Top 10 Winningest Tennis Player of All Time

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Of course he would. Baby Novak almost stopped prime Federer on USO 2007 and indeed stopped him on AO 2008.

Prime Djokovic would take quite a few slams from 04-07 Fed.

Federer would be clear favorite only at Wimbledon. Everywhere else it is a tossup.

thank you! some people have logic! I don't like when people act like prime fed was 3 times better than prime nadal or djokovic
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Federer would be clear favorite only at Wimbledon. Everywhere else it is a tossup.

Yeah, at Wimbledon Novak wouldn't stand a chance but at all the other majors he'd give as good as he'd get, although I still think Federer would win the majority of their meetings.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is the most successful male player of all time in terms of many things, i.e. money earned, visibility and popularity world-wide, number of grand slams won which is the gold standard of tennis greatness, best weeks at number one stats, etc.
How is most successful of all time so different from GOAT?

Money earned? I'd hate that to become the gold standard, because in 10 years someone will make more money. But if you are comparing to someone like Laver, who had to go through things modern players can't conceive of to make money, I agree.

Popularity? I'd hate to go by that either, but yes, Fed is very popular. Visibility is linked to the time we live in, when people all over the world get to see all sorts of matches on the wide-screen TVs with digital quality.

But when it comes to weeks at #1 or most slams, the pros in the 50s and most of the 60s were absolutely screwed in terms of playing slams. Laver's best years were mostly hidden, also Rosewall's, Gonzales' for sure.

I simply say that each era had a few amazing players. There was Kramer and his crew, then the people who played in his troup and eventually rose to the top, first Gonzales, then Rosewall, then Laver.

Then you have the era with Connors, Borg, JMac, Lendl, and so on.

There is some overlap, and you can talk about great rivals in the same era, and how their peaks rise and fall.

That's what we do already with Fed, Nadal, Novak and so forth.

To me what you are doing is like cheating. First you say that you don't believe in a GOAT, then you pretty much declare Fed as the same thing, only swapping "greatest" for "most visible, popular and highest paid".
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
How is most successful of all time so different from GOAT?

Money earned? I'd hate that to become the gold standard, because in 10 years someone will make more money. But if you are comparing to someone like Laver, who had to go through things modern players can't conceive of to make money, I agree.

Popularity? I'd hate to go by that either, but yes, Fed is very popular. Visibility is linked to the time we live in, when people all over the world get to see all sorts of matches on the wide-screen TVs with digital quality.

But when it comes to weeks at #1 or most slams, the pros in the 50s and most of the 60s were absolutely screwed in terms of playing slams. Laver's best years were mostly hidden, also Rosewall's, Gonzales' for sure.

I simply say that each era had a few amazing players. There was Kramer and his crew, then the people who played in his troup and eventually rose to the top, first Gonzales, then Rosewall, then Laver.

Then you have the era with Connors, Borg, JMac, Lendl, and so on.

There is some overlap, and you can talk about great rivals in the same era, and how their peaks rise and fall.

That's what we do already with Fed, Nadal, Novak and so forth.

To me what you are doing is like cheating. First you say that you don't believe in a GOAT, then you pretty much declare Fed as the same thing, only swapping "greatest" for "most visible, popular and highest paid".

What cc means is the amount of titles won. Federer has won the most, that is a fact, no other player has 17 majors.

It's based solely off a number without looking into other variables.

GOAT however is something that cannot be evaluated.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
Can somebody pinch me real hard? The first 4 pages on the topic makes me believe that this is a grammar forum, something I would dread even thinking of joining. Please tell me this is a tennis forum, and not a grammar forum :( :( :(
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
There is no way in hell he wins 11 majors in 4 years with prime Nadal, Djokovic and Murray around. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't see prime Murray beating a prime Fed ever in a slam. Prime Fed is too much for any Murray version, reign with Lendl included. From 11-14, Djokovic has managed only six slams and there has been not really much competition over this period, see how many slams Nadal skipped, an *******, and even Murray almost absent for the entire year. Even in his peakest of the year, Nole almost lost twice to Federer, and I don't think it is all that safe to say he would have handled prime Federer the same. If all in prime, Nole takes at most 2 AO's which does not take much away from Fed as he lost one to Safin after all. So, 9-11 is still not a bad number and way way higher than anything that Nadal, Murray, or Djokovic possibly achieved over a 4-year period.

