Top 3 players per year from 1877 to 2020 (with a regular update)

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Such a database required a years-long research. Covered are more than 12,000 tournaments and tours and more than 1,100 players for this period.

Included is the full performance of the players for the respective year.

In order to assess the tournaments and the players’ performance fully, adequately, objectively and qualitative 3 basic methodologies were developed:
- methodology for assessing the status of the tournament;
- methodology for adopting and unifying the pre-open Era tournaments to the open era tournaments, which is often the main dispute in the public;
- methodology for assessing the professional tours in the pre-open Era;

Unlike to probably all other published rankings in ATP, the media or in the forums my rankings include also the data of the non-ATP tournaments which were regular tournaments with very high value and very often much higher paid compared to the ATP tournaments. This could lead to some potential inconsistencies in comparison to some official ATP rankings. For example 1982 when Lendl won 4 big non-ATP tournaments and the official gap between Connors and Lendl was very narrow.

Very rarely but in some years the performance of 2 players is equal. In this case both players have been ranked equally.

In the list below they are shown all the years’ top 3 players. After that list they are another 4 summarized lists:
- the players with most No 1s for the period;
- the players with most No 2s for the period;
- the players with most No 3s for the period;
- the strongest tennis seasons for all time expressed in points based on the methodologies;

I am apologizing in advance for the presentation of the lists as I have no options to format them adequately in the forum.

Top 3 players per year

Year
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
No 1​
Spencer Gore
Patrick Hadow
John Hartley
Herbert Lawford
William Renshaw
Ernest Renshaw
Herbert Lawford
Herbert Lawford
Herbert Lawford
Harry Grove
Ernest Lewis
Henry Slocum
Harry Barlow
Oliver Campbell
Harry Barlow
Harry Barlow
Joshua Pim
Harry Barlow
Harry Barlow
Harold Mahony
Reginald Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Harold Mahony
Arthur Gore
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Josiah Ritchie
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Richard Williams
Richard Williams
Robert Murray
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Johnston
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Jean Borotra
Rene Lacoste
Henri Cochet
Henri Cochet
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Ellsworth Vines
Ellsworth Vines
Hans Nusslein
Ellsworth Vines
Don Budge
Bobby Riggs
Don Budge
Don Budge
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Frank Parker
Bobby Riggs
Bobby Riggs
Jack Kramer
Jack Kramer
Jack Kramer
Frank Sedgman
Frank Sedgman
Jack Kramer
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Lew Hoad
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Ilie Nastase
Ilie Nastase
Jimmy Connors
Arthur Ashe
Jimmy Connors
Guillermo Vilas
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Ivan Lendl
Ivan Lendl
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Stefan Edberg
Stefan Edberg
Jim Courier
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Marcelo Rios
Andre Agassi
Gustavo Kuerten
Lleyton Hewitt
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Andy Murray
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Carlos Alcaraz
No 2​
William Marshall
Lestocq Erskine
Vere Thomas Goold
William Renshaw
Richard Richardson
Herbert Lawford
Ernest Renshaw
Charles Grinstead
Ernest Browne
Herbert Wilberforce
Henry Slocum
Willoughby Hamilton
William Renshaw
Ernest Lewis
Joshua Pim
Joshua Pim
Robert Wrenn
Wilfred Baddeley
William Larned
Robert Wrenn
Wilberforce Eaves
Harold Mahony
Reginald Doherty
Laurence Doherty
William Larned
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Arthur Gore
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Otto Froitzheim
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Otto Froitzheim
Maurice McLoughlin
Francis Lowe
Bill Johnston
Bill Johnston
Nathaniel Niles
Robert Murray
Bill Johnston
Bill Johnston
Francis Lowe
Bill Johnston
Bill Tilden
Jean Borotra
Rene Lacoste
Henri Cochet
Henri Cochet
Rene Lacoste
Bill Tilden
John Doeg
Karel Kozeluh
Ellsworth Vines
Hans Nusslein
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Fred Perry
Don Budge
Don Budge
Ellsworth Vines
Don Budge
Bobby Riggs
Bobby Riggs
Joe Hunt
Frank Parker
Bill Talbert
Don Budge
Jack Kramer
Bobby Riggs
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Segura
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Frank Sedgman
Pancho Segura
Tony Trabert
Lew Hoad
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Tony Roche
Ken Rosewall
John Newcombe

Ken Rosewall
Stan Smith
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Jimmy Connors
Ivan Lendl
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
Jim Courier
Stefan Edberg
Michael Stich
Andre Agassi
Andre Agassi
Boris Becker
Patrick Rafter
Pete Sampras
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Marat Safin
Gustavo Kuerten
Andre Agassi
Roger Federer
Andy Roddick
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Andy Murray
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Dominic Thiem
Daniil Medvedev
Novak Djokovic
No 3​
Charles Heathcote
Herbert Lawford
Cecil Francis Parr
Otway Woodhouse
Herbert Lawford
Richard Sears
Richard Sears
Donald Stewart
James Dwight
Robert Beeckman
Ernest Renshaw
Howard Taylor
Willoughby Hamilton
Harry Barlow
Harold Mahony
Fred Hovey
Clarence Hobart
Harold Mahony
Fred Hovey
William Larned
Laurence Doherty
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
George Hillyard
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
Harold Mahony
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
Laurence Doherty
Norman Brookes
Arthur Gore
Friedrich Rahe
Beals Wright
Francis Lowe
Maurice McLoughlin
James Parke
Norman Brookes
Maurice McLoughlin
Robert Murray
Richard Williams
Ichiya Kumagae
Gerald Patterson
Francis Lowe
Brian Norton
Brian Norton
Brian Norton
Vincent Richards
Bill Johnston
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Karel Kozeluh
Jean Borotra
Karel Kozeluh
Ellsworth Vines
Karel Kozeluh
Fred Perry
Fred Perry
Hans Nusslein
Don Budge
Ellsworth Vines
Fred Perry
Bobby Riggs
Don McNeill
Fred Perry
Frank Kovacs
Jack Kramer
Bill Talbert
Bobby Riggs
Frank Kovacs
Frank Kovacs
Frank Parker
Pancho Segura
Arthur Larsen
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Frank Sedgman
Ken Rosewall
Tony Trabert
Pancho Segura
Lew Hoad
Ken Rosewall
Pancho Segura
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Andres Gimeno
Andres Gimeno
Andres Gimeno
Andres Gimeno
Andres Gimeno
Arthur Ashe
Tom Okker
Arthur Ashe
Arthur Ashe

