McEnroe lack of drive, which opened spaces nicely for new players (Becker won Wimbledon the first weak McEnroe years, without having to go through him, likewise for Wilander at the FO with Borg).

The 90's started on this great competition conditions, but rackets changes led to more specialization. From the mid 90's on, baseliners struggled mightily not only at Wimbledon, but also at the USO and on many faster indoor courts. Serve and volleyers were protected from them on the faster surfaces and were completely unable to apply their aggressive game to clay, which was dominated by the prudent defenders. There was little overlap of competition between the fast tour and the slow tour, with many slow courters plainly skipping Wimbledon, many serve and volleyers not willing to commit to clay. It wasn't worth for them to change their game to succeed here. Also somehow players were decimated by injuries. Maybe because the game shifted from the agility based skills from the McEnroe, Mecir and Edberg to the physical power game of Becker and co.

The situation roughly went on until the mid 00's and the homogenization of surfaces, allowing once again every players to compete everywhere. The injury decimation also slowed down, maybe as players improved their professionalism. From the on it was the most open competition conditions, and so Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray pushed themselves higher and higher. With the sad effect of preventing any new generation to gather confidence and challenge them.

So to rank eras by competition strength, from weakest to strongest:

Weakest: 95-2004: Polarized competition created de facto separated tours protected from each other. Racket and surfaces changes led to decimation of injuries which cut rising players in their progress.
Weaker: 69-74: Transitional period dominated by the old pros despite their decline. Turmoil of the tour prevented open competition, with most draws missing many top players.
Average: 50-68; 2013-today: Super top heavy but definitive lack of depth, from the pro/amateur divide before the open era and from the asphixia of the new generation coupled with the decline of the second tier challengers.
Stronger: 75-94: Progressive improvement in the tour organization led to better competition. Only blemish of this period is maybe lack of professionalism of many of the top players. Probably being twenty something in the 70's and a star wasn't the best combination to push young men to dedicate themselves fully to tennis. Borg, Courier, Becker, McEnroe, Wilander, Agassi are all time great who certainly could have achieved more.
Strongest: 2005-2012: Further structuring of the tour led to even more competition, as did homogenization of surfaces which allowed every one to compete everywhere, without having to go too much out of their usual style. Drive and professionalism of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray push them again and again to improve or reinvent themselves.

Top players who had it the hardest are Rosewall, Connors and Federer, simply because of their longevity. When you are playing at a slam winning level for 15+ years, you are bound to have easy years, but you are also bound to be prevented titles by multiple generations of all time greats.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Tilden played in a weak era and Rosewall was always in the shadow of Gonzalez or laver

dgold, Tilden's era was stronger than you and others think: Johnston, Richards, Patterson, Borotra, Cochet, Lacoste, K. Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Vines, Perry, Budge...

Wrong also your second claim: Rosewall was not always in the shadow of Gonzalez and Laver. He was 8:4 against Pancho in 1959 and 5:4 against Pancho in 1961. In 1961 he was at least as successful as Gonzalez.

Rosewall dominated Laver totally in 1963, was equal with Rod in 1964 (but was still the acknowledged world champion that year!), was almost equal with Rod in 1965 and 1966, was at least equal with Rod in 1970 and better than Laver from 1971 to 1974, equal in 1975, and better in 1976, 1977 and 1978. Rosewall lead Laver in their biggest encounters: 10:7 (or 10:9 if we add Wimbledon 1967 and TCC 1971).
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Most of those pro events were small and weak fields
They only count as half slams !!!

So pancho should only get half credit for each pro

dgold, Again wrong: Most pro events had strong fields, especially the pro majors. You cannot determine how many percentages a pro major should get (does an amateur major count only as a quarter GS tournament?)
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Vines had short career
Fred perry was always behind the other 2
Kramer mostly only played private circuits
Hoad did not win a ton

dgold, I only can wonder about your claims. Vines had a rather long career as top player (1931 to 1939). Perry was arguable a Co.- No.1 with Vines in several years and clearly the No.1 in 1941.

Kramer played the big official world series.

Hoad did win a good amount of big titles and matches (Davis Cup, Kramer Cup, 4 Grand Slam tournaments, 1 pro major, 1 pro tour...
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Vines did do a lot over his career in that he was number one for many years from the early 1930s to the late 1930s until Budge took over.

Kramer did defeat greats like Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Riggs easily on tour. He was number one for years.

Players like Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Riggs, Bromwich among others rank Kramer as the best they have seen. Gonzalez ranks Kramer second to Hoad. Vines ranks Kramer second after Budge after WWII. They are many others who rank Kramer at the top.

I spoke with Vic Braden a few years ago and he still ranked Kramer the best ever.

Are u saying vines was best player from early to late 30s ???
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
dgold, Tilden's era was stronger than you and others think: Johnston, Richards, Patterson, Borotra, Cochet, Lacoste, K. Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Vines, Perry, Budge...

Wrong also your second claim: Rosewall was not always in the shadow of Gonzalez and Laver. He was 8:4 against Pancho in 1959 and 5:4 against Pancho in 1961. In 1961 he was at least as successful as Gonzalez.

Rosewall dominated Laver totally in 1963, was equal with Rod in 1964 (but was still the acknowledged world champion that year!), was almost equal with Rod in 1965 and 1966, was at least equal with Rod in 1970 and better than Laver from 1971 to 1974, equal in 1975, and better in 1976, 1977 and 1978. Rosewall lead Laver in their biggest encounters: 10:7 (or 10:9 if we add Wimbledon 1967 and TCC 1971).

An older pancho and younger laver
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
dgold, Laver won three Grand Slams, 11 GS tournaments, at least 202 tournaments and was No.1 for 7 straight years. Sampras can match him?

pc1, Here my current top ten:

1 Rosewall and Laver
3 Gonzalez,
4 Tilden,
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras and Nadal
9 Djokovic
10 Budge and Kramer

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic could yet improve.

Maybe "darling" is not the appropriate word but I would not be so petty to be annoyed if somebody would say that Rosewall is my "darling" (in a Platonic sense of course).

Okay, Laver and Gonzalez were -together with a certain K.R.R.- your favourite players, and this for many, many years (till I claimed that Roche was stronger than Newcombe before he became severely injured). We had a bad quarrel in early 2014 and since then you use to attack not only me (maybe understandably) but also belittle Rosewall, the former "super great GOAT candidate"...

I just wonder why you now discover your "love" for the current stars. I remember that you once belittled Federer when Roger was at his peak and had already won very much.

I doubt that you try to have a nice dialogue with me. Such a nice dialogue is only possible if you would avoid to make precise claims and after my contradiction and disproof suddenly say that "it was just a joke, Bobby" and that there are more important things in the world. The latter "argument" would mean that we all can stop posting in this or similary forums and can stop discussing seriously and contradicting about tennis.

If you wonder about my harsh words, I must say that I will never forget that you stopped our 12 years good friendship with reason (my bad e-mails came only afterwards).
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Are u saying vines was best player from early to late 30s ???
Very possibly. I think one year he won about 13 or 14 straight tournaments. Maybe there was a loss there. He won on clay, grass and indoors. He beat Perry, Tilden, Nusslein.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Very possibly. I think one year he won about 13 or 14 straight tournaments. Maybe there was a loss there. He won on clay, grass and indoors. He beat Perry, Tilden, Nusslein.

I put vines at 6 on my power pre open greats list
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
dgold, Laver won three Grand Slams, 11 GS tournaments, at least 202 tournaments and was No.1 for 7 straight years. Sampras can match him?

A couple of comments.

- Laver was number one for at best 6 straight years IMO, 1965-1970 - 5 of those are clear, the last e.g. 1970 is not. I guess you're including 1964 still. I think it's time to give that solely to Rosewall. If I remember correctly you do rightly lean towards Rosewall.

- I have some qualms with the Pro slam being called a Grand Slam but ignoring that I definitely don't think the amateur GS can be counted above Sampras - who never had the opportunity to play against amateurs. Of course that counts for the GS events too.

- I also think the 202 tournaments is overstated compared to modern players. Laver played many more in his career (Sampras only played 266 in his career), many of them had much smaller draws and there were separate tours which segregated top competition. Having said that Sampras's tournament total is rather low compared to the guys that came after him - even compared to Agassi who doesn't measure up in any other area but has only a few less total tournaments won.

I do rank Laver clearly above Sampras, but...

- Sampras was #1 for 6 straight years - arguably more than Laver (despite 1998 being the weakest #1 year ever IMO)
- Sampras won 14 Open GS's + 5x Year Ending Champions and 2x Grand Slam Cups which were really big events in his day. So his record in the biggest events is very good.

Also I thought you had moved Federer a head of Borg since 2014, now you still have them equals?
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Hypothetically what do people think is an example of a strong era?

I was thinking about this and I actually think dominance is a key factor. In my mind if every player is playing at their best that is a strong era. But if everyone is playing at their best all the time then in theory the best player will win every tournament and the second best player will be runner up in every tournament and so on.

In reality players do not play at their best all the time, so if someone wins everything it would suggest the rest of the field are not good enough to take advantage when the top player is not at their best e.g Lenglen.

So I think a strong era should contain a "dominant" player who doesn't win everything, a second player who takes advantage when the top player is not quite at their best and who is runner up most of the time. Third and fourth players who frequently make the semi's and on the odd occasion break through the top two. Players ranked five to eight...etc...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hypothetically what do people think is an example of a strong era?