A simple question to you The_Order. Do you think Nadal wins only FO if Nole 2011 shows all the time :D (I know you will not answer this at all).
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Can somebody pinch me real hard? The first 4 pages on the topic makes me believe that this is a grammar forum, something I would dread even thinking of joining. Please tell me this is a tennis forum, and not a grammar forum :( :( :(

im not sure what your trying to say!? :-?
 

Boom-Boom

Legend
Sampras above Nadal makes perfect sense. Laver should be ranked higher.
This is a rankings of number 1 players. Nadal who holds the record for weeks ranked....#2 doesn't belong to that group.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
It is not a very extreme or rare viewpoint.

According to The_Order it is. The guy makes his opinions as facts. While we are basing our thoughts in facts, he is diminishing something that is proven.

You can never claim that an apple is an orange.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I don't see prime Murray beating a prime Fed ever in a slam. Prime Fed is too much for any Murray version, reign with Lendl included. From 11-14, Djokovic has managed only six slams and there has been not really much competition over this period, see how many slams Nadal skipped, an *******, and even Murray almost absent for the entire year. Even in his peakest of the year, Nole almost lost twice to Federer, and I don't think it is all that safe to say he would have handled prime Federer the same. If all in prime, Nole takes at most 2 AO's which does not take much away from Fed as he lost one to Safin after all. So, 9-11 is still not a bad number and way way higher than anything that Nadal, Murray, or Djokovic possibly achieved over a 4-year period.

It's not just about beating him. Prime Murray would give a tougher match than Roddick ever did at AO. Then next up opponent is prime Novak or Nadal LOL no way is Fed getting through that.

A simple question to you The_Order. Do you think Nadal wins only FO if Nole 2011 shows all the time :D (I know you will not answer this at all).

No I don't think that's all he gets. Also, Djok 2011 is not going to show up all the time.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
According to The_Order it is. The guy makes his opinions as facts. While we are basing our thoughts in facts, he is diminishing something that is proven.

You can never claim that an apple is an orange.

First of all, GOAT is an opinion.

Only it's a very baseless one and you Fed fans try and make it like it's a fact because you're in love with Federer.

Truth is, he isn't and never will be GOAT unless you can build a time machine and place him in every era and he dominated every era, then you can say he's GOAT.

Bit of advice though, you want to keep him away from 2008+, he's not winning 17 majors if his peak starts in 08 with peak Nadal around and then peak Novak on the horizon...
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
It's not just about beating him. Prime Murray would give a tougher match than Roddick ever did at AO. Then next up opponent is prime Novak or Nadal LOL no way is Fed getting through that.
Prime Nadal, Novak, and Murray without the information of who prime Federer is the situation we are talking about. I don't honestly think how Nole and Murray take a grand total of more than 2 slams during Feds prime, unknown to them. Murray has basically taken only 1 set out of 10 against Nadal on grass. I don't see him threatening Fed beyond a set or two on grass. At USO too, Murray has never impressed to my liking. How damaging has he been at AO? Is beating Fed in 2013 semis really impressive? Or Nadal in 2011? He has more or less lost every time he faces a daunting opponent at AO.

Nole has not done exactly astounding during his 4 years prime where he got only 6/16 slams on offer. The 2011 Nole certainly, and easily, takes one slam away from Fed. Even in 2011, he was only a point away from defeat. Kudos and credit to him for pulling it out. But if you think 2011 Fed is the same Fed as 2004-08, I can't help much in this argument. An unknown prime Fed will be too much for prime Nole and prime Murray to handle.

No I don't think that's all he gets. Also, Djok 2011 is not going to show up all the time.

The basic premise is if Djok 2011 shows 4 years during 4 years of Nadal prime, do you think Nadal wins only FO? A simple answer YES or NO is what I am looking for from you.

Anyways, this is again a circular argument. So fine, if you think all in primes would be taking more slams from Fed, and its also fine if I think Fed gets 9. Still 9/16 is not bad.
 
First of all, GOAT is an opinion.
Great, we agree.

Only it's a very baseless one and you Fed fans try and make it like it's a fact because you're in love with Federer.
That is just strawarguing of a bitter sort.

Truth is, he isn't and never will be GOAT unless you can build a time machine and place him in every era and he dominated every era, then you can say he's GOAT.
He can be, in the opinion of people,

Bit of advice though, you want to keep him away from 2008+, he's not winning 17 majors if his peak starts in 08 with peak Nadal around and then peak Novak on the horizon...
You do not know that. And he might make up for it due to longeivity.
 
Players tend to have an apex in terms of popularity while they still play tennis. Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, and now Nadal is in the mix. So it's a constantly evolving debate, that is largely influenced by marketing and business interests. That is especially true now, when the Tour is better organized and able to generate revenues due to all the groundwork laid by past tennis eras. There is a whole system at work to promote tennis interests and tennis marketing interests. As to the list, the issues, with Emerson, Borg, Laver, as well as Court and Graf are extremely problematic in terms of logical consistency at all. How about Gonzalez? It also does not consider such nuances such as the fact that Borg won 3 YEC, 1 WCT and 2 Masters that were at the time much more sought after than the AO. So, what is the formula used? Of course, it always comes down to subjectivity even if one tries to consider which single player won the most majors. Who is that player and why?
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Graff should be over federer without any freaking doubt, so Navratilova and Ever would have the edge vs him... With serena you could make a conversation.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
According to The_Order it is. The guy makes his opinions as facts. While we are basing our thoughts in facts, he is diminishing something that is proven.

You can never claim that an apple is an orange.

Just like the 90s Clay, they got nothing better to do but to bash Federer because he's widely considered a goat. Both Nadal and Sampras fans(not all) are envy/jealous of Federer achievements.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Just like the 90s Clay, they got nothing better to do but to bash Federer because he's widely considered a goat. Both Nadal and Sampras fans(not all) are envy/jealous of Federer achievements.

And you've got nothing better to do except put your nose up Federer's *** and try and create fan wars between Sampras and Nadal fans :lol:
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Just like the 90s Clay, they got nothing better to do but to bash Federer because he's widely considered a goat. Both Nadal and Sampras fans(not all) are envy/jealous of Federer achievements.

Fans like TV and The_Order who can't stand federer, is I guess fans of players in the past who achieved big records. Like Laver who is TVs favourite. Federer made his entry and broke all the records there is and made all legends in the past look ordinary, like laver for example. Thats why they can't stand him.

And when Nadal made his presence, dominating the h2h, that fired these fans up and were happy that someone came in Feds way ''finally'', same guy who demolished all legends in the past.

This is why they can't stand him, and why TV stands up for Nadal always.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Fans like TV and The_Order who can't stand federer, is I guess fans of players in the past who achieved big records. Like Laver who is TVs favourite. Federer made his entry and broke all the records there is and made all legends in the past look ordinary, like laver for example. Thats why they can't stand him.

And when Nadal made his presence, dominating the h2h, that fired these fans up and were happy that someone came in Feds way ''finally'', same guy who demolished all legends in the past.

This is why they can't stand him, and why TV stands up for Nadal always.

No I'm a Nadal fan because I was impressed with his style ever since I first saw him live in AO04 against Hewitt.

