Top 10 Winningest Tennis Player of All Time

Gary Duane

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.
It would bother any non-native American because it is a colloquial or slang word peculiar to American sports, and it breaks a rule. The endings "er" and "est" are not tacked onto a gerund. That's why it is included in the Urban Dictionary.

It was probably used originally in a humorous way, and it caught on here, in the US.

I would simply advise someone non-native to make a mental note of what it means but not to try to use it. There are countless words like that in every language, but they throw me for a loop in French and German. :)
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
So this is what happens when you argue semantics with a person who freely admits that his skills in the language concerned are second rate, and honestly believes that Djokovic has the best slice, and that his 2013 and 2014 seasons are superior to Nadal's 2013.

It's like that scene in Futurama when Philip J Fry (the main character) dies and at his funeral, a clergyman says "I barely knew Philip, but as a clergyman, I have no trouble telling his most intimate friends all about him."
 
Last edited:

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
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...

Can you prove that Fed is NOT GOAT? At best, you're just giving your opinions, not facts.
(and just as I thought, you didn't have much of a response, so you ended up attacking my user name.. too predictable)
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
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...



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 time history checked, Federer was the last man to win 17 Grand Slam titles. You get back to us when Laver has enough to conjure up the talent required to win that--wich was beyond him from the start, and remains so.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Can you prove that Fed is NOT GOAT? At best, you're just giving your opinions, not facts.
(and just as I thought, you didn't have much of a response, so you ended up attacking my user name.. too predictable)

How could anyone prove that a subjective label like "greatest of all time" did not apply to a particular person? It needs to be defined first, but it never is. Majority today tend to think he is the best. The picture could look very different later on.

Also, the list is strange to include women and men, but then put Federer with 17 majors as the best. (when several women achieved more) It's like they are saying women are equal to men, but at the same time they are not.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Last time history checked, Federer was the last man to win 17 Grand Slam titles. You get back to us when Laver has enough to conjure up the talent required to win that--wich was beyond him from the start, and remains so.

This is ridiculous. Laver was not allowed to participate in the majors you clown. You know nothing about the history of this sport, yet you want to run around claiming that your boy is the greatest of all time.

Pathetic.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
This is ridiculous. Laver was not allowed to participate in the majors you clown. You know nothing about the history of this sport, yet you want to run around claiming that your boy is the greatest of all time.

Pathetic.

He wasn't allowed because he was a professional. And becoming professional in this time, made it legal to play for prize money, otherwise not. Grand slams before the Open Era was for amateurs. Ken Rosewall and Gonzales wasn't allowed to play it either when they became pros. So it wasn't just applied on Laver you clown.

I know plenty of the history, I'm just basing my opinions on facts. And the fact is that Laver didn't have the talent required to win more than 11 majors, a number federer has surpassed by a mile.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
He wasn't allowed because he was a professional. And becoming professional in this time, made it legal to play for prize money, otherwise not. Grand slams before the Open Era was for amateurs. Ken Rosewall and Gonzales wasn't allowed to play it either when they became pros. So it wasn't just applied on Laver you clown.

I know plenty of the history, I'm just basing my opinions on facts. And the fact is that Laver didn't have the talent required to win more than 11 majors, a number federer has surpassed by a mile.

You're creeping closer and closer to my ignore list.

You really do have nfi, if the open era began in 59 instead of 69 Laver would've passed 17 majors comfortably.

Laver was over 30 when he won the CYGS and you think he doesn't have the talent to surpass Federer? Disgusting how disrespectful you are. Need I remind you that Rod Laver brings your boy to tears nearly everytime, especially when Nadal embarrassed him in the AO09 final :lol:

Another taste of truth which is too bitter for you to swallow.

I never said it was just applied to Laver. Yep true story, read my post again and highlight where I said it only applied to Laver.

Of course I shouldn't be surprised that you can't read properly, you are afterall a delusional troll.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
You're creeping closer and closer to my ignore list.

You really do have nfi, if the open era began in 59 instead of 69 Laver would've passed 17 majors comfortably.

Laver was over 30 when he won the CYGS and you think he doesn't have the talent to surpass Federer? Disgusting how disrespectful you are. Need I remind you that Rod Laver brings your boy to tears nearly everytime, especially when Nadal embarrassed him in the AO09 final :lol:

Another taste of truth which is too bitter for you to swallow.

