Slam winner or n°1 players defeated

[Flash O'Groove]

Following Krosero's thread on the number of different opponents met in slam finals, I wanted to check the number of different slam winners or n°1 (at any point) defeated by all time greats. It's pretty tedious to check all the head to head so I thought we should collaboratively be able to know for most players, since we are all tennis nuts.

Federer: Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Krajicek, Ivanissevic, Rios, Costa, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Moya, Gaudio, Safin, Johansson, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka. 22 players. His list will grow in the 10 next years as new players win slams and reach n°1.

I believe the only slam winners or former n°1 that Federer met but never defeated are Bruguera and Rafter.

Sampras: Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilanders, Connors, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Stitch, Ivanisevic, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Gomez, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Korda, Rios, Rafter, Krajicek, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Johansson. 25 players.

Agassi: Sampras, Lendl, Cash, Noah, McEnroe, Wilanders, Connors, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Stitch, Gomez, Ivanisevic, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Korda, Rios, Rafter, Krajicek, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Johansson, Gaudio, Federer. 29 players.

Becker: Edberg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Kriek, Teacher, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Gomez, Cash, Chang, Muster, Courier, Krajicek, Rafter, Bruguera, Noah, Moya, Stich, Ivanisevic, kafelnikov, Rios, Johansson, Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi. 27 players.

Lendl: Connors, Borg, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Panatta, Ashe, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Kriek, Vilas, McEnroe, Noah, Wilanders, Edberg, Becker, Cash, Agassi, Sampras, Gomez, Chang, Ivanisevic, Courier, Stitch, Bruguera, Muster, Krajicek. 27 players.

Connors (that I know). Gonzalez, Olmedo, Rosewall, Newcombe, Laver, Nastase, Orantes, Gimeno, Kodes, Borg, McEnroe, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Vilas, Kriek, Edmondson, Teacher, Noah, Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Chang, Gomez, Lendl, Bruguera, Stitch. 29 players.

Edit: I added Becker's list thanks to Fezer.

 

[KG1965]

Following Krosero's thread on the number of different opponents met in slam finals, I wanted to check the number of different slam winners or n°1 (at any point) defeated by all time greats. It's pretty tedious to check all the head to head so I thought we should collaboratively be able to know for most players, since we are all tennis nuts.

Federer: Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Krajicek, Ivanissevic, Rios, Costa, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Moya, Safin, Johansson, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka. 21 players. His list will grow in the 10 next years as new players win slams and reach n°1.

I believe the only slam winners or former n°1 that Federer met but never defeated are Bruguera and Rafter.

Sampras: Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilanders, Connors, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Stitch, Ivanisevic, Moya, Muster, Kafelnikov, Korda, Rios, Rafter, Krajicek, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Johansson. 22 players.

Other than Federer, I don't know if he met a slam winner or former n°1 without defeating him.

Agassi: Should be identical with Federer and Ferrero in addition.

Lendl: Connors, Borg, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Panatta, Ashe, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Kriek, Vilas, McEnroe, Noah, Wilanders, Edberg, Becker, Cash, Agassi, Sampras, Gomez, Chang, Ivanisevic, Courier, Stitch, Bruguera, Muster, Krajicek. 27 players! Though Teacher, Kriek, Gerulaitis and Tanner won in weak AO fields.

Seems to me he defeated every slam winners or n°1 he ever met!

Connors (that I know). Rosewall, Newcombe, Laver, Nastase, Orantes, Gimeno, Kodes, Borg, McEnroe, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Vilas, Kriek, Teacher, Noah, Wilanders, Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Chang, Gomez, Lendl, Bruguera, Muster? Ivanisevic? I can't think of any other n°1 or slam winner he would have the chance to meet? That's still 26 players!

I do not know if I understood the question, but Connors also beat Edmondson (AO 76 winner).
At least once in Vegas final 1982 or 83.
... and semifinal W 1982.

 

[boredone3456]

I would think McEnroe and Wilander probably beat most of the same guys at some point that Lendl did as well

 

[KG1965]

I do not know if I understood the question, but Connors also beat Edmondson (AO 76 winner).
At least once in Vegas final 1982 or 83.
... and semifinal W 1982.

... I would add Alex Olmedo, Pancho Gonzalez, Tony Roche and Roy Emerson.
And Michael Stich.

