chaognosis
Semi-Pro
The Greatest Tennis Players of All Time?
Rated by Major Singles Titles and Years No. 1 - including Amateur, Pro and Open data*
by CHAOGNOSIS
Male
01. Pancho Gonzales (United States)
--. Bill Tilden (United States)
03. Rod Laver (Australia)
04. Pete Sampras (United States)
05. Ken Rosewall (Australia)
06. Don Budge (United States)
--. Roger Federer (Switzerland)
08. Jimmy Connors (United States)
--. Ellsworth Vines (United States)
10. Jack Kramer (United States)
11. Henri Cochet (France)
--. Roy Emerson (Australia)
--. Ivan Lendl (Czechoslovakia)
--. Fred Perry (Great Britain)
15. Bjorn Borg (Sweden)
--. John McEnroe (United States)
17. John Newcombe (Australia)
18. Frank Sedgman (Australia)
19. Rene Lacoste (France)
--. Tony Trabert (United States)
21. Andre Agassi (United States)
--. Stefan Edberg (Sweden)
--. Bobby Riggs (United States)
Female
01. Margaret Smith Court (Australia)
--. Steffi Graf (Germany)
03. Helen Wills Moody (United States)
04. Martina Navratilova (Czechoslovakia)
05. Chris Evert (United States)
06. Billie Jean King (United States)
07. Suzanne Lenglen (France)
08. Maureen Connolly (United States)
--. Monica Seles (Yugoslavia)
10. Margaret Osborne DuPont (United States)
11. Justine Henin (Belgium)
12. Maria Bueno (Brazil)
--. Lindsay Davenport (United States)
--. Martina Hingis (Switzerland)
15. Serena Williams (United States)
*In compiling these rankings, I have limited myself to the most widely available, and accepted, sources. (All data, except for the most recent few years, can be found in the 2003 edition of Bud Collins's Total Tennis: The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia.) Prior to the start of the Open Era, my formula gives equal weight to the four major amateur championships (Australian, French, Wimbledon, United States) and the three major professional tournaments (French Pro, Wembley, U.S. Pro); also, it considers both the most authoritative amateur rankings—published by the London Daily Telegraph since 1913—and the results of the best-documented professional head-to-head tours. Rankings are provided for all players, male and female, who scored above a certain threshold according to my calculations. Although more male players made the cut than females, the top four female players all received higher scores than the top-rated male player.
As with any methodology, the quality of the results is contingent upon the accuracy of the data. Since I have limited myself to the most trusted indicators, for the most part this is not a problem; however, in a few instances the records of the early professional years are vague or conflicting. In one notable example, whether Vines is tied with Connors for eighth place, or whether he is rather tied with Kramer for ninth, depends upon the contested status of the 1936 Wembley event. In such cases I follow Collins, who himself follows the research of the late Joe McCauley (The History of Professional Tennis, 2000), though I am aware that more compelling evidence has surfaced since the last edition of Collins's encyclopedia was published. Hopefully, more authoritative sources will emerge in future years that can help set the record straight regarding many of these inconsistencies and puzzles. The reader should therefore treat these rankings not as absolutely precise, finite, or stable, but rather as an approximation based on the present state of our reconstruction of the complex history of the sport. As more research is done (by Robert Geist, Ray Bowers, and others), minor changes in the "pecking order" may occur.
I am slightly discontent that in both the male and female lists, the formula fails to produce a definitive No. 1. However, it seems reasonable to assert, at the very least, that Gonzales and Tilden on the men's side, and Court and Graf among women, represent the most impressive combinations of dominance and longevity yet seen in the game of tennis. Certain other results may surprise you, as they surprised me: the high rankings of Vines and Cochet indicate that these two are among the most underrated players of all time, whereas the relatively (even shockingly) low positions of Borg, McEnroe, and Agassi probably mean that these three players have been overrated by the current generation of fans and analysts--including myself, I might add! Likewise, DuPont and Bueno are names that may not be familiar to many, but these two players are probably more accomplished than the comparatively over-hyped Serena Williams. To add a comparative perspective, according to my calculations, Serena has achieved barely a quarter of what Court, Graf, or Wills achieved in their careers. Agassi, too, despite his long career, was only about a third as accomplished as Gonzales, Laver, or Tilden.