I never said it was just applied to Laver. Yep true story, read my post again and highlight where I said it only applied to Laver.

Of course I shouldn't be surprised that you can't read properly, you are afterall a delusional troll.

If you are going with the ''ifs'', I think Laver would be slamless between 60-62 if Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales were allowed to play in the majors then. So thats 6 slams less. Laver was kicked around by these guys when he turned pro until he started winning them. How would it have been when Laver was even younger? I think Even Laver himself has admitted that he wouldn't win a slam until 64 if this was the case.

So all your hypothetical theories fails, because there will always be another that will destroy that theory. Laver won 11 slams, there isn't no more or more that he could win.

But again, this is just hypothetical. You are starting with the insults because I'm putting you down all the time. You don't know ****. ''if the open era began in 59'', haha that proves how little you know because he probably wouldn't win nowhere near 6 slams during those upcoming years because then Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales would have been there.

Take you theories and go to sleep, you are out of your element.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
If you are going with the ''ifs'', I think Laver would be slamless between 60-62 if Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales were allowed to play in the majors then. So thats 6 slams less. Laver was kicked around by these guys when he turned pro until he started winning them. How would it have been when Laver was even younger? I think Even Laver himself has admitted that he wouldn't win a slam until 64 if this was the case.

So all your hypothetical theories fails, because there will always be another that will destroy that theory. Laver won 11 slams, there isn't no more or more that he could win.

But again, this is just hypothetical. You are starting with the insults because I'm putting you down all the time. You don't know ****. ''if the open era began in 59'', haha that proves how little you know because he probably wouldn't win nowhere near 6 slams during those upcoming years because then Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales would have been there.

Take you theories and go to sleep, you are out of your element.

It's not a theory you clown, Laver was CLEARLY talented enough. He won the CYGS after 30. What Federer does at that age? All we hear is "Aww it's not fair Roger too old that's why he can't win" LOL excuses, excuses. Federer not talented enough to win majors like Laver after age 30.

Your opinion means nothing because you base it on rubbish. Hoad and Pancho both didn't stop Laver in 69. Pancho was absent from a lot of pro slams from 59-67 and at his age at the time he wouldn't be stopping Rod on a regular basis either. Rosewall only got the better of Rod in 63 after that Rod took over. But then again I should go easy on you because I know you didn't know that...
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not a theory you clown, Laver was CLEARLY talented enough. He won the CYGS after 30. What Federer does at that age? All we hear is "Aww it's not fair Roger too old that's why he can't win" LOL excuses, excuses. Federer not talented enough to win majors like Laver after age 30.

Your opinion means nothing because you base it on rubbish. Hoad and Pancho both didn't stop Laver in 69. Pancho was absent from a lot of pro slams from 59-67 and at his age at the time he wouldn't be stopping Rod on a regular basis either. Rosewall only got the better of Rod in 63 after that Rod took over. But then again I should go easy on you because I know you didn't know that...

Yes, after 63. But what about your statement that IF the open era began in 59? The pros would have been allowed to play slams then also. Wich leads us to - Would Laver even have won that many slams during that period as he did if he met e.g Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales so early? I don't think so.

Laver was a very talented and complete player, one of the all time greats, but he didn't win no more than 11 slams. And thats the fact.
- ''If he was allowed to play slams during those years'', no there isn't anything like that. I also can say ''if the pros where allowed to play in early 60's''.

Now I feel this discussion is over. Well met.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Yes, after 63. But what about your statement that IF the open era began in 59? The pros would have been allowed to play slams then also. Wich leads us to - Would Laver even have won that many slams during that period as he did if he met e.g Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales so early? I don't think so.

Laver was a very talented and complete player, one of the all time greats, but he didn't win no more than 11 slams. And thats the fact.
- ''If he was allowed to play slams during those years'', no there isn't anything like that. I also can say ''if the pros where allowed to play in early 60's''.

Now I feel this discussion is over. Well met.

Yes let's forget about Rod's 8 pro titles. Let's just pretend he wasn't talented enough :lol:
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Yes let's forget about Rod's 8 pro titles. Let's just pretend he wasn't talented enough :lol:

True enough and don't forget Laver won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967 of Wembley, the US Pro, the French Pro and the Wimbledon Pro which was perhaps the most important tournament in the history of the Pro Tour.

Frankly I don't understand why every discussion seems to deteriorate into a hypothetical battle between Laver and Federer. Both are great players and it's not necessary to demean either one.