 

[NatF]

You missed Gaudio for Federer.

 

[KG1965]

... I would add Alex Olmedo, Pancho Gonzalez, Tony Roche and Roy Emerson.
And Michael Stich.

.. and Neale Fraser.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

... I would add Alex Olmedo, Pancho Gonzalez, Tony Roche and Roy Emerson.
And Michael Stich.

Wow, impressive. I won't count Roche and Emerson though, because they never won Open era Slams or pro majors, nor were n°1 in the world at any time.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

You missed Gaudio for Federer.

Poor Gaudio!

 

[NatF]

Poor Gaudio!

Wish it had been Coria really, imagine a healthy Coria competing in the mid 00's - more Rome 2005 finals potentially.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Sampras also beat Gomez, Bruguera, and Kuerten. Lost to Noah in their only meeting.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Wow, impressive. I won't count Roche and Emerson though, because they never won Open era Slams or pro majors, nor were n°1 in the world at any time.

I hate to spoil your good time, but tennis was actually played before 1968....

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I hate to spoil your good time, but tennis was actually played before 1968....

Yep. And Laver and Rosewall ruled that world, and before them, Gonzalez. Roche and Emerson where winning the Umag, Newport and Metz of today. Okay maybe Hamburg and Tokyo too.

That being said, you are most welcome to add players from the pre open era. You will notice that I did edit the first post to include Fraser and Co, although separated from the big boys.

 

[pc1]

Let's start with Laver-He beat Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Roche, Emerson, Nastase, Smith, Vilas, Borg, Ashe, Orantes, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson, Sedgman, Newcombe, Santana, Fraser, Gimeno, Kodes, Stolle, Olmedo, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Pietrangeli.

If you count Pro Majors or number one possibly you can include Pancho Segura and Butch Buchholz. There may be others I'm missing.

It's 25 for regular majors and 27 overall.

I wonder if Tom Okker was ever number one at one point during the year.

 

[NatF]

Let's start with Laver-He beat Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Roche, Emerson, Nastase, Smith, Vilas, Borg, Ashe, Orantes, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson, Sedgman, Newcombe, Santana, Fraser, Gimeno, Kodes, Stolle, Olmedo, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Pietrangeli.

If you count Pro Majors or number one possibly you can include Pancho Segura and Butch Buchholz. There may be others I'm missing.

It's 25 for regular majors and 27 overall.

I wonder if Tom Okker was ever number one at one point during the year.

What if you exclude amateur majors and include pro majors? Emerson, Santana, Fraser, Cooper, Stolle etc...would need to excluded.

 

[Dan Lobb]

What if you exclude amateur majors and include pro majors? Emerson, Santana, Fraser, Cooper, Stolle etc...would need to excluded.

What would Tilden's record look like on that basis?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Let's start with Laver-He beat Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Roche, Emerson, Nastase, Smith, Vilas, Borg, Ashe, Orantes, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson, Sedgman, Newcombe, Santana, Fraser, Gimeno, Kodes, Stolle, Olmedo, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Pietrangeli.

If you count Pro Majors or number one possibly you can include Pancho Segura and Butch Buchholz. There may be others I'm missing.

It's 25 for regular majors and 27 overall.

I wonder if Tom Okker was ever number one at one point during the year.

According to which ranking?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

What would Tilden's record look like on that basis?

I believe what matter is did Tilden compete with the best players of his time? The answer is yes. Did Vines compete with best players of his time? Yes again. Did Emerson compete with the best players of his time? No.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I believe what matter is did Tilden compete with the best players of his time? The answer is yes. Did Vines compete with best players of his time? Yes again. Did Emerson compete with the best players of his time? No.

Well, you cannot change your rules arbitrarily in mid-stream..be consistent.
And specify which events you believe might be "majors"....a very subjective evaluation.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I believe what matter is did Tilden compete with the best players of his time? The answer is yes. Did Vines compete with best players of his time? Yes again. Did Emerson compete with the best players of his time? No.

Emerson did compete with some of the greatest players of the sixties, Laver, Santana, Gimeno, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall...did I leave anyone out?