Sorry to disprove your little theory about me, but you shouldn't generalise.
 

Chico

Banned
What cc means is the amount of titles won. Federer has won the most, that is a fact, no other player has 17 majors.

It's based solely off a number without looking into other variables.

GOAT however is something that cannot be evaluated.

This is not true. Pancho Gonzales has 2 amateur slams and 15 pro slams (at the time when there were only 3 pro majors per year). That is 17 majors.

Also Pancho Gonzales was de facto indisputable best player of the year for 8 years. Mush longer that Federer.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Quote for truth

Fans like TV and The_Order who can't stand federer, is I guess fans of players in the past who achieved big records. Like Laver who is TVs favourite. Federer made his entry and broke all the records there is and made all legends in the past look ordinary, like laver for example. Thats why they can't stand him.

And when Nadal made his presence, dominating the h2h, that fired these fans up and were happy that someone came in Feds way ''finally'', same guy who demolished all legends in the past.

This is why they can't stand him, and why TV stands up for Nadal always.

One is living in a fantasy world when he thinks tennis evolves only around the Grand Slam, and the only thing that matter in goat credential. The other poster is bitter because Federer wins too much, too popular/famous thus got tired of Nadal being behind his shadow since 2005.
 

FreeBird

Legend
This is not true. Pancho Gonzales has 2 amateur slams and 15 pro majors (at the time went there were only 3 pro majors per year). That is 17 majors.

Also Pancho Gonzales was de facto indisputable best player of the year for 8 years. Mush longer that Federer.

Hello Mr. Chico, TT treating you well? :)
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
One is living in a fantasy world when he thinks tennis evolves only around the Grand Slam, and the only thing that matter in goat credential. The other poster is bitter because Federer wins too much, too popular/famous thus got tired of Nadal being behind his shadow since 2005.

As opposed to you being an insecure Fed worshiper :lol:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
This is not true. Pancho Gonzales has 2 amateur slams and 15 pro slams (at the time went there were only 3 pro majors per year). That is 17 majors.
Open era slams worth more weight than amateur slams or any pro major events during the pre-open era.


Also Pancho Gonzales was de facto indisputable best player of the year for 8 years. Mush longer that Federer.

This is misleading. Pancho doesn't have official 8 years #1 because there were no ranking system during his time. All were based on interpretation, subjective to agree/disagree. Since there were no system to determine who was the year #1, some had other player(e.g. Rosewall, Pancho Segura) was the year end #1. And some say both players ranked equally, thus shared the year end #1.

The ranking system was created in 1973 and that eliminate controversial, and one and only one is the undisputed year end #1. As it stand, the following players are the official year end #1.

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3


Year end No. 1 players
1 Steffi Graf 8
2 Martina Navratilova 7
3 Chris Evert 5
4 Lindsay Davenport 4
4 Serena Williams 4
6 Justine Henin 3
6 Martina Hingis 3
6 Monica Seles 3
9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1
 

Chico

Banned
Open era slams worth more weight than amateur slams or any pro major events during the pre-open era.

Not true. Just your biased opinion. At the worst case it is debatable and Fed just can't be declared the greatest of ALL TIME, since there were players that were equally great if not greater long before him.

This is misleading. Pancho doesn't have official 8 years #1 because there were no ranking system during his time. All were based on interpretation, subjective to agree/disagree. Since there were no system to determine who was the year #1, some had other player(e.g. Rosewall, Pancho Segura) was the year end #1. And some say both players ranked equally, thus shared the year end #1.

Just like it is, according to you, subjective to declare Pancho the best player for 8 years, it is also subjective to declare Federer the greatest of ALL TIME. Since there is no system to determine that, some will always have different players as GOATs, some woulfd say Pancho, some Laver, some Fed, some ...

The ranking system was created in 1973 and that eliminate controversial, and one and only one is the undisputed year end #1. As it stand, the following players are the official year end #1.