I have seen Laver numerous times in person and on television is I can say he did things with a wood racquet that I've never seen before.

There seems to be a controversy on how many majors Laver would have won if there was Open Tennis. Many say Laver would not have won any majors prior to 1963 and that his majors total would be greatly lowered. Perhaps, perhaps not. But here's a few facts, Laver in any level of competition has been number one and a clear number one. In 1963, when Laver first started it's obvious that Laver was inferior to Hoad and Laver, perhaps other players also. What is also a fact is that Laver quickly rose to number two in the Pros by at least the end of the year in 1963. Laver was arguably number one in the Pro Ranks in 1964 so it took about a year for Laver to overtake the top pros!

Laver was one of the most versatile players I have seen. This is an opinion of course but many who have seen the Rocket would agree with me. So he could adapt to virtually anything. If we had the hypothetical that Open Tennis was always around you would assume that Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura, Sedgman and Hoad would not be the giants that they actually were because they would be playing overall inferior competition in the Open Era instead of the all world lineup they face every week, even in the first rounds of tournaments. We all play to the level of our competition and the competition would be weaker if there was never a Pro Tour and there was just Open Tennis.

Laver I assume would be playing Pancho Gonzalez at an earlier age and would be raising his level in order to compete with Gonzalez who may not be the super great that he was in actual life. No doubt Gonzalez would be great. Laver also would be playing Hoad and Rosewall and would know that to compete he would have to improve his play.

I do believe is that the cream eventually rises to the top. I believe a young Laver may very well have won a number of majors in Open Tennis was always around. Perhaps Laver would have won a lot more classic majors as perhaps Gonzalez, Rosewall and Hoad.

The thing is that despite perhaps having a superficially better record in majors I don't think they ever would have been as good as they were in actual life. The situation in those days was unique in the the top pros constantly played against each other. Many of them were all time greats like Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman and Trabert. If you play at this level all the time you have to be a far better player. Gonzalez for example was beaten badly by Jack Kramer in is first pro tour by a score of 96 to 27. Gonzalez improved greatly playing Kramer and eventually became number one and stayed arguably the best player (perhaps not officially number one in the pros but the best player) for around a decade. I doubt if Gonzalez would have made this quantum leap type improvement if Open Tennis was always around or if he remained an amateur like Roy Emerson did.

Just some points to think about. :)
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
True enough and don't forget Laver won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967 of Wembley, the US Pro, the French Pro and the Wimbledon Pro which was perhaps the most important tournament in the history of the Pro Tour.

Frankly I don't understand why every discussion seems to deteriorate into a hypothetical battle between Laver and Federer. Both are great players and it's not necessary to demean either one.

I have seen Laver numerous times in person and on television is I can say he did things with a wood racquet that I've never seen before.

There seems to be a controversy on how many majors Laver would have won if there was Open Tennis. Many say Laver would not have won any majors prior to 1963 and that his majors total would be greatly lowered. Perhaps, perhaps not. But here's a few facts, Laver in any level of competition has been number one and a clear number one. In 1963, when Laver first started it's obvious that Laver was inferior to Hoad and Laver, perhaps other players also. What is also a fact is that Laver quickly rose to number two in the Pros by at least the end of the year in 1963. Laver was arguably number one in the Pro Ranks in 1964 so it took about a year for Laver to overtake the top pros!

Laver was one of the most versatile players I have seen. This is an opinion of course but many who have seen the Rocket would agree with me. So he could adapt to virtually anything. If we had the hypothetical that Open Tennis was always around you would assume that Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura, Sedgman and Hoad would not be the giants that they actually were because they would be playing overall inferior competition in the Open Era instead of the all world lineup they face every week, even in the first rounds of tournaments. We all play to the level of our competition and the competition would be weaker if there was never a Pro Tour and there was just Open Tennis.

Laver I assume would be playing Pancho Gonzalez at an earlier age and would be raising his level in order to compete with Gonzalez who may not be the super great that he was in actual life. No doubt Gonzalez would be great. Laver also would be playing Hoad and Rosewall and would know that to compete he would have to improve his play.

I do believe is that the cream eventually rises to the top. I believe a young Laver may very well have won a number of majors in Open Tennis was always around. Perhaps Laver would have won a lot more classic majors as perhaps Gonzalez, Rosewall and Hoad.

The thing is that despite perhaps having a superficially better record in majors I don't think they ever would have been as good as they were in actual life. The situation in those days was unique in the the top pros constantly played against each other. Many of them were all time greats like Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman and Trabert. If you play at this level all the time you have to be a far better player. Gonzalez for example was beaten badly by Jack Kramer in is first pro tour by a score of 96 to 27. Gonzalez improved greatly playing Kramer and eventually became number one and stayed arguably the best player (perhaps not officially number one in the pros but the best player) for around a decade. I doubt if Gonzalez would have made this quantum leap type improvement if Open Tennis was always around or if he remained an amateur like Roy Emerson did.

Just some points to think about. :)

And thats why we can't say Laver would have more than 11, because we don't know.

There is alot of things to take in considiration and thats why it is impossible to say it's for sure that Laver would win more than 11 slams if he was allowed to play the slams during those years.

We have to go by the number that is now and written in the history books. And thats 11 and always will be.

I'm just going by the facts, but to others, I'm diminishing Laver and disrespecting him. When all I'm doing is going by the facts and not ''if'' this and that.

I think it's disrespectful to undermine facts.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
How could anyone prove that a subjective label like "greatest of all time" did not apply to a particular person? It needs to be defined first, but it never is. Majority today tend to think he is the best. The picture could look very different later on.

Also, the list is strange to include women and men, but then put Federer with 17 majors as the best. (when several women achieved more) It's like they are saying women are equal to men, but at the same time they are not.

Apparently, the "No GOAT" camp has it all figured out. They state as FACTS as to why someone cannot be GOAT, or why there never can be a GOAT. My question was rhetorical in nature.

The best we have are stats, some context and a bunch of opinions borne out of them. And Fed happens to be the popular choice.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
Who is the greatest is simply base on opinion. The problem is some of you can't accept that the general public perceive Federer and Graf is the greatest. Not that everyone has to agree, just like for Jordan or Rice, but MOST of them do !


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 ...
What part of my post that you don't capiche?
An ranking system(since 1973) is well in place so all the ranking players are official. An objective methodology to rank the players so there's no subjective, doubt or debate unlike during Pancho's time. There's no way of determine who had the best year prior 1973. e.g. some say Segura is #1 and some say Pancho is #1 in 1952. Many historians have hard time to determine who was the #1 in 1960, so they gave both Rosewall and Pancho the shared #1.



Corrected for you, just for the record.
Your hate for Graf rank up there with the 90's clay and the_order hate for Federer
 

kiki

Banned
You're creeping closer and closer to my ignore list.

You really do have nfi, if the open era began in 59 instead of 69 Laver would've passed 17 majors comfortably.

Laver was over 30 when he won the CYGS and you think he doesn't have the talent to surpass Federer? Disgusting how disrespectful you are. Need I remind you that Rod Laver brings your boy to tears nearly everytime, especially when Nadal embarrassed him in the AO09 final :lol:

Another taste of truth which is too bitter for you to swallow.

I never said it was just applied to Laver. Yep true story, read my post again and highlight where I said it only applied to Laver.

Of course I shouldn't be surprised that you can't read properly, you are afterall a delusional troll.

let´s be equitative here.

Laver is the best on the male´s and Federer on the female´s...:)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

There is no us except only you against the world. Even Laver is not on your side.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
And thats why we can't say Laver would have more than 11, because we don't know.

There is alot of things to take in considiration and thats why it is impossible to say it's for sure that Laver would win more than 11 slams if he was allowed to play the slams during those years.

We have to go by the number that is now and written in the history books. And thats 11 and always will be.

I'm just going by the facts, but to others, I'm diminishing Laver and disrespecting him. When all I'm doing is going by the facts and not ''if'' this and that.

I think it's disrespectful to undermine facts.

Actually the facts are this, Laver won at least 200 tournaments against top competition. He won close to 80 tournaments in the Open Era when he was about 30 or over. He won at least 20 majors if you include Pro Majors. He won an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam.

The almost 80 tournaments won from 1968 on (Laver was born on August 9, 1938 ) is incredible by any standard. Laver also won tournaments that in many ways were essentially majors in the Tennis Champions Classic of 1970 and 1971. In 1971 Laver won 13 matches without a loss to win the Tennis Champions Classic. He defeated Tony Roche, John Newcombe, Roy Emerson, Ken Rosewall, Tom Okker (several times), Dennis Ralston (several times), Arthur Ashe and Roger Taylor. Perhaps the toughest field ever.