One problem with Vines' career was that he turned pro early, and missed years of play against peak Crawford, von Cramm, Perry, Budge. Vines played a relatively weak pro field between 1933 and 1937.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Emerson did compete with some of the greatest players of the sixties, Laver, Santana, Gimeno, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall...did I leave anyone out?

One problem with Vines' career was that he turned pro early, and missed years of play against peak Crawford, von Cramm, Perry, Budge. Vines played a relatively weak pro field between 1933 and 1937.

Then which major tournament with the very best player of his time did Emerson win?

And thanks for Vines. I'm not very clear on thus era and exactly when the pro tour started to be clearly better than the amateur one.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Then which major tournament with the very best player of his time did Emerson win?

And thanks for Vines. I'm not very clear on thus era and exactly when the pro tour started to be clearly better than the amateur one.

That depends on whom you consider "the best"...in my book, that's Laver. So Emmo's wins over Laver in 1961 and 1962 are against my number one for those years.
Emmo also won big matches against Santana, Gimeno, Stolle, Roche, McKinley, Osuna who were among the best of the early sixties.

 

[NatF]

What would Tilden's record look like on that basis?

The best players were amateur when Tilden won his majors. I'm obviously referring to just Laver there.

 

[pc1]

The best players were amateur when Tilden won his majors. I'm obviously referring to just Laver there.

Always figured in an hypothetical Open Era from the beginning Laver would have matured earlier and would have done very well against all the top players. I would not have been surprised if he was number one in the early 1960s. Unfortunately the stupid Pro/Amateur divide messed that up.

Would have been nice to see Laver against Gonzalez when Gonzalez was just a truly great player. When they first played in 1964 Gonzalez was still superb but no longer prime Gonzalez.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The best players were amateur when Tilden won his majors. I'm obviously referring to just Laver there.

I meant, if you exclude Tilden's amateur record, what would it look like?
The rules you suggested are arbitrary, which leads to a very subjective result.

 

[NatF]

I meant, if you exclude Tilden's amateur record, what would it look like?
The rules you suggested are arbitrary, which leads to a very subjective result.

They're not arbitrary. I'm interested in majors won when the best players participated, beyond that they're majors in name only.

 

[pc1]

I meant, if you exclude Tilden's amateur record, what would it look like?
The rules you suggested are arbitrary, which leads to a very subjective result.

They're not arbitrary. I'm interested in majors won when the best players participated, beyond that they're majors in name only.

When Tilden was playing, the majors had the best players. He was basically playing Open tennis if we define Open Tennis as playing the top players. The divide really started in a way due to Tilden when he turned pro in 1931 and other players like Vines, Perry, Vinnie Richards, Budge, Riggs, Kovacs followed. There was some minor Pro Tennis earlier but I am of the opinion it reached top level from Tilden on. Amazing how much influence Tilden had on tennis history.

Later after that the amateur champion often turned pro to play the pro champion and the pros had a higher playing level imo than the amateurs. Even the amateurs knew that eventually.

 

[Dan Lobb]

They're not arbitrary. I'm interested in majors won when the best players participated, beyond that they're majors in name only.

With those criteria, it becomes very subjective.

 

[NatF]

With those criteria, it becomes very subjective.

The AM/Pro divide removes subjectivity completely.

 

[Dan Lobb]

When Tilden was playing, the majors had the best players. He was basically playing Open tennis if we define Open Tennis as playing the top players. The divide really started in a way due to Tilden when he turned pro in 1931 and other players like Vines, Perry, Vinnie Richards, Budge, Riggs, Kovacs followed. There was some minor Pro Tennis earlier but I am of the opinion it reached top level from Tilden on. Amazing how much influence Tilden had on tennis history.

Later after that the amateur champion often turned pro to play the pro champion and the pros had a higher playing level imo than the amateurs. Even the amateurs knew that eventually.

I think that sometimes the amateurs had the best player, even in the post-war era,

 

[pc1]

I think that sometimes the amateurs had the best player, even in the post-war era,

I think Kramer was a good example of that. He slaughtered Riggs 69-20 and Riggs was a great player.

Possibly Sedgman although he lost to Kramer on tour and I think he would have lost to Gonzalez.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think Kramer was a good example of that. He slaughtered Riggs 69-20 and Riggs was a great player.

Possibly Sedgman although he lost to Kramer on tour and I think he would have lost to Gonzalez.