I was thinking about this and I actually think dominance is a key factor. In my mind if every player is playing at their best that is a strong era. But if everyone is playing at their best all the time then in theory the best player will win every tournament and the second best player will be runner up in every tournament and so on.

In reality players do not play at their best all the time, so if someone wins everything it would suggest the rest of the field are not good enough to take advantage when the top player is not at their best e.g Lenglen.

So I think a strong era should contain a "dominant" player who doesn't win everything, a second player who takes advantage when the top player is not quite at their best and who is runner up most of the time. Third and fourth players who frequently make the semi's and on the odd occasion break through the top two. Players ranked five to eight...etc...

That's one example. Another might be a strong group of players capable of reaching a top level on specific or a variety of surfaces - they may do this all at once or a few times a year each. I suppose that's similar to having specialists.

Your example could just be consistency. A result of lacking depth in the lower ranks.

Really there's no solid definition imo. I think draws and years need to be analysed individually. Weak years can produce weak draws and vice versa.
 

krosero

Legend
Very possibly. I think one year he won about 13 or 14 straight tournaments. Maybe there was a loss there.
No this is a myth, and I'm surprised you've forgotten it: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...erve-and-volleyers.504428/page-2#post-9291647

His longest winning streak in '31 was 5 straight titles.

I've found the claim that he won 13/14 straight titles in '31 published in the press as early as '39, and there had been other similar claims. For example the Los Angeles Times wrote in December '37 that in 1932 Vines "played in every major American and English tournament without suffering a singles defeat that year, his only setback being in one singles match of the Davis Cup challenge round against France." That statement at best is confusing, if it was meant to be restricted to Wimbledon and the US Nationals; but by my count he had a total of 7 tournament defeats that year.

The full '31 record is here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/ellsworth-vines-1931-season.550400/
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
No this is a myth, and I'm surprised you've forgotten it: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...erve-and-volleyers.504428/page-2#post-9291647

His longest winning streak in '31 was 5 straight titles.

I've found the claim that he won 13/14 straight titles in '31 published in the press as early as '39, and there had been other similar claims. For example the Los Angeles Times wrote in December '37 that in 1932 Vines "played in every major American and English tournament without suffering a singles defeat that year, his only setback being in one singles match of the Davis Cup challenge round against France." That statement at best is confusing, if it was meant to be restricted to Wimbledon and the US Nationals; but by my count he had a total of 7 tournament defeats that year.

The full '31 record is here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/ellsworth-vines-1931-season.550400/
That's why I mentioned he had loss or so but I did think he lost less than 7 matches. What was the amount of losses he had during that period of 13 or 14 tournaments anyway?

I remember we discussed that a few years ago.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
A couple of comments.

- Laver was number one for at best 6 straight years IMO, 1965-1970 - 5 of those are clear, the last e.g. 1970 is not. I guess you're including 1964 still. I think it's time to give that solely to Rosewall. If I remember correctly you do rightly lean towards Rosewall.

- I have some qualms with the Pro slam being called a Grand Slam but ignoring that I definitely don't think the amateur GS can be counted above Sampras - who never had the opportunity to play against amateurs. Of course that counts for the GS events too.

- I also think the 202 tournaments is overstated compared to modern players. Laver played many more in his career (Sampras only played 266 in his career), many of them had much smaller draws and there were separate tours which segregated top competition. Having said that Sampras's tournament total is rather low compared to the guys that came after him - even compared to Agassi who doesn't measure up in any other area but has only a few less total tournaments won.

I do rank Laver clearly above Sampras, but...

- Sampras was #1 for 6 straight years - arguably more than Laver (despite 1998 being the weakest #1 year ever IMO)
- Sampras won 14 Open GS's + 5x Year Ending Champions and 2x Grand Slam Cups which were really big events in his day. So his record in the biggest events is very good.

Also I thought you had moved Federer a head of Borg since 2014, now you still have them equals?

NatF, Yes I should rank Federer above Borg. Sorry, my fault.

I give Sampras only 5 clear No.1 years. I still give Laver the tied No.1 place for 1964. At that time Rosewall was clearly the acknowledged world champion (sorry, Limpin) but I find it fair to give also Laver the No.1 spot because he did so much in 1964. I cannot forget totally the modern lense.

I still say that Rod has won three Grand Slams even though they have different weight. You will not find a book where Laver's amateur GS is not mentioned as a true GS. In any case, the 1967 GS has more weight than the 1962 one.

It's really not Laver's fault that Sampras has played less tournaments than him. I concede that Laver played many lesser tourneys both as an amateur and as a pro.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, Yes I should rank Federer above Borg. Sorry, my fault.