These are the facts. And I do believe that if Open Tennis was around for all of Laver's career, perhaps Laver would have had by the people who look at tennis today as a superior record but he was not have reached the super high level of play he did reach because of the great competition he face. Frankly I'd rather have his record like it is currently because I believe his level was higher if we look at the facts and draw conclusions about level of play.

And in looking at the bottom line, aren't we really looking at level of play] and not the simple counting of majors. There are many ways to analyze level of play. Federer is considered great not just because of his majors but because he was so dominant in his peak years. Counting majors doesn't take into account the Pro/Amateur divide of the past where I'm certain guys like Tilden, Gonzalez, Vines and others would have won a great amount of majors. It also doesn't take into account that travel conditions were different years ago because people traveled by boat and not by plane.

Both are great players. It's a shame that either side has to put down the other side to make a case. I'm not saying you do it but it's clear some do.


The title of the article is ridiculous because what standards are being used? What is the criteria? Is it winning percentage? I would think Lenglen, Court, Connolly and Evert would be the best there? Is it tournaments won? Laver would be number one there or Margaret Court would be. Is it years the player was number one or the best in the world? Gonzalez may be number one there or Margaret Court. Is it dominance in peak years? A lot of players would be considered there. Is it most matches played? Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and others would be considered there.
 
Last edited:

Bud

Bionic Poster
Results as flawed as language choice. Graf was more successful than Federer in every category.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
There is no us except only you against the world. Even Laver is not on your side.

The is the "us' is 46 years of acknowledgment, while majors counts are rountinely passed.

Agassi, McEnroe, Laver and others have all kicked Federer to the curb, with their most recent judgements on the matter being he is not a GOAT. At best, he's the best of his generation. Nothing more (obviously, if he failed to win the Grand Slam).


Try not to cry..smile, young one--smile!
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Last time history checked, Federer was the last man to win 17 Grand Slam titles.

Last time anyone checked, surpassing an accumulation of majors titles is no difficult feat, and certainly not mastering the sport--the very act displayed in the concentrated dominance of winning the Grand Slam. That's the supreme achievement even an army of Federers could not win.

Now, you get back to us and history when Federer ever masters this sport by winning the Grand Slam.

Until that never-going-to-happen day, it is now 46 years and counting since Laver's mastery of tennis.
 
"MY favorite pro is better than yours!!!…bwaaa!"

Frankly I don't understand why every discussion seems to deteriorate into a hypothetical battle between Laver and Federer.

Both are great players and it's not necessary to demean either one.
It's simple pc1: it's fanboys such as the OP (TFM) and the 'Fed sig' fanboys like "RF-18" that have turned much of TW-TT into a tennybopper "my favorite pro!" piss fest. According to these obsessive retards, tennis begins and ends with Federer and there is no in between. And the proof of the pudding is their wikipedia/google 'scholastic' cherrypicking. And you can also add Sampras, Nadal et al to their fanboy list of 'targeted' pros.
 
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.
Ofcourse he can, because it is as you say just opinion.
 
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.
Perhaps it is just in answer to other people who seem a bit bitter, insecure, desperate.
 
..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..
I don't think anyone really disrespects CYGS or olympic gold. "Little guy" however does have an air of disrespect about it.
 

President

Legend
How can Federer possibly be the "winningest" tennis player of all time when Graf, Evert, and Navratilova (at least) have clearly achieved more on paper?
 
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...
I think everyone agrees it is an opinion.
 
Last time anyone checked, surpassing an accumulation of majors titles is no difficult feat, and certainly not mastering the sport--the very act displayed in the concentrated dominance of winning the Grand Slam. That's the supreme achievement even an army of Federers could not win.

Now, you get back to us and history when Federer ever masters this sport by winning the Grand Slam.

Until that never-going-to-happen day, it is now 46 years and counting since Laver's mastery of tennis.
Still, three consequtive seasons of + 90 winning % is quite good mastering.
 

Chico

Banned
Who is the greatest is simply base on opinion. The problem is some of you can't accept that the general public perceive Federer and Graf is the greatest. Not that everyone has to agree, just like for Jordan or Rice, but MOST of them do !



What part of my post that you don't capiche?
An ranking system(since 1973) is well in place so all the ranking players are official. An objective methodology to rank the players so there's no subjective, doubt or debate unlike during Pancho's time. There's no way of determine who had the best year prior 1973. e.g. some say Segura is #1 and some say Pancho is #1 in 1952. Many historians have hard time to determine who was the #1 in 1960, so they gave both Rosewall and Pancho the shared #1.




Your hate for Graf rank up there with the 90's clay and the_order hate for Federer

So much wrong with this post.

1. General public DO NOT perceive neither Federer and especially not Graf as the greatest. Simply not true.

2. You clearly didn't comprehend my post. Since your answer is totally irrelevant. Simply there is no criteria to objectively measure and declare the GOAT the same way there was no criteria or measure to objectively declare #1 before 1973. Quite disappointing to refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and go back to useless "argument" everyone agrees with about #1 pre 1973.

3. I do not hate Graf. I simply say, a lunatic with a dagger should not be allowed to alter the tennis history and decide who is greatest. Graf's career has a HUGE asterisk when it comes to her inflated achievements and GOAT debate and she will never be, not she should be considered the GOAT. Thankfully the majority of experts and the general public recognize what happened and acknowledge that.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
So much wrong with this post.

1. General public DO NOT perceive neither Federer and especially not Graf as the greatest. Simply not true.

2. You clearly didn't comprehend my post. Since your answer is totally irrelevant. Simply there is no criteria to objectively measure and declare the GOAT the same way there was no criteria or measure to objectively declare #1 before 1973. Quite disappointing to refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and go back to useless "argument" everyone agrees with about #1 pre 1973.

3. I do not hate Graf. I simply say, a lunatic with a dagger should be allowed to alter the tennis history and decide who is greatest. Graf's career has a HUGE asterisk when it comes to her inflated achievements and GOAT debate and she will never be, not she should be considered the GOAT. Thankfully the majority of experts and the general public recognize what happened and acknowledge that.

The number will always be in the history books, doesn't matter how it happened, it will still be there. It will never say, ''Graf - 22 Grand Slam titles, but she won them because Seles got stabbed''.

It's not Grafs fault that Seles got stabbed, don't direct your anger at her.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
If you are going with the ''ifs'', I think Laver would be slamless between 60-62 if Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales were allowed to play in the majors then. So thats 6 slams less. Laver was kicked around by these guys when he turned pro until he started winning them. How would it have been when Laver was even younger? I think Even Laver himself has admitted that he wouldn't win a slam until 64 if this was the case.
64 is a bit late. Rankings are approximate at that time because they were voted on. The votes were probably close to correct, but obviously there was not computer. But in 63 Laver was picked #2, I think, and #2 would be good enough to win a slam. I would not count any of us amateur slams though. I he was no where near best in the world in 62. That said, he was unable to play slams during his peak years. If he won 4 in 69, he certainly could have won 2 or 3 other years.

That said, I don't like comparing eras. Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver were all very strong #1 players. Laver was pretty much top of the world for about 7 years, which at least compares quite favorably with Laver.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Hoad and Pancho both didn't stop Laver in 69.
Hoad and Rosewall were born in 1934. Gonzales in 1928. Laver in 1938. Rosewall was Laver's chief opponent, but by the end of 1969 he was 36. Those are not the people we would expect to beat Laver. Of course Laver was going to dominate. He was by far the strongest of the pros, and the amateurs had not had contend with him before 69.
Pancho was absent from a lot of pro slams from 59-67 and at his age at the time he wouldn't be stopping Rod on a regular basis either.
Which brings up the question: How many slams could Gonzales have gotten when he was best in the world had he been allowed to compete. :)
Rosewall only got the better of Rod in 63 after that Rod took over.
Rosewall got the better of everyone from around 1960-1963, four years when a computer might have put him officially as #1. Considering how many tournaments he won in the Open Era, it is likely he also would have won a lot of slams.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
The thing is that despite perhaps having a superficially better record in majors I don't think they ever would have been as good as they were in actual life. The situation in those days was unique in the the top pros constantly played against each other. Many of them were all time greats like Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman and Trabert. If you play at this level all the time you have to be a far better player. Gonzalez for example was beaten badly by Jack Kramer in is first pro tour by a score of 96 to 27. Gonzalez improved greatly playing Kramer and eventually became number one and stayed arguably the best player (perhaps not officially number one in the pros but the best player) for around a decade. I doubt if Gonzalez would have made this quantum leap type improvement if Open Tennis was always around or if he remained an amateur like Roy Emerson did.
I agree. In fact, I would say that the pressure cooker of the pro tour at that time made these top pros tough. It's a bit like having a modern tour where the top 5 players in the world, or so, had to play each other day in and day out all year. Think of Fed, Nadal, Novak and Murray playing each other all year. Add in someone like Kei. Now, these players do this for years, then suddenly they are allowed to play open tennis. What would the other players make of this, having not had the chance to play them?