Yes, I think that it was quite common.

Even in the thirties, Vines probably was world number one in 1931 to 1933, Crawford had a claim in 1933, Budge was probably number one in 1937 and 1938, Riggs was probably number two in 1939 to 1941, Kramer strong in 1944 to 1947, Gonzales probably number two in 1949, Sedgman probably one or two in 1951 to 1952, Trabert probably number two in 1955, Hoad probably number two in 1956 and 1957, Laver probably number one or two in 1961 and 1962, Emerson probably number three in 1964 and 1965, Newcombe probably number three in 1967.

The amateur ranks also had much more depth than the pro ranks in many years.

 

[pc1]

Yes, I think that it was quite common.

Even in the thirties, Vines probably was world number one in 1931 to 1933, Crawford had a claim in 1933, Budge was probably number one in 1937 and 1938, Riggs was probably number two in 1939 to 1941, Kramer strong in 1944 to 1947, Gonzales probably number two in 1949, Sedgman probably one or two in 1951 to 1952, Trabert probably number two in 1955, Hoad probably number two in 1956 and 1957, Laver probably number one or two in 1961 and 1962, Emerson probably number three in 1964 and 1965, Newcombe probably number three in 1967.

The amateur ranks also had much more depth than the pro ranks in many years.

Not convinced about Budge in the late 1930s because of Vines' injury and burn out in 1939. I can see many of the others but not all.

When we should also discuss is what would have happened if Open Tennis was always there. I think players like Laver would have improved earlier due to him playing the top competition from the beginning. Same with Emerson. The axiom of playing to the level of our competition holds true. We improve if our competition is better. I believe that would have been the case with Laver and Emerson.

 

[NatF]

Not convinced about Budge in the late 1930s because of Vines' injury and burn out in 1939. I can see many of the others but not all.

When we should also discuss is what would have happened if Open Tennis was always there. I think players like Laver would have improved earlier due to him playing the top competition from the beginning. Same with Emerson. The axiom of playing to the level of our competition holds true. We improve if our competition is better. I believe that would have been the case with Laver and Emerson.

Athletically Laver under the right conditions was probably ready to play top level tennis a couple of years earlier than he eventually did. Considering his hot and cold game he may have broken through and won big even earlier still.

 

[pc1]

Athletically Laver under the right conditions was probably ready to play top level tennis a couple of years earlier than he eventually did. Considering his hot and cold game he may have broken through and won big even earlier still.

I think it's possible. I may start a thread on this type of hypothetical.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

That depends on whom you consider "the best"...in my book, that's Laver. So Emmo's wins over Laver in 1961 and 1962 are against my number one for those years.
Emmo also won big matches against Santana, Gimeno, Stolle, Roche, McKinley, Osuna who were among the best of the early sixties.

Well few call Laver the best player of the early 60's. In my opinion (and I think general consensus), is that the best players of the early 60's were Rosewall. Gonzalez (when there) and Hoad. Laver didn't fare too well against Rosewall when he turned pro. He needed some time to improve and adjust to the pro level (which he did pretty quickly and went on to dominate).

 

[BobbyOne]

I meant, if you exclude Tilden's amateur record, what would it look like?
The rules you suggested are arbitrary, which leads to a very subjective result.

Dan Lobb, ?????????????????????????

 

[BobbyOne]

I think that sometimes the amateurs had the best player, even in the post-war era,

Dan Lobb, Wrong if you consider the 1948 to 1967 span!!

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes, I think that it was quite common.

Even in the thirties, Vines probably was world number one in 1931 to 1933, Crawford had a claim in 1933, Budge was probably number one in 1937 and 1938, Riggs was probably number two in 1939 to 1941, Kramer strong in 1944 to 1947, Gonzales probably number two in 1949, Sedgman probably one or two in 1951 to 1952, Trabert probably number two in 1955, Hoad probably number two in 1956 and 1957, Laver probably number one or two in 1961 and 1962, Emerson probably number three in 1964 and 1965, Newcombe probably number three in 1967.

The amateur ranks also had much more depth than the pro ranks in many years.

Dan Lobb, Learn history: Vines was not among the top 5 in 1933. I also know your aversion against the old pros and your pushing up Hoad, Laver, Emerson and Newcombe

 

[BobbyOne]

Emerson did compete with some of the greatest players of the sixties, Laver, Santana, Gimeno, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall...did I leave anyone out?