I give Sampras only 5 clear No.1 years. I still give Laver the tied No.1 place for 1964. At that time Rosewall was clearly the acknowledged world champion (sorry, Limpin) but I find it fair to give also Laver the No.1 spot because he did so much in 1964. I cannot forget totally the modern lense.

I still say that Rod has won three Grand Slams even though they have different weight. You will not find a book where Laver's amateur GS is not mentioned as a true GS. In any case, the 1967 GS has more weight than the 1962 one.

It's really not Laver's fault that Sampras has played less tournaments than him. I concede that Laver played many lesser tourneys both as an amateur and as a pro.

No apology necessary.

I assume 1998 is the one you don't give to Sampras clearly? IMO he was the best player that year but results of that level would not have gotten him to #1 in any other year. So perhaps it's not fair to count that as plus in comparison to Laver.

Agree to disagree on 1964, I believe it's fair to give Rosewall sole #1 spot there.

What books say doesn't necessarily matter so much to me (it would depend on the author), simply stating that he won the Grand Slam is of course a fact, however the value we ascribe to it is subjective and IMO when looking at Laver's excellent legacy the 1962 Grand Slam doesn't rank highly for me.

It's of course not Laver's fault than Sampras played less tournaments - just as it's not Sampras's fault he couldn't play as many as Laver. In a more standardised tour it's harder to play those lesser events. Not to mention when events generally have more rounds fitting in so many is difficult. A further point is that prize money necessitated much more play in the Pro's days. Basically my point is that comparing their tournaments 1 vs 1 isn't an accurate representation of their careers. It's like saying Laver only won 11 majors, it doesn't take into account the difference between era's.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No apology necessary.

I assume 1998 is the one you don't give to Sampras clearly? IMO he was the best player that year but results of that level would not have gotten him to #1 in any other year. So perhaps it's not fair to count that as plus in comparison to Laver.

Agree to disagree on 1964, I believe it's fair to give Rosewall sole #1 spot there.

What books say doesn't necessarily matter so much to me (it would depend on the author), simply stating that he won the Grand Slam is of course a fact, however the value we ascribe to it is subjective and IMO when looking at Laver's excellent legacy the 1962 Grand Slam doesn't rank highly for me.

It's of course not Laver's fault than Sampras played less tournaments - just as it's not Sampras's fault he couldn't play as many as Laver. In a more standardised tour it's harder to play those lesser events. Not to mention when events generally have more rounds fitting in so many is difficult. A further point is that prize money necessitated much more play in the Pro's days. Basically my point is that comparing their tournaments 1 vs 1 isn't an accurate representation of their careers. It's like saying Laver only won 11 majors, it doesn't take into account the difference between era's.

NatF, I have corrected my top ten list.

We are not far from each other regarding Laver vs. Sampras. I agree with several of your points.

I only will never understand you and many other posters who deny to give tied ranking places (not only regarding No.1, by the way). You once wrote that you would give either Laver or Rosewall the No.1 place for 1964 rather than a tied place for both of them. I don't find it logicalyl and mathematically correct to either decide for A or for C but not for B which is half-way between A and C. Laver and Rosewall were so near to each other in 1964 that I don't find a sole Laver or sole Rosewall decision fair. In those times before standardized tours it's very difficult to decide for one side in many years. F.e. who was betetr in 1961- Gonzalez or Rosewall? Even after researching tennis history for decades I just cannot decide because both players have assets for No.1 place. These assets are different: Gonzalez has his winning tour (without Rosewall) and his more tournament wins; Rosewall has his two big major wins (Pancho participating) and the slight hth edge (5:4, as far as we know at the moment).
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF, I have corrected my top ten list.

We are not far from each other regarding Laver vs. Sampras. I agree with several of your points.

I only will never understand you and many other posters who deny to give tied ranking places (not only regarding No.1, by the way). You once wrote that you would give either Laver or Rosewall the No.1 place for 1964 rather than a tied place for both of them. I don't find it logicalyl and mathematically correct to either decide for A or for C but not for B which is half-way between A and C. Laver and Rosewall were so near to each other in 1964 that I don't find a sole Laver or sole Rosewall decision fair. In those times before standardized tours it's very difficult to decide for one side in many years. F.e. who was betetr in 1961- Gonzalez or Rosewall? Even after researching tennis history for decades I just cannot decide because both players have assets for No.1 place. These assets are different: Gonzalez has his winning tour (without Rosewall) and his more tournament wins; Rosewall has his two big major wins (Pancho participating) and the slight hth edge (5:4, as far as we know at the moment).

I'm less sure of 1961 than I am of 1964 if that makes you feel better ;)

I think even if there's a slim margin that generally you can separate players records, even if it's just on a personal and subjective level.
 
Top