This is why I don't pay attention to players like Emerson, who simply could not compete against these great pros.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Rosewall got the better of everyone from around 1960-1963, four years when a computer might have put him officially as #1. Considering how many tournaments he won in the Open Era, it is likely he also would have won a lot of slams.

Gonzalez got the better of Rosewall from 60-61.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Gonzalez got the better of Rosewall from 60-61.

True. Gonzalez, who was already past his prime in his early thirties defeated a peak Rosewall on a multiplayer pro tour by 15 to 4 I believe in 1960. Gonzalez won the tour with a 49-8 record with Rosewall far behind at 32-25. The other two players were Segura and Olmedo.

Rosewall was never number one until Gonzalez retired.
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
There is alot of things to take in considiration and thats why it is impossible to say it's for sure that Laver would win more than 11 slams if he was allowed to play the slams during those years

We have to go by the number that is now and written in the history books. And thats 11 and always will be.
You can look at it that way, but then you become rather inflexible and judge all players against all others using only slams as a measurement. That may be fair in the open era, although even then I think some players had less competition and thus could really drive up their slam count. If we go only by slams won, Novak is about half the player Fed is. But having seen both of them at their peaks, I think it is no so simple.

There are a group of players who were born within about a year:

Safin, Hewitt, Federer, Nalbandian, Roddick, Ferrer, Coria. I think there are 20 slams there, altogether.

Compare to:

Nadal, Gasquet, Djokovic, Murray. Gasquet has done nothing in slams, but the other three already have 23 slams, right? 14+7+2, and they are all 5 or 6 years behind Fed in age.

These are facts also. But it takes a bit more thinking to see them.

It makes a difference how many people are "slamming you back" who were born almost at the same time.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
True. Gonzalez, who was already past his prime in his early thirties defeated a peak Rosewall on a multiplayer pro tour by 15 to 4 I believe in 1960. Gonzalez won the tour with a 49-8 record with Rosewall far behind at 32-25. The other two players were Segura and Olmedo.

Rosewall was never number one until Gonzalez retired.
Gonzales would most likely never have retired if he had made the kind of money players get today. In 1960 he was 32. In 1968, at the age of 40, he still made it into the list at #10. I don't think people today know that.

To me the way Gonzales, Laver and Rosewall won in the open era gives us a good idea of just how good they were. There was a 10 years spread, it was a lot like seeing Pete still playing at a time when Fed is finally allowed to play slams and wins all of them in one year. These former pros were so good that it took a few years for the former amateurs to adapt to their higher playing level.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Gonzalez got the better of Rosewall from 60-61.
Sloppy, and you are right. I should have said that Rosewall probably would have been #1 those years if there had been a fair ranking system and a computer, but Gonzales was still winning the H2H. If you want to give Pancho a couple more years, I won't argue. Rosewall for the most part was sort of a "weak pro era champion". ;)

He benefited from Gonzales' semi-retirement and the four year lead he had on Laver. Still, Rosewall has to get huge credit from some of his wins against Laver in the early Open Era.

I see it as mostly domination by Gonzales and Laver, with Rosewall third best but a very STRONG 3rd best in that strange era. Kramer at the top before Gonzales, of course.

To me it is pretty obvious which players after those were most dominant. :)
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Hoad and Rosewall were born in 1934. Gonzales in 1928. Laver in 1938. Rosewall was Laver's chief opponent, but by the end of 1969 he was 36. Those are not the people we would expect to beat Laver. Of course Laver was going to dominate. He was by far the strongest of the pros, and the amateurs had not had contend with him before 69.

Exactly. Which only further backs up my point that Laver would have more majors.

Which brings up the question: How many slams could Gonzales have gotten when he was best in the world had he been allowed to compete. :)

He would have a huge tally of majors I'd imagine.

Rosewall got the better of everyone from around 1960-1963, four years when a computer might have put him officially as #1. Considering how many tournaments he won in the Open Era, it is likely he also would have won a lot of slams.

From 64+ Laver would have finished with more than 11 majors, do you agree?
 
Top