One problem with Vines' career was that he turned pro early, and missed years of play against peak Crawford, von Cramm, Perry, Budge. Vines played a relatively weak pro field between 1933 and 1937.

Lobb, Vines had Perry, Nüsslein and Tilden.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Well few call Laver the best player of the early 60's. In my opinion (and I think general consensus), is that the best players of the early 60's were Rosewall. Gonzalez (when there) and Hoad. Laver didn't fare too well against Rosewall when he turned pro. He needed some time to improve and adjust to the pro level (which he did pretty quickly and went on to dominate).

Laver made that adjustment within about 1 year of competing against the best. By the end of 64' he was the best player. I think pc1 is suggesting that had Laver played on an open tour competing against all of the best players from the beginning, that adjustment would have occurred earlier.

 

[pc1]

Emerson did compete with some of the greatest players of the sixties, Laver, Santana, Gimeno, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall...did I leave anyone out?

One problem with Vines' career was that he turned pro early, and missed years of play against peak Crawford, von Cramm, Perry, Budge. Vines played a relatively weak pro field between 1933 and 1937.

He played peak Perry in the amateurs and Pros. Tilden was still very strong in 1934 and a bit later. Peak Crawford was beaten badly by Vines at Wimbledon but Crawford did turn the tables in 1933. Vines defeated Nusslein, one of the strongest players in the world consistently in the pro and even beat him in the final of the French Pro on clay, a surface Nusslein excelled in four set in 1935. He defeated the Great Henri Cochet in the amateurs in majors and in the pros. Cochet could not cope with Vines' great power. Vines also faces strong players like George Lott, Stoefen and Bunny Austin who was a very strong player for England. The Pro Field was pretty strong in Vines' day.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Laver made that adjustment within about 1 year of competing against the best. By the end of 64' he was the best player. I think pc1 is suggesting that had Laver played on an open tour competing against all of the best players from the beginning, that adjustment would have occurred earlier.

It's a reasonable possibility but as reality unfolded, the best player in the world (effective, not potential), was Rosewall. Players who won slams without Rosewall in the draw didn't won true majors.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Well few call Laver the best player of the early 60's. In my opinion (and I think general consensus), is that the best players of the early 60's were Rosewall. Gonzalez (when there) and Hoad. Laver didn't fare too well against Rosewall when he turned pro. He needed some time to improve and adjust to the pro level (which he did pretty quickly and went on to dominate).

That is the "received wisdom", but I doubt it.

The big adjustment for the amateur coming to the pros was psychological, consistency...Laver actually split evenly his best-of-five set matches with Rosewall on that first Australian tour, and for 1963 as a whole.

Laver's problem in 1963 was in the daily bet-of-three set hth "grind" tour, where, according to Laver's recent comments, Rosewall played lob-lob-lob----until Laver hurt his back and could no longer play well...okay, that is his take on it.

But in terms of quality of play, Laver was ready from the get-go, as the Australian results proved.

 

[Dan Lobb]

He played peak Perry in the amateurs and Pros. Tilden was still very strong in 1934 and a bit later. Peak Crawford was beaten badly by Vines at Wimbledon but Crawford did turn the tables in 1933. Vines defeated Nusslein, one of the strongest players in the world consistently in the pro and even beat him in the final of the French Pro on clay, a surface Nusslein excelled in four set in 1935. He defeated the Great Henri Cochet in the amateurs in majors and in the pros. Cochet could not cope with Vines' great power. Vines also faces strong players like George Lott, Stoefen and Bunny Austin who was a very strong player for England. The Pro Field was pretty strong in Vines' day.

Crawford had about an even split against Vines in about a dozen matches in the 1932-33 season, according to Vines' manager, and the depth of play was all in the amateur ranks.
Tilden was no longer playing at his best, and Vines overwhelmed him.
We will never really know how good Nusslein was, but really that is the only player, apart from Tilden, who could make any claim to be an outstanding player on the pro level.
Actually, it should have been Nusslein playing against Vines on that 1934 tour, not Tilden, who had lost the 1933 tour to Nusslein...it was all about ticket sales.