Rated by Major Singles Titles and Years No. 1 - including Amateur, Pro and Open data*
by CHAOGNOSIS
Male
01. Pancho Gonzales (United States)
--. Bill Tilden (United States)
03. Rod Laver (Australia)
04. Pete Sampras (United States)
05. Ken Rosewall (Australia)
06. Don Budge (United States)
--. Roger Federer (Switzerland)
08. Jimmy Connors (United States)
--. Ellsworth Vines (United States)
10. Jack Kramer (United States)
11. Henri Cochet (France)
--. Roy Emerson (Australia)
--. Ivan Lendl (Czechoslovakia)
--. Fred Perry (Great Britain)
15. Bjorn Borg (Sweden)
--. John McEnroe (United States)
17. John Newcombe (Australia)
18. Frank Sedgman (Australia)
19. Rene Lacoste (France)
--. Tony Trabert (United States)
21. Andre Agassi (United States)
--. Stefan Edberg (Sweden)
--. Bobby Riggs (United States)
Female
01. Margaret Smith Court (Australia)
--. Steffi Graf (Germany)
03. Helen Wills Moody (United States)
04. Martina Navratilova (Czechoslovakia)
05. Chris Evert (United States)
06. Billie Jean King (United States)
07. Suzanne Lenglen (France)
08. Maureen Connolly (United States)
--. Monica Seles (Yugoslavia)
10. Margaret Osborne DuPont (United States)
11. Justine Henin (Belgium)
12. Maria Bueno (Brazil)
--. Lindsay Davenport (United States)
--. Martina Hingis (Switzerland)
15. Serena Williams (United States)
*In compiling these rankings, I have limited myself to the most widely available, and accepted, sources. (All data, except for the most recent few years, can be found in the 2003 edition of Bud Collins's Total Tennis: The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia.) Prior to the start of the Open Era, my formula gives equal weight to the four major amateur championships (Australian, French, Wimbledon, United States) and the three major professional tournaments (French Pro, Wembley, U.S. Pro); also, it considers both the most authoritative amateur rankings—published by the London Daily Telegraph since 1913—and the results of the best-documented professional head-to-head tours. Rankings are provided for all players, male and female, who scored above a certain threshold according to my calculations. Although more male players made the cut than females, the top four female players all received higher scores than the top-rated male player.
As with any methodology, the quality of the results is contingent upon the accuracy of the data. Since I have limited myself to the most trusted indicators, for the most part this is not a problem; however, in a few instances the records of the early professional years are vague or conflicting. In one notable example, whether Vines is tied with Connors for eighth place, or whether he is rather tied with Kramer for ninth, depends upon the contested status of the 1936 Wembley event. In such cases I follow Collins, who himself follows the research of the late Joe McCauley (The History of Professional Tennis, 2000), though I am aware that more compelling evidence has surfaced since the last edition of Collins's encyclopedia was published. Hopefully, more authoritative sources will emerge in future years that can help set the record straight regarding many of these inconsistencies and puzzles. The reader should therefore treat these rankings not as absolutely precise, finite, or stable, but rather as an approximation based on the present state of our reconstruction of the complex history of the sport. As more research is done (by Robert Geist, Ray Bowers, and others), minor changes in the "pecking order" may occur.
I am slightly discontent that in both the male and female lists, the formula fails to produce a definitive No. 1. However, it seems reasonable to assert, at the very least, that Gonzales and Tilden on the men's side, and Court and Graf among women, represent the most impressive combinations of dominance and longevity yet seen in the game of tennis. Certain other results may surprise you, as they surprised me: the high rankings of Vines and Cochet indicate that these two are among the most underrated players of all time, whereas the relatively (even shockingly) low positions of Borg, McEnroe, and Agassi probably mean that these three players have been overrated by the current generation of fans and analysts--including myself, I might add! Likewise, DuPont and Bueno are names that may not be familiar to many, but these two players are probably more accomplished than the comparatively over-hyped Serena Williams. To add a comparative perspective, according to my calculations, Serena has achieved barely a quarter of what Court, Graf, or Wills achieved in their careers. Agassi, too, despite his long career, was only about a third as accomplished as Gonzales, Laver, or Tilden.
Last edited: