Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

[NatF]

Obviously Djokovic had proven himself better than Pete on clay, but not to the extent that it would have mattered in GOAT debates (IMHO).

I think the Sampras fanboy in you is rearing it's head Djokovic had demonstrated that he was a much better clay court player long before he won the FO, if versatility is one of your criterion (and it should be let's be frank) then Djokovic must surely get an edge there as he's shown himself capable of winning big under all conditions.

Of course I'm getting away from the primary discussion here, but your logic is clearly flawed on this point.

 

[BobbyOne]

Neither man won a clay major. No discernible difference in their clay prowess to me.

LOL!!

 

[Phoenix1983]

I think the Sampras fanboy in you is rearing it's head Djokovic had demonstrated that he was a much better clay court player long before he won the FO, if versatility is one of your criterion (and it should be let's be frank) then Djokovic must surely get an edge there as he's shown himself capable of winning big under all conditions.

Of course I'm getting away from the primary discussion here, but your logic is clearly flawed on this point.

I do give Djokovic the edge over Sampras in terms of versatility, when did I say otherwise?

I just said that, if he hadn't have won the FO, his being better than Pete on clay wouldn't have mattered that much in GOAT debates. Ditto Pancho (albeit I recognise the difficulties in comparing his era to Sampras's).

 

[Phoenix1983]

LOL!!

What's so funny? Gonzales was the pre-Open Era version of Sampras, which is a huge compliment. But he wasn't some kind of god like you and Carlo believe.

 

[Limpinhitter]

You are confusing a “GOAT contender list” with a “GOAT list”.

Sampras can’t be anymore in a “GOAT contender list” because it is sure now that he is not the GOAT : it is clear that at least Federer is better than Sampras. Federer’s records are better in almost every department. In each major (AO, FO, BO, USO) Federer has a superior record, even in the British Open where Federer has 7 wins, 3 finals, 1 semifinal and 3 quarterfinals, whereas Sampras has “only” 7 wins, 1 semi and 1 quarterfinal.

And the great difference between Federer and Sampras is their record in the FO : 1 win, 4 finals, 2 semis and 4 quarters for the Swiss against only 1 semi and 3 quarters for the American. In the ATP world tour finals, Federer’s record is also better and in “Super 9 - Masters 9 - Masters 1000” as well. Among great events, perhaps only in the Davis Cup, Sampras had a possibly better record but he was helped by his teammates.

There are 3 points, in my mind, where Sampras was better than Federer :

a) I think that peak Sampras had a better clutch-ability in a decisive fifth set of an important match than peak Federer

(in their single official encounter neither was at his ownpeak, Pete was declining and Roger was on the rise)

and in a great major final on a fast court at 5-all in the fifth I would bet on Pete :

for instance Federer’s loss in the 2009 AO final where he was mentally tired and more or less gave up in the fifth and decisive set. The 2009 USO final is also suspect though less because it seems that Federer’s spinal disc herniation revealed in this match. However I am not sure that this physical drawback was the only reason of his letdown in the fifth set.

b) is a little a consequence of a) :

I think that Sampras had possibly better weapons than Federer on fast surfaces : a greater serve and possibly a better volley though Pete’s (and Roger’s) isn’t as good as McEnroe’s or Edberg’s.

c) Sampras was the world number one for very probably six years (1993 to 1998) while Federer was #1 for “only” 5 years (2004 to 2007 and 2009).

I am talking here about the only rankings which really count, those of a whole calendar year and not the so-called rankings list published each week by the ATP. When I use “probably” for Sampras it concerns the year 1998 when Tennis magazine (U.S.) ranked Rafter first. I haven’t precisely studied this year so I can’t be adamant that Pete deserved the 1st place without any doubt but it is very likely that I agree the ATP computer of that year.

However except these 3 points where Pete has a very slightly edge over Roger, the Swiss is superior to the American in every other department and so

Federer is surely a greater player than Sampras.

That Sampras is one of the greatest ever is undeniable and so he is surely very well placed in any GOAT list

but it is also certain that Pete is not the very greatest one so I repeat he can’t be a GOAT contender given that at least one player (Federer) is surely ahead of him.

Sampras is perhaps better than most of the other players of my GOAT contenders list (H. L. Doherty, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg) but there is one sure thing : Pete is not the GOAT. I think that either H. L. Doherty or Tilden or Gonzales or Rosewall or Laver or even Borg isn’t yet definitely out of the race for first place though most of them are possibly less good than Sampras : there isn’t any contradiction in that claim.

Although I agree with some of your analysis, I don't agree with your implied premise or your conclusion. As a preliminary matter, however, I want to point out that, in my view, there is no such thing as a GOAT list. By definition, "the GOAT" is the one person who is the greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others. By definition there can be no GOAT list.

On the other hand, a GOAT contender, or candidate, is one of whom a reasonable argument can be made is the single greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others. A GOAT contender or candidate list can only exist when there is a reasonable basis for uncertainty about the one person who is the greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others. Further, the question of who the GOAT is, or whether there is uncertainty about whom the GOAT is, depends on the criteria used to determine the GOAT. This leads to the more substantive parts of your post.

Your conclusion, anti, is that:

. . . it is clear that at least Federer is better than Sampras. [Really?]. Federer’s records are better in almost every department. In each major (AO, FO, BO, USO) Federer has a superior record, even in the British Open where Federer has 7 wins, 3 finals, 1 semifinal and 3 quarterfinals, whereas Sampras has “only” 7 wins, 1 semi and 1 quarterfinal.​

And the great difference between Federer and Sampras is their record in the FO : 1 win, 4 finals, 2 semis and 4 quarters for the Swiss against only 1 semi and 3 quarters for the American. In the ATP world tour finals, Federer’s record is also better and in “Super 9 - Masters 9 - Masters 1000” as well. Among great events, perhaps only in the Davis Cup, Sampras had a possibly better record but he was helped by his teammates.​

You do engage in some minor analysis of Sampras' and Federer's relative strengths and weaknesses, but then abruptly abandon that analysis by returning to analysis of relative records repeating your conclusion anti that: "Federer is surely a greater player than Sampras."

I disagree with your implied premise (your criteria for determining the greatest player), and with your conclusion. In my view, the better measure of the greatness of a tennis player is his peak level of play if it was sustained for a reasonable period of time. In other words, if a particular player played at the highest level of tennis ever played, and sustained it for a reasonable time, then he/she would be "the GOAT." I would also proffer that other important figures have used similar criteria. For example, Kramer thought Budge was the GOAT. Segura apparently thinks that Gonzalez was the GOAT. Laver and Rosewall have expressed their opinions that Hoad was at least the pre-open era GOAT. McEnroe was calling Federer "maybe the greatest of all time," (or words to that effect), as far back as 2004. Certainly none of them had the greatest records at the time these opinions were made.

Let's assume, arguendo, that Sampras won only 3 Wimbledon, 3 U.S. Open and 3 Australian Open titles over 3 consecutive years. Let's further assume that in those 9 events, Sampras was so dominant, and his level of play so high, that he never lost a single set nor had to play a single tie breaker, and that he was similarly dominant on the remainder of the tour and was ranked #1 for every week during that 3 year period, and then retired. How would that compare to Federer's current career record. In my view, it would clearly fall short in virtually every respect. Yet, at the same time, in my view, it would probably make Sampras the GOAT, the single greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others, including Federer because it could reasonably be argued (it would be virtually indisputable), that he played at the highest level of tennis ever played and sustained it for a reasonable period of time.

That was an extreme hypothetical. But, in my view, Sampras' actual peak level of play was higher than that Federer's at least at Wimbledon, the most important, most prestigious, event in the game during both of their careers, and possibly also at the U.S. Open, the second most important, most prestigious event in the game during both of their careers. Further, in my view, Sampras' peak level of play on other faster surfaces such as indoor carpet was higher than peak Federer could have played on those surfaces, for, inter alia, the reasons you state in your post, in addition to which I consider Sampras to have been the stronger, faster, more explosive athlete between the two.

It is not disputed that Federer has an overall better record than Sampras, in part because his prime has lasted much longer than Sampras'. It is also not disputed that Federer played at a higher level than Sampras on clay and today's slower hyper aggregated hardcourts, at least in part because Sampras made a conscious decision to develop his game to succeed at Wimbledon. But, that alone is not enough to clearly separate Federer from Sampras as a GOAT candidate. In my view, their peak level's of play were fairly evenly split between the faster courts that Sampras dominated in his prime, and the slower courts that Federer dominated in his prime. For that reason, I do have a GOAT candidate list of those players, any one of whom, in my view, arguably, played the highest level of tennis ever played, including: Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg and Gonzalez, in no particular order.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Your wrong argument here just shows how incompetent, ignorant, and very inaccurate about tennis history you are. . . .

Your condescension and repeated use of pejoratives (I count 11 uses of the word "stupid," on this page alone), do not make compelling argument. To the contrary, it diminishes the force of your argument and your credibility.

 

[abmk]

Neither man won a clay major. No discernible difference in their clay prowess to me.

ok, going by that "logic", there is no discernible difference b/w Muster and Roddick on grass, right ?

 

[Limpinhitter]

On a totally subjective level I am so thoroughly impressed by how Federer has redefined himself and the improvements he's made to his game.

Me too!

 

[Limpinhitter]

Since when? In the last year? Or over his career?

Since engaging Edberg and Ljubicic.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Neither man won a clay major. No discernible difference in their clay prowess to me.

FYI, Gonzalez played in the Big Game era where most players served and volleyed/chipped and charged on all surfaces including clay. Sampras played in the era of clay court specialists. You can't fairly determine the better clay court player between the two of them only by looking at their clay court records.

 

[BobbyOne]

Neither man won a clay major. No discernible difference in their clay prowess to me.

Phoenix1983, I admire you that you have so little knowledge about the older tennis history (from S. Gore till about Newcombe) but that you are so self-confident in making courageous (but wrong) claims...

 

[BobbyOne]

What's so funny? Gonzales was the pre-Open Era version of Sampras, which is a huge compliment. But he wasn't some kind of god like you and Carlo believe.

Phoenix1983, YOU are so funny!! Making Gonzalez an older version of Sampras regarding clay is absurd. I don't think that Pancho is kind of god-like, especially on clay. But he is about 100% better on clay than Sampras. By the way, as far as I know you rank Gonzalez about equal as I rank him...

As a serious and non-hostile thought I would like to say that I always think (almost) every person can improve, can become open-minded to learn from others, can become more conciliatory, and so on. But sometimes I fear that posters like you (see your scandalous reaction to Carlo's 194 serious arguments, or have there been 327? I have not counted exactly), Limpinhitter and Dan Lobb will never be ready to learn and to change their wrong positions. This fact makes me really sad as it causes rather many quarrels, bad actions and reactions!

 

[BobbyOne]

Although I agree with some of your analysis, I don't agree with your implied premise or your conclusion. As a preliminary matter, however, I want to point out that, in my view, there is no such thing as a GOAT list. By definition, "the GOAT" is the one person who is the greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others. By definition there can be no GOAT list.

On the other hand, a GOAT contender, or candidate, is one of whom a reasonable argument can be made is the single greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others. A GOAT contender or candidate list can only exist when there is a reasonable basis for uncertainty about the one person who is the greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others. Further, the question of who the GOAT is, or whether there is uncertainty about whom the GOAT is, depends on the criteria used to determine the GOAT. This leads to the more substantive parts of your post.