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
6. Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3


Year end No. 1 players

1 Martina Navratilova 7
2 Chris Evert 5
3 Steffi Graf 4 - * huge asterisk. Only 4 (1987-1990) are justified. The rest should not be counted.
3 Lindsay Davenport 4
3 Serena Williams 4
6 Justine Henin 3
6 Martina Hingis 3
6 Monica Seles 3 - Add at least 3-4.
9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1

Corrected for you, just for the record.
 

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
It is their spellchecker who does not recognize the word. As an ESL speaker I need to rely on them about things like this.
Why don't you rely on the DICTIONARY instead? :confused:

Anyway "winningest" does sound clumsy and is not proper commonly used word indeed.
In sports, it actually is.

The more literate and credible writer would probably say "most accomplished" or something like that.
What are you basing this on, besides the fact that you lost the argument badly? Because I would base your statement on stubbornness.

So I do believe Apple more than some online "Webster" dictionary.
Then you are the one who is being silly, and who's lost all credibility. Merriam-Webster is the premier dictionary in the United States, renowned for being the authority on American English. "Apple" is not! How about just admitting that you don't know what you're talking about? You've already been owned in this discussion.

Again. All (unwarranted in this case I must say) complaints should to be sent to the Apple Inc:

https://www.apple.com/contact/
Again, APPLE is not an English language authority. Deal with it!
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
As opposed to you being an insecure Fed worshiper :lol:

Exactly--hence that member's need to launch 50 pro-Federer / padded trivia list threads every few months. It is apparent he is threatened by true tennis history (as opposed to Wikipedia and puff piece cable channels) as it properly categorizes Federer, so once again, we get threads of this kind.

A true GOAT would not need so many displays/threads of insecurity and desperation.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Fans like TV and The_Order who can't stand federer, is I guess fans of players in the past who achieved big records. Like Laver who is TVs favourite. Federer made his entry and broke all the records there is and made all legends in the past look ordinary, like laver for example. Thats why they can't stand him.

And when Nadal made his presence, dominating the h2h, that fired these fans up and were happy that someone came in Feds way ''finally'', same guy who demolished all legends in the past.

This is why they can't stand him, and why TV stands up for Nadal always.

..said the guy who disrespects Laver & the Grand Slam--the latter being the zenith of tennis, which Federer failed to win.

...said the guy who disrepsects Olympics Gold in singles--why? Because Federer failed to win that, too.

You are pure, predictable comedy, little guy..
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
This is not true. Pancho Gonzales has 2 amateur slams and 15 pro slams (at the time went there were only 3 pro majors per year). That is 17 majors.

Also Pancho Gonzales was de facto indisputable best player of the year for 8 years. Mush longer that Federer.

You also have to add the fact that Pancho Gonzalez won 7 World Championship tours which were more important than any classic major. The reason is that the winner of the tour is the World Champion and therefore if you win the World Championship tour that year it doesn't matter if the other player won two or three majors, the winner of the tour is number one for the year, the World Champion. You could easily argue Pancho's majors record is the equivalent of over 30 majors! Add over 130 tournaments won. Add that he defeated players like Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Gimeno, Emerson, Connors, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and you have an incredible record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

Here's a great video of Gonzalez in 1969, age 41 at the Howard Hughes Open which was a huge big time tournament. This video alone shows him defeating John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall and Arthur Ashe who are three of the all time great players!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wo9v33t6xI
 
Last edited:

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Winningest is originally probably something a 7 year old American kid came up with. An advanced search showed it isn't so common at all around these parts. That would explain why Chico feels irrate at suggestions to the contrary.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
First of all, GOAT is an opinion.

Only it's a very baseless one and you Fed fans try and make it like it's a fact because you're in love with Federer.

Truth is, he isn't and never will be GOAT unless you can build a time machine and place him in every era and he dominated every era, then you can say he's GOAT.

if being GOAT is an opinion, then NOT being GOAT is also an opinion (because, if it was not an opinion, but fact, then it invalidates your assertion that being GOAT is an opinion).