Perry did not turn pro until that 1937 season, there was really no threat to Vines between 1933 and 1937 in the pro ranks.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It's a reasonable possibility but as reality unfolded, the best player in the world (effective, not potential), was Rosewall. Players who won slams without Rosewall in the draw didn't won true majors.

Spoken like a true and unquestioning devotee of the Little Master.....yawn.

 

[pc1]

It's a reasonable possibility but as reality unfolded, the best player in the world (effective, not potential), was Rosewall. Players who won slams without Rosewall in the draw didn't won true majors.

Of course to a degree.

 

[fezer]

Following Krosero's thread on the number of different opponents met in slam finals, I wanted to check the number of different slam winners or n°1 (at any point) defeated by all time greats. It's pretty tedious to check all the head to head so I thought we should collaboratively be able to know for most players, since we are all tennis nuts.

Federer: Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Krajicek, Ivanissevic, Rios, Costa, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Moya, Gaudio, Safin, Johansson, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka. 22 players. His list will grow in the 10 next years as new players win slams and reach n°1.

I believe the only slam winners or former n°1 that Federer met but never defeated are Bruguera and Rafter.

Sampras: Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilanders, Connors, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Stitch, Ivanisevic, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Gomez, Kafelnikov, Korda, Rios, Rafter, Krajicek, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Johansson. 24 players.

Other than Federer, I don't know if he met a slam winner or former n°1 without defeating him.

Agassi: Sampras, Lendl, Cash, Noah, McEnroe, Wilanders, Connors, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Stitch, Gomez, Ivanisevic, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Korda, Rios, Rafter, Krajicek, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Johansson, Gaudio, Federer.

Lendl: Connors, Borg, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Panatta, Ashe, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Kriek, Vilas, McEnroe, Noah, Wilanders, Edberg, Becker, Cash, Agassi, Sampras, Gomez, Chang, Ivanisevic, Courier, Stitch, Bruguera, Muster, Krajicek. 27 players! Though Teacher, Kriek, Gerulaitis and Tanner won in weak AO fields.

Seems to me he defeated every slam winners or n°1 he ever met!

Connors (that I know). Gonzalez, Olmedo, Rosewall, Newcombe, Laver, Nastase, Orantes, Gimeno, Kodes, Borg, McEnroe, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Vilas, Kriek, Edmondson, Teacher, Noah, Wilanders, Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Chang, Gomez, Lendl, Bruguera, Stitch. I can't think of any other n°1 or slam winner he would have the chance to meet? That's still 30 players!

In addition, he beat Roche, Emerson and Fraser, that I count separately as they never won open era slam or pro majors.

Becker: Edberg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Kriek, Teacher, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Gomez, Cash, Chang, Muster, Courier, Krajicek, Rafter, Bruguera, Noah, Moya, Stich, Ivanisevic, kafelnikov, Rios, Johansson, Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi.

btw Connors met Wilander and Becker several times, but always lost.

 

[Limpinhitter]

It's a reasonable possibility but as reality unfolded, the best player in the world (effective, not potential), was Rosewall. Players who won slams without Rosewall in the draw didn't won true majors.

You're missing pc1's point. The premise of this thread is a hypothetical open tennis circuit of the past, not reality. In that hypothetical, pc1 is suggesting that Laver would have been #1 earlier, which necessarily means that Rosewall may not have been #1, at least not year end #1.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

You're missing pc1's point. The premise of this thread is a hypothetical open tennis circuit of the past, not reality. In that hypothetical, pc1 is suggesting that Laver would have been #1 earlier, which necessarily means that Rosewall may not have been #1, at least not year end #1.

That's the other thread. This thread is about GOAT defeating slam winners (as in major winners) or former n°1. It all started when Dann Lobb pointed out that Connors defeated a number of Amateur slam champions that I didn't count in the original thread, considering that the Amateur of the 60's were not the best players in the world (but they were at the time of Tilden).

 

[Limpinhitter]

That's the other thread. This thread is about GOAT defeating slam winners (as in major winners) or former n°1. It all started when Dann Lobb pointed out that Connors defeated a number of Amateur slam champions that I didn't count in the original thread, considering that the Amateur of the 60's were not the best players in the world (but they were at the time of Tilden).

Oy! That's almost as bad as losing the remote and then finding it in the fridge. Sorry!