Your conclusion, anti, is that:

. . . it is clear that at least Federer is better than Sampras. [Really?]. Federer’s records are better in almost every department. In each major (AO, FO, BO, USO) Federer has a superior record, even in the British Open where Federer has 7 wins, 3 finals, 1 semifinal and 3 quarterfinals, whereas Sampras has “only” 7 wins, 1 semi and 1 quarterfinal.​

And the great difference between Federer and Sampras is their record in the FO : 1 win, 4 finals, 2 semis and 4 quarters for the Swiss against only 1 semi and 3 quarters for the American. In the ATP world tour finals, Federer’s record is also better and in “Super 9 - Masters 9 - Masters 1000” as well. Among great events, perhaps only in the Davis Cup, Sampras had a possibly better record but he was helped by his teammates.​

You do engage in some minor analysis of Sampras' and Federer's relative strengths and weaknesses, but then abruptly abandon that analysis by returning to analysis of relative records repeating your conclusion anti that: "Federer is surely a greater player than Sampras."

I disagree with your implied premise (your criteria for determining the greatest player), and with your conclusion. In my view, the better measure of the greatness of a tennis player is his peak level of play if it was sustained for a reasonable period of time. In other words, if a particular player played at the highest level of tennis ever played, and sustained it for a reasonable time, then he/she would be "the GOAT." I would also proffer that other important figures have used similar criteria. For example, Kramer thought Budge was the GOAT. Segura apparently thinks that Gonzalez was the GOAT. Laver and Rosewall have expressed their opinions that Hoad was at least the pre-open era GOAT. McEnroe was calling Federer "maybe the greatest of all time," (or words to that effect), as far back as 2004. Certainly none of them had the greatest records at the time these opinions were made.

Let's assume, arguendo, that Sampras won only 3 Wimbledon, 3 U.S. Open and 3 Australian Open titles over 3 consecutive years. Let's further assume that in those 9 events, Sampras was so dominant, and his level of play so high, that he never lost a single set nor had to play a single tie breaker, and that he was similarly dominant on the remainder of the tour and was ranked #1 for every week during that 3 year period, and then retired. How would that compare to Federer's current career record. In my view, it would clearly fall short in virtually every respect. Yet, at the same time, in my view, it would probably make Sampras the GOAT, the single greatest player of all time, to the exclusion of all others, including Federer because it could reasonably be argued (it would be virtually indisputable), that he played at the highest level of tennis ever played and sustained it for a reasonable period of time.

That was an extreme hypothetical. But, in my view, Sampras' actual peak level of play was higher than that Federer's at least at Wimbledon, the most important, most prestigious, event in the game during both of their careers, and possibly also at the U.S. Open, the second most important, most prestigious event in the game during both of their careers. Further, in my view, Sampras' peak level of play on other faster surfaces such as indoor carpet was higher than peak Federer could have played on those surfaces, for, inter alia, the reasons you state in your post, in addition to which I consider Sampras to have been the stronger, faster, more explosive athlete between the two.

It is not disputed that Federer has an overall better record than Sampras, in part because his prime has lasted much longer than Sampras'. It is also not disputed that Federer played at a higher level than Sampras on clay and today's slower hyper aggregated hardcourts, at least in part because Sampras made a conscious decision to develop his game to succeed at Wimbledon. But, that alone is not enough to clearly separate Federer from Sampras as a GOAT candidate. In my view, their peak level's of play were fairly evenly split between the faster courts that Sampras dominated in his prime, and the slower courts that Federer dominated in his prime. For that reason, I do have a GOAT candidate list which includes players any one of whom, in my view, arguably, played the highest level of tennis ever played, which includes: Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg and Gonzalez, in no particular order.

Limpin, No male player since WWII has dominated clearly enough to make him the GOAT only for peak play.

Laver and Rosewall ranked Hoad as the strongest, not the greatest player before open era!

 

[BobbyOne]

Your condescension and repeated use of pejoratives (I count 11 uses of the word "stupid," on this page alone), do not make compelling argument. To the contrary, it diminishes the force of your argument and your credibility.

Limpin, Have not yet read all those Carlo's posts but even if he used many pejorative words for colleagues who deserve it (Phoenix!), it cannot be as much diminishing his credibility as your credibility has been diminished to a very low level by your mean lie(s) about me and your refusal to apologize for them, at least for your first about my "40 open era majors for Rosewall"...

 

[Phoenix1983]

ok, going by that "logic", there is no discernible difference b/w Muster and Roddick on grass, right ?

Oh yeah, because Muster (never won a match at Wimbledon) and Roddick (three losing finals there) are even remotely in the same ballpark on grass?

 

[Phoenix1983]

As a serious and non-hostile thought I would like to say that I always think (almost) every person can improve, can become open-minded to learn from others, can become more conciliatory, and so on. But sometimes I fear that posters like you (see your scandalous reaction to Carlo's 194 serious arguments, or have there been 327? I have not counted exactly), Limpinhitter and Dan Lobb will never be ready to learn and to change their wrong positions.

No, I'm not going to change my opinions just because people like you, Krosero or Carlo want me to.

I'm free to believe what I want, and they're not "wrong" positions just because you say so.

 

[BobbyOne]

No, I'm not going to change my opinions just because people like you, Krosero or Carlo want me to.

I'm free to believe what I want, and they're not "wrong" positions just because you say so.

Phoenix1983, Hopefully you are living in a free country and therefore you are free to believe what you want. Your problems are: Your behaviour toward serious posters like krosero and Carlo; your stubborness; your mean attitude to reveal posters' proper names; your disgusting obsession with "Rosewall's early death" and the obituaries; your refusal to consider probabilities and instead claiming the improbable (regarding Rosewall's potential Wimbledon wins)...