Can you make up your mind, as you seem to argue that Fed is NOT GOAT as if it were a fact..

You should be clear about what you argue - that Federer is NOT GOAT or there is no GOAT. You seem to be switching positions as it suits you.

This time machine crap is utter BS - it means that there can be no GOAT in any sport.

Based on data available, Federer is the GOAT. You can cry and whine about how his slam count is "inflated" or how unfair it is, or speculate how Djoker would've stopped Federer based on how a 34-yr old, hometown favorite stretched him in one match (never mind the string of losses prior to it), but you need to get over it. A 33 yr old trashed peak Djoker in their most recent meeting, and pushed him to 5 sets at Wimbledon. Using your logic, I can safely say that peak Federer would be wiping the floor with peak Djoker.
 
Last edited:

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
..said the guy who disrespects Laver & the Grand Slam--the latter being the zenith of tennis, which Federer failed to win.

...said the guy who disrepsects Olympics Gold in singles--why? Because Federer failed to win that, too.

You are pure, predictable comedy, little guy..

the grand slam is the holy grail to YOU - please don't shove that down everyone's throats.

The topic of disrespect is pretty comical and ironical coming from you, someone who never fails to take a dump on Federer at every opportunity. So, please get over yourself..
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
the grand slam is the holy grail to YOU - please don't shove that down everyone's throats.

The topic of disrespect is pretty comical and ironical coming from you, someone who never fails to take a dump on Federer at every opportunity. So, please get over yourself..

No, TVs opinions are #facts. He doesn't need no sources or backup for his statements. Even when you ask him to provide it, he still somehow manages to dodge it.

But again, the CYGS is the only thing he has to come up with. Nothing else. If fed had the CYGS, he would still be yapping about something else. So it doesn't matter what fed achieves, TV would find something else to undermine Fed cause he just can't stand the guy who took Lavers records to a complete different level and took the fame out of Laver.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Still angry that Federer has demolished Lavers achievements

Last time history checked, Laver was the last man to win the supreme tennis achievement of the Grand Slam. You get back to us when Federer uses a wish and rubs a genie long enough to conjure up the talent required to win that--which was beyond him from the start, and remains so. I do not need to "come up with" anything else, but there's always room for extra icing on the cake.

however...

But again, the CYGS is the only thing he has to come up with. Nothing else

I've already said--time and again--that you can also add Olympic Gold in singles, and while you're at it, winning more than a fluke French Open where he did not have to face his master (Nadal).

Thanks for playing, junior.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
if being GOAT is an opinion, then NOT being GOAT is also an opinion (because, if it was not an opinion, but fact, then it invalidates your assertion that being GOAT is an opinion).

Can you make up your mind, as you seem to argue that Fed is NOT GOAT as if it were a fact..

You should be clear about what you argue - that Federer is NOT GOAT or there is no GOAT. You seem to be switching positions as it suits you.

This time machine crap is utter BS - it means that there can be no GOAT in any sport.

Based on data available, Federer is the GOAT. You can cry and whine about how his slam count is "inflated" or how unfair it is, or speculate how Djoker would've stopped Federer based on how a 34-yr old, hometown favorite stretched him in one match (never mind the string of losses prior to it), but you need to get over it. A 33 yr old trashed peak Djoker in their most recent meeting, and pushed him to 5 sets at Wimbledon. Using your logic, I can safely say that peak Federer would be wiping the floor with peak Djoker.

No what I mean is, GOAT is an opinion, but when I say there never can be a GOAT, I mean it can never be proven as a fact like the Fed fans try and do with it.

And the time machine stuff is NOT crap, only delusional people think you can categorically state a player as GOAT.

So I'm not surprised to see you here saying Fed is GOAT, especially with that goofy username...
 
Last edited:
Top