Your positions are not wrong because I (or we) say so. Your positions are wrong because they are wrong, f.e. Gonzalez vs. Sampras on clay.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Phoenix1983, Hopefully you are living in a free country and therefore you are free to believe what you want. Your problems are: Your behaviour toward serious posters like krosero and Carlo; your stubborness; your mean attitude to reveal posters' proper names; your disgusting obsession with "Rosewall's early death" and the obituaries; your refusal to consider probabilities and instead claiming the improbable (regarding Rosewall's potential Wimbledon wins)...

Your positions are not wrong because I (or we) say so. Your positions are wrong because they are wrong, f.e. Gonzalez vs. Sampras on clay.

Bobby, you can keep repeating this stuff to me but I'm not going to change. How many times do I have to tell you this?

I've seen no evidence that Gonzales was a league above Sampras on clay, and you stating that "your opinion is wrong" doesn't make it a scientific fact.

P.S. As I've already mentioned, Rosewall is past life expectancy for an Australian male at the age of 82, so his death wouldn't be early by any means.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, you can keep repeating this stuff to me but I'm not going to change. How many times do I have to tell you this?

I've seen no evidence that Gonzales was a league above Sampras on clay, and you stating that "your opinion is wrong" doesn't make it a scientific fact.

P.S. As I've already mentioned, Rosewall is past life expectancy for an Australian male at the age of 82, so his death wouldn't be early by any means.

Phoenix1983, I not only direct my posts about you towards you but also towards other posters in order to show your many deficits (in case some of the posters might not have realized them).

The fact that you refuse to change any of your many faults is a huge blame for you. How many times do I have to tell you this???

One even can make a scientific fact that Gonzalez was far above Sampras on clay! Or do you also deny the fact that Laver was a better claycourter than Karlovic??

You already claimed that Rosewall would die soon when The Little Master was shy to that ominous age. You speculate about Rosewall's death since 2012. At least Ken did not favour you in that sense since five years...

Why do you speculate at all about Rosewall and only about Muscles??? And why not about players who are older or much older than him? We know the answer: Because you hate Rosewall, you know that I admire him and you just want to hurt my feelings and to provoke me, as treblings and others have realized already. Very noble, immature boy (or girl)...

 

[abmk]

Oh yeah, because Muster (never won a match at Wimbledon) and Roddick (three losing finals there) are even remotely in the same ballpark on grass?

Exactly, a guy winning only 3 titles and a best of RG SF isn't similar to a guy winning >=18 titles on clay and being able to to make RG SF at 40 years. Its not in the same ballpark. Get it ?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[NatF]

The 2017 Federer (so far) is astounding and great but we should not forget that that "GOAT" has hardly won a GS tournament after 2010 which fact I would value as a blame for the "GOAT".

Bobby I would add a few considerations for you on this point;

1) Injuries: Federer struggled with injuries during 2 of those seasons (2013 and 2016), captured a slam in 2 more (2012 and 2017) and went slamless in 3. IMO considering what he did to Murray in 2012 and 2015 I would have favoured Federer to bag at least one of those Wimbledons. Murray for example in 2013 was down 2 sets to love against Verdasco and had great difficulties with Janowicz in the SF. I think an in-form Federer would have a great shot against him as they would have met before the final.
2) Competition: Federer was in slam winning form in 2011 and 2014/2015 but had to compete with a younger ATG in his absolute best form at his best majors. Had Federer declined during several earlier era's it's possible he could have bagged more slams considering his form.
3) Racquet: Worth remembering that Federer up until 2014 was competing with essentially an outdated racquet against younger ATG's in peak form - at 30+ years of age. When he made the switch it took him some time to get used to using the new racquet, his serve saw improvements but his forehand has taken some time.

I have serious doubts that many other ATG's if any would have broken through to win more majors in the same situation to be frank. In that sense for example I would consider say Rosewall's longevity as a plus for his resume, but I wouldn't hold it against any other player because the era's are different.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Phoenix1983, I not only direct my posts about you towards you but also towards other posters in order to show your many deficits (in case some of the posters might not have realized them).

The fact that you refuse to change any of your many faults is a huge blame for you. How many times do I have to tell you this???

One even can make a scientific fact that Gonzalez was far above Sampras on clay! Or do you also deny the fact that Laver was a better claycourter than Karlovic??

You already claimed that Rosewall would die soon when The Little Master was shy to that ominous age. You speculate about Rosewall's death since 2012. At least Ken did not favour you in that sense since five years...

Why do you speculate at all about Rosewall and only about Muscles??? And why not about players who are older or much older than him? We know the answer: Because you hate Rosewall, you know that I admire him and you just want to hurt my feelings and to provoke my, as treblings and others have realized already. Very noble, immature boy (or girl)...

LOL, you take this all far too seriously Bobby boy

P.S. and by the way, I don't hate Rosewall. You, on the other hand, do love him (in a Platonic way).

 

[Phoenix1983]

Exactly, a guy winning only 3 titles and a best of RG SF isn't similar to a guy winning >=18 titles on clay and being able to to make RG SF at 40 years. Its not in the same ballpark. Get it ?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Er, it was easier to play at a high level to an advanced age in Gonzales' day - and most of his clay titles were won pre-Open Era, in smaller fields than Sampras had to face. He may be marginally better than Pete on clay, but "in a different ballpark.." - no way. That's something you could say about guys who won multiple FOs, but not about Pancho.

 

[abmk]

Er, it was easier to play at a high level to an advanced age in Gonzales' day - and most of his clay titles were won pre-Open Era, in smaller fields than Sampras had to face. He may be marginally better than Pete on clay, but "in a different ballpark.." - no way. That's something you could say about guys who won multiple FOs, but not about Pancho.

so Roddick is not a different ballpark from Muster on grass ? he has zero Wimbledons, not even one, let alone multiple . Be consistent.
Federer and Djokovic who win one FO each are not in a different ballpark than Sampras on clay ? Really ?

Sampras' last good RG performance came at 25 years of age in 96. Pancho reached RG SF at 40 years of age. Gigantic difference.
yes, it was easier to play at an older age in Pancho's time, but not by that much - a few years, but not 15.

I'd say the same for Coria. Completely different ballpark than Sampras on clay.

 

[Phoenix1983]

so Roddick is not a different ballpark from Muster on grass ? he has zero Wimbledons, not even one, let alone multiple . Be consistent.
Federer and DJokovic who win one FO each are not in a different ballpark than Sampras on clay ? Really ?

Sampras' last good RG performance came at 25 years of age in 96. Pancho reached RG SF at 40 years of age. Gigantic difference.
yes, it was easier to play at an older age in Pancho's, but not by that much - a few years, but not 15.

I'd say the same for Coria. Completely different ballpark than Sampras on clay.

Like I said (and you well know), Muster never won a match at Wimbledon. He was utterly hopeless on the surface. Comparing him on grass to Sampras on clay shows your hidden agenda of trying to denigrate Pete - a man who won a Masters, reached four QF or better, and played inspiring tennis to win the Davis Cup vs Kafelinkov on clay.

Obviously Coria was better than Sampras on clay - goes without saying. He certainly under-achieved on the surface though, as he should've won at least one FO (definitely 2004, arguably 2003). We can't go praising him as a clay great for what he could/should have achieved.

 

[abmk]

Like I said (and you well know), Muster never won a match at Wimbledon. He was utterly hopeless on the surface. Comparing him on grass to Sampras on clay shows your hidden agenda of trying to denigrate Pete - a man who won a Masters, reached four QF or better, and played inspiring tennis to win the Davis Cup vs Kafelinkov on clay.

Obviously Coria was better than Sampras on clay - goes without saying. He certainly under-achieved on the surface though, as he should've won at least one FO (definitely 2004, arguably 2003). We can't go praising him as a clay great for what he could/should have achieved.

It has absolutely nothing to do with any hidden agenda. It has to do with showing a more extreme example to showcase the flaw in your logic. If I've denigrated Pete over here, its only in response to the Pete fanatics like 90s clay.

oh and I'd have favored Ferrero over Coria in 2003, even if Coria had made it to the final.

still waiting for the part about how Federer/Djokovic are not in a different ballpark than Sampras on clay since they have not won multiple FOs ....

 

[KG1965]

Like I said (and you well know), Muster never won a match at Wimbledon. He was utterly hopeless on the surface. Comparing him on grass to Sampras on clay shows your hidden agenda of trying to denigrate Pete - a man who won a Masters, reached four QF or better, and played inspiring tennis to win the Davis Cup vs Kafelinkov on clay.

Obviously Coria was better than Sampras on clay - goes without saying. He certainly under-achieved on the surface though, as he should've won at least one FO (definitely 2004, arguably 2003). We can't go praising him as a clay great for what he could/should have achieved.

a Masters ? Rome, Italian Open

 

[Phoenix1983]

still waiting for the part about how Federer/Djokovic are not in a different ballpark than Sampras on clay since they have not won multiple FOs ....

They're better than Pete on clay, yes - did I deny that?

 

[BobbyOne]

LOL, you take this all far too seriously Bobby boy

P.S. and by the way, I don't hate Rosewall. You, on the other hand, do love him (in a Platonic way).

Phoenix, What the hell is wrong if a tennis fan (and expert, by the way) loves (in a Platonic way) a likeable person who is a true GOAT candidate, who arguably had the most elegant game since WWII, who had the most penetrating and most beautiful backhand you know and who beat much taller and muscular players thousands of times???

FYI: I also love (in a Platonic way) Cochet, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Gimeno, Anderson, Roche and others albeit to a lesser extent than I admire The Little Master.

EDIT: Phoenix, Maybe you even understand that a person can love (in a Platonic way) another person, f. e. a famous tennis player, and YET can stay objective in his/her judgment about that person (tennis player).

You should know that hate is a bad emotion and attitude and tends to bad bias.

 

[abmk]

They're better than Pete on clay, yes - did I deny that?

again, same ballpark or different ?

 

[Phoenix1983]

again, same ballpark or different ?

When I said a different ballpark, I meant legends on that particular surface (i.e. multiple FO champs are obviously far greater than Sampras on clay). These guys are way out of Sampras' reach.

Federer and Djokovic are better than Sampras on clay. "Different ballpark" is maybe a bit too far IMHO, but it would be disingenuous to say he's just as good as them on that surface.

Not really sure what your point is any more?

 

[abmk]

When I said a different ballpark, I meant legends on that particular surface (i.e. multiple FO champs are obviously far greater than Sampras on clay). These guys are way out of Sampras' reach.

Federer and Djokovic are better than Sampras on clay. "Different ballpark" is maybe a bit too far IMHO, but it would be disingenuous to say he's just as good as them on that surface.

Not really sure what your point is any more?

I was checking for the consistency in your "logic".

Courier, Bruguera were 2 time winners at RG. But I think Federer/Djoko are on similar level to them. So saying Courier/Bruguera are in a different ballpark to Sampras, but Federer/Djoko are not (because they were denied so many times by nadal) is wrong.

In any case, original point was that : Gonzales was clearly better than Sampras on clay. supported by stats.
For an ATG and I repeat for an ATG, Sampras was a failure on clay.

I wouldn't say the same for Gonzales on clay or Lendl on grass or instance.
there is a clear difference b/w Gonzales and Sampras on clay. They are not similar.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I was checking for the consistency in your "logic".

Courier, Bruguera were 2 time winners at RG. But I think Federer/Djoko are on similar level to them. So saying Courier/Bruguera are in a different ballpark to Sampras, but Federer/Djoko are not (because they were denied so many times by nadal) is wrong.

In any case, original point was that : Gonzales was clearly better than Sampras on clay. supported by stats.
For an ATG and I repeat for an ATG, Sampras was a failure on clay.

I wouldn't say the same for Gonzales on clay or Lendl on grass or instance.
there is a clear difference b/w Gonzales and Sampras on clay. They are not similar.

You could argue that Federer or Djokovic should have beaten Nadal once in their multiple opportunities there (Fed in 2006, Djoker in 2013). I would give true clay court greats of the past a chance; certainly if they were in the position that Djokovic was in, in the 2013 SF.

I'm really gonna have to disagree with Gonzales being "clearly" greater than Sampras on clay. He won more tournaments, yes, but didn't prove himself as an ATG on the surface. But I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[abmk]

You could argue that Federer or Djokovic should have beaten Nadal once in their multiple opportunities there (Fed in 2006, Djoker in 2013). I would give true clay court greats of the past a chance; certainly if they were in the position that Djokovic was in, in the 2013 SF.

define true clay court greats of the past - whom are you referring to ?
you think they would necessarily be able to break nadal twice in a row like djoko did - end of 4th set and beginning of 5th set ?
or be able to withstand nadal's barrage of shots - he hit 22 winners in that set ?

I'm really gonna have to disagree with Gonzales being "clearly" greater than Sampras on clay. He won more tournaments, yes, but didn't prove himself as an ATG on the surface. But I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

you don't have be an ATG on clay to be clearly greater than Sampras.
You can keep denying it , it just shows your inability to accept the reality.

 

[Phoenix1983]

you don't have be an ATG on clay to be clearly greater than Sampras.
You can keep denying it , it just shows your inability to accept the reality.

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think Pancho winning more minor clay court tourneys makes him "clearly" greater on clay than Sampras. But believe whatever you want.

 

[abmk]

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think Pancho winning more minor clay court tourneys makes him "clearly" greater on clay than Sampras. But believe whatever you want.

its not just a couple of CC tournaments, its 15 more. That's a big #.
That includes 4 wins over Laver and Rosewall combined.

Gonzales also made the SF of RG at 40 ...something Sampras did only once at 25. Sampras never even made it to QF after that age.
Do you doubt that Gonzales would've made multiple SFs, possibly finals at a younger age if he had been playing RG ?

He was pretty competitive in both French pro finals - 5 sets vs Trabert and 4 sets vs Rosewall .

 

[Gary Duane]

Er, it was easier to play at a high level to an advanced age in Gonzales' day - and most of his clay titles were won pre-Open Era, in smaller fields than Sampras had to face. He may be marginally better than Pete on clay, but "in a different ballpark.." - no way. That's something you could say about guys who won multiple FOs, but not about Pancho.

Smaller fields don't mean easier competition but the opposite. This is directly why players had lower winning match percentages in the old-pro era. That's why Laver won higher percentages of matches in the open era and even higher in majors.

Laver and Rosewall's success in the OE was at least partially built on the more intense competition of pre-OE conditions.

No MRIs, robotic surgery, physios, eggs, ice baths, and these guys had to play or they didn't get paid.

 

[NatF]

Smaller fields don't mean easier competition but the opposite. This is directly why players had lower winning match percentages in the old-pro era. That's why Laver won higher percentages of matches in the open era and even higher in majors.

Laver and Rosewall's success in the OE was at least partially built on the more intense competition of pre-OE conditions.

No MRIs, robotic surgery, physios, eggs, ice baths, and these guys had to play or they didn't get paid.

I think that point is debatable tbh. It was harder to have higher win/loss records but not necessarily harder to win individual events.

The intense competition of the Pro era isn't because of the size of the draws etc...it's because that's where the best players were.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think that point is debatable tbh. It was harder to have higher win/loss records but not necessarily harder to win individual events.

The intense competition of the Pro era isn't because of the size of the draws etc...it's because that's where the best players were.

I was talking specifically about match%, Nat. Not % of tournaments won.

However: In this era the highest % of matches won in M250s, of the Big Four, is Murray, 85%. The next highest is Federer, 80%. We can assume that this might be a shaky metric because all of these guys have gradually moved away from 250s as their careers have taken off.

For M500s the top guy is Djokovic, 87% of matches.

Djokovic has done best at M1000s, at 82.5%.

But in Majors both Nadal and Fed are at 86%, Djokovic at 87%.

Let's think about that a moment. If Djkovic is winning 87% of matches in both M500s and in majors, but he only needs to win 5 rounds in the former and 7 in the later, on average, what does that tell us?

Now, we know that today M500s can't possibly have the level of competition that we see in majors at the end of the line, so players build up matches in the early rounds, so even though M500s have lower competition, on average for the whole field, there are fewer easy matches, and one factor more or less balances out the other factor.

But now let's cut down those M500s to fewer rounds but makes sure the best players in the world are in almost every tournament. We'll give them new names.

Now we have something like what the players in the 50s and 60s faced.

So weighing the % of matches, games and tournaments they won in those decades against decades earlier or later makes them seem weak, and on that basis Laver and Rosewall would have been lucky to win anything big at all in the OE, past the age of 30.

Since the truth is the exact opposite, it only seems logical to me that competition, even in the 60s, was more competitive and more intense than in the OE, and I base that on players having to play under the worst possible conditions, sometimes sick, sometimes injured, no excuses.

I keep saying I don't know much about players in those decades, but I started reading about those tours many decades ago, and I remember long descriptions from Gonzalez about having to play with a miserable blister in his hand, and that's only one story of many.

Today's players are totally coddled in relationship to those tough pros, who had to work so much harder for so much less money...

 

[NatF]

I was talking specifically about match%, Nat. Not % of tournaments won.

However: In this era the highest % of matches won in M250s, of the Big Four, is Murray, 85%. The next highest is Federer, 80%. We can assume that this might be a shaky metric because all of these guys have gradually moved away from 250s as their careers have taken off.

For M500s the top guy is Djokovic, 87% of matches.

Djokovic has done best at M1000s, at 82.5%.

But in Majors both Nadal and Fed are at 86%, Djokovic at 87%.

Let's think about that a moment. If Djkovic is winning 87% of matches in both M500s and in majors, but he only needs to win 5 rounds in the former and 7 in the later, on average, what does that tell us?

Now, we know that today M500s can't possibly have the level of competition that we see in majors at the end of the line, so players build up matches in the early rounds, so even though M500s have lower competition, on average for the whole field, there are fewer easy matches, and one factor more or less balances out the other factor.

But now let's cut down those M500s to fewer rounds but makes sure the best players in the world are in almost every tournament. We'll give them new names.

Now we have something like what the players in the 50s and 60s faced.

So weighing the % of matches, games and tournaments they won in those decades against decades earlier or later makes them seem weak, and on that basis Laver and Rosewall would have been lucky to win anything big at all in the OE, past the age of 30.

Since the truth is the exact opposite, it only seems logical to me that competition, even in the 60s, was more competitive and more intense than in the OE, and I base that on players having to play under the worst possible conditions, sometimes sick, sometimes injured, no excuses.

I keep saying I don't know much about players in those decades, but I started reading about those tours many decades ago, and I remember long descriptions from Gonzalez about having to play with a miserable blister in his hand, and that's only one story of many.

Today's players are totally coddled in relationship to those tough pros, who had to work so much harder for so much less money...

I completely disagree about the pro era competition being tougher than the OE tbh . It seems counter intuitive to me that a split field would have a higher level competition, it might have a more difficult format that's less conducive to playing ones best tennis but the overall standard of competition being stronger? Disagree completely. The top amateurs were never amongst the top 2 for playing level but they were surely in the top 10 in many years.

With respect to the statistics, I doubt Djokovic would say winning a 500 series is as hard as a winning a major even if his win/loss record is the same. Beyond that the format difference e.g. BO3 versus BO5 makes a difference, as does the motivation and effort. The top guys today generally pick pet events as their 500 series events of choice.

Playing the best players day in and day out is of course difficult, but there's also a familiarity there. Playing the same second tier players in every QF and SF, for me is not more difficult than having a more unpredictable draw with a deeper field of players and match ups. Also is it tougher to play the #1 or #2 player in the world after 2 rounds or after 6?

Playing sick and injured is something separate from competition. It's a factor in the difficulty of winning a tournament but it's not competition.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I completely disagree about the pro era competition being tougher than the OE tbh . . . .

That depends on how you look at it. The depth of competition has grown steadily since the beginning of the open era. But, playing on a tour in which every match is against a top 10 player is tougher competition than playing on a tour where only 1 or 2 opponents per tournament is top 10.

 

[NatF]

That depends on how you look at it. The depth of competition has grown steadily since the beginning of the open era. But, playing on a tour in which every match is against a top 10 player is tougher competition than playing on a tour where only 1 or 2 opponents per tournament is top 10.

I'm not convinced every pro was a top 10 player though. Besides that not every match may be against a 'top player' but often it's less familiar game styles, perhaps a rising young talent etc...at the back of the event you'll usually play the top players anyway you just have to play more rounds to get there.

 

[Gary Duane]

I completely disagree about the pro era competition being tougher than the OE tbh . It seems counter intuitive to me that a split field would have a higher level competition, it might have a more difficult format that's less conducive to playing ones best tennis but the overall standard of competition being stronger? Disagree completely. The top amateurs were never amongst the top 2 for playing level but they were surely in the top 10 in many years.

With respect to the statistics, I doubt Djokovic would say winning a 500 series is as hard as a winning a major even if his win/loss record is the same. Beyond that the format difference e.g. BO3 versus BO5 makes a difference, as does the motivation and effort. The top guys today generally pick pet events as their 500 series events of choice.

Playing the best players day in and day out is of course difficult, but there's also a familiarity there. Playing the same second tier players in every QF and SF, for me is not more difficult than having a more unpredictable draw with a deeper field of players and match ups. Also is it tougher to play the #1 or #2 player in the world after 2 rounds or after 6?

Playing sick and injured is something separate from competition. It's a factor in the difficulty of winning a tournament but it's not competition.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I've never totally disagreed with you on any subject before, but on this one I'm a polar opposite.

As I've stated before, when the best players in the world have to consistently play against other top players in the world it is a different competition. You can say that familiarity makes things easier, but to me it's like having a situation where the best meet each other again and again and again. I don't see small groups such as Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka plus a few other very good players meeting each other week after week being easier.

If these top players were segregated from the rest of the tennis world I think they would all make each other even better. Over the last few years tennis would have been more interesting, since almost everyone below these top players has failed to step up.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that modern M500s are as difficult as majors to win. I'm saying something different - the match structure pushes down match%. The competition is obviously lower and favors the top players who enter them because usually they are not all there in the same tourneys. But the competition is also not watered down by 7 rounds and 32 seeds, guaranteeing a couple of easier rounds.

Now, the pressure may have been less in the old-pro days. Those top players played each other so often that it must have generally felt like a very common thing, no big deal, and losing to each other obviously was not a big event unless the losses took place in a top event, but of course in the biggest events it would have been much like losing a final in a M1000 or a major - bad for ranking, for bragging rights, for a resume and for a legacy.

But maybe I am not understanding your POV here...

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm not convinced every pro was a top 10 player though. Besides that not every match may be against a 'top player' but often it's less familiar game styles, perhaps a rising young talent etc...at the back of the event you'll usually play the top players anyway you just have to play more rounds to get there.

I'm actually probably a bit close to @Dan Lobb on this subject.

To me it is likely that the playing level of the very top players in the 50s was extremely high and that the difference between the top pros and the top amateurs was huge. I would think the results of top amateurs in their first year of playing in the pros would make that clear. As I understand it, no one played on that same high level when they first joined the pros, so for all of them it was either a bit of a shock or at least an adjustment period to that higher level. I don't know how it was for Kramer at first, but I know from reading a great deal about Gonzalez that playing Kramer was a huge uphill battle and did not go at all well for him until he raised his game. Didn't Laver also say that playing in the pros was a very different level of play? After all, he had just come off the amateur GS.

With Kramer at the top and then all the other guys who ultimately made it to #1 I think the level of competition was very high. It may have been "familiar", but still a very high level. To some extent the competition probably got easier in the 60s, with the amateurs gradually raising their level, but if there was not a clear difference between the top pros and the amateurs who did not have an opportunity to test themselves against those pros, why would those touring pros have done so well in the OE? Why would a guy like Gonzalez, 40 years old in '68, get to levels like the RG SF and the USO QF in the same year.

My God, if someone did that now, if Federer in five years made it that far in two majors, the whole world would be at his feet.

When I read about what Hoad accomplished at his peak, I have to think that on that same level he would at least been an absolute monster in majors one year if open tennis had arrived much earlier. But you just don't here much at all about him except here, and in general that is probably due to massive ignorance. His very high level of dominant tennis is underappreciated because it was mostly accomplished in relative obscurity.

I think even you are highly devaluing the playing level of the men in the 50s and 60s.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I'm actually probably a bit close to @Dan Lobb on this subject.

To me it is likely that the playing level of the very top players in the 50s was extremely high and that the difference between the top pros and the top amateurs was huge. I would think the results of top amateurs in their first year of playing in the pros would make that clear. As I understand it, no one played on that same high level when they first joined the pros, so for all of them it was either a bit of a shock or at least an adjustment period to that higher level. I don't know how it was for Kramer at first, but I know from reading a great deal about Gonzalez that playing Kramer was a huge uphill battle and did not go at all well for him until he raised his game. Didn't Laver also say that playing in the pros was a very different level of play? After all, he had just come off the amateur GS.

With Kramer at the top and then all the other guys who ultimately made it to #1 I think the level of competition was very high. It may have been "familiar", but still a very high level. To some extent the competition probably got easier in the 60s, with the amateurs gradually raising their level, but if there was not a clear difference between the top pros and the amateurs who did not have an opportunity to test themselves against those pros, why would those touring pros have done so well in the OE? Why would have get a guy like Gonzalez, 40 years old in '68, getting to levels like the RG SF and the USO QF the same year.

My God, if someone did that now, if Federer in five years made it that far in three majors, the whole world would be at his feet.

When I read about what Hoad accomplished at his peak, I have to think that on that same level he would at least been an absolute monster in majors one year if open tennis had arrived much earlier. But you just don't here much at all about him except here, and in general that is probably due to massive ignorance. His very high level of dominant tennis is underappreciated because it was mostly accomplished in relative obscurity.

I think even you are highly devaluing the playing level of the men in the 50s and 60s.

Completely agree.

 

[TMF]

That depends on how you look at it. The depth of competition has grown steadily since the beginning of the open era.

Exactly.

But, playing on a tour in which every match is against a top 10 player is tougher competition than playing on a tour where only 1 or 2 opponents per tournament is top 10.

But in a 128-draw in the open era, there's greater chances for the top 10 players getting upset(as we agree today's greater depth) due to having to play more matches to win. The pro majors in the pre-OE only had 8-14 players, and not necessary all top 10 players are present at every tournaments.

Also, the top 10 players today has to deal with a much bigger pool than the top 10 in pre-OE. Greater number of athletes realistically means it's difficult to reach the top 10 because there's more quality players to overcome. While it can never be proven, but very likely the top 10 in the OE is better than the formers.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Exactly.



But in a 128-draw in the open era, there's greater chances for the top 10 players getting upset(as we agree today's greater depth) due to having to play more matches to win. The pro majors in the pre-OE only had 8-14 players, and not necessary all top 10 players are present at every tournaments.

Also, the top 10 players today has to deal with a much bigger pool than the top 10 in pre-OE. Greater number of athletes realistically means it's difficult to reach the top 10 because there's more quality players to overcome. While it can never be proven, but very likely the top 10 in the OE is better than the formers.

The chance of losing every time a player plays is much higher when he/she only plays other top 10 players. The larger the pool, the better the winning percentage for top 10 players.

 

[pc1]

I'm not convinced every pro was a top 10 player though. Besides that not every match may be against a 'top player' but often it's less familiar game styles, perhaps a rising young talent etc...at the back of the event you'll usually play the top players anyway you just have to play more rounds to get there.

True enough I think.

I do believe that in general the smaller field did in general have most of the best players. It's all debatable of course. Perhaps John Newcombe would have defeated everyone in an Open Wimbledon in 1967.

Older players imo tend to have more problems in best of five with seven rounds due to their slower recovery time compared to younger players. On the Old Pro Tour there weren't any tournaments similar to the majors now with seven rounds.

 

[Limpinhitter]

True enough I think.

I do believe that in general the smaller field did in general have most of the best players. It's all debatable of course. Perhaps John Newcombe would have defeated everyone in an Open Wimbledon in 1967.

Older players imo tend to have more problems in best of five with seven rounds due to their slower recovery time compared to younger players. On the Old Pro Tour there weren't any tournaments similar to the majors now with seven rounds.

What would your 16 seeds look like in an open 1967 Wimbledon?

 

[pc1]

What would your 16 seeds look like in an open 1967 Wimbledon?

Wow, that's tough. I'll look at the field later and try to give an educated guess. Can't do it now. I'm at a restaurant.

I think a guy named Laver would be top seed however. Lol.