Stan Smith
Tom Okker
Guillermo Vilas
Manuel Orantes
Ilie Nastase
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander
Stefan Edberg
Mats Wilander
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker
Boris Becker
Goran Ivanisevic
Jim Courier
Stefan Edberg
Thomas Muster
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Michael Chang
Patrick Rafter
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Marat Safin
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Nikolay Davydenko
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Andy Murray
David Ferrer
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Stan Wawrinka
Grigor Dimitrov
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Alexander Zverev
Rafael Nadal
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
List of players by most No 1s (due to the long list only the players with at least 3 No 1s are shown)

Player
Bill Tilden
Tony Wilding
Rod Laver
Novak Djokovic
Ken Rosewall
Laurence Doherty
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Harry Barlow
Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Rafael Nadal
Ivan Lendl
Jack Kramer
Ellsworth Vines
Herbert Lawford
Bjorn Borg
Bobby Riggs
Don Budge
John McEnroe
Count of No 1
11
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
List of players by most No 2s (due to the long list only the players with at least 3 No 2s are shown)

Player
Ken Rosewall
Josiah Ritchie
Rafael Nadal
Richard Pancho Gonzales
Novak Djokovic
Bill Johnston
Roger Federer
Bill Tilden
Ivan Lendl
Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker
Bobby Riggs
Andre Agassi
Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
Count of No 2
8
8
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
List of players by most No 3s (due to the long list only the players with at least 3 No 3s are shown)

Player
Pancho Segura
Sidney Smith
Roger Federer
Andres Gimeno
Jimmy Connors
Fred Perry
Stefan Edberg
Brian Norton
Boris Becker
Harold Mahony
Frank Kovacs
Arthur Ashe
Novak Djokovic
Karel Kozeluh
Count of No 3
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Top 30 tennis seasons All Time

No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Year
1969
2015
2006
1963
1984
1979
1989
1933
1982
1970
1967
1965
1985
1966
1956
1987
1959
1939
1986
2007
2011
2016
2013
1968
2012
2005
1981
2010
1964
1978
Player
Rod Laver
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Ken Rosewall
John McEnroe
Bjorn Borg
Ivan Lendl
Bill Tilden
Ivan Lendl
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Ivan Lendl
Rod Laver
Pancho Gonzales
Ivan Lendl
Lew Hoad
Don Budge
Ivan Lendl
Roger Federer
Novak Djokovic
Andy Murray
Rafael Nadal
Rod Laver
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
John McEnroe
Rafael Nadal
Ken Rosewall
Bjorn Borg
Points
17 925
16 645
15 995
15 780
15 610
15 205
15 180
15 169
15 110
15 085
15 023
14 833
14 800
14 540
14 438
14 385
14 299
14 110
14 070
13 680
13 630
13 160
13 030
12 910
12 835
12 770
12 710
12 645
12 451
12 330
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I have seen worse rankings....interesting results here.

Not sure of your system of points/rankings...how did you do it?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I have seen worse rankings....interesting results here.

Not sure of your system of points/rankings...how did you do it?
Main principle of the task was full objectivity and unified approach to all players. I am tired of lists based on sympathies or personal feelings.
Similar to every sport in our world the only important is the full career performance of every single player and its quality. The partial usage of performance shows only what somebody prefers to underline for his own satisfaction.
A very few people know about Wilding and Doherty as names. Part of them know about their careers. Honestly, I was really excited to read much much more about them.
And of course for many other. Many widespread myths have been broken when somebody goes deep into the careers of the old players.

I can't describe the whole system of ranking because it's too big. But I can tell you some points:
1. The tournaments are split into 6 categories - A (slams and pro slams), F (Finals, Masters, Grand slam cup), B (tier 1000 equivalents), C (tier 500 equivalents), D (tier 250 eq.) and E (futures, challengers, 2 men tournaments, weak tournaments). Every category has definite requirements to be fulfilled by the tournament to go into it. Within a category the pointing is not the same. For example the amateur tournaments before the OE are valued half or less of the pro and open tournaments. The tournaments been won by a player with only a challenge round get 5 or 6 times less points than the usual for the winner depending on the number of the draw.
2. Strong system has been built for assessing the performance in pro tours having in mind the wins, losses and the competition of every single tour.
3. Counted is the full career of the player (titles, finals, semis, Q, R16, R32, R64, R128). Some tournaments in the past had a draw of more than 128 and this level is counted with 0.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Main principle of the task was full objectivity and unified approach to all players. I am tired of lists based on sympathies or personal feelings.
Similar to every sport in our world the only important is the full career performance of every single player and its quality. The partial usage of performance shows only what somebody prefers to underline for his own satisfaction.
A very few people know about Wilding and Doherty as names. Part of them know about their careers. Honestly, I was really excited to read much much more about them.
And of course for many other. Many widespread myths have been broken when somebody goes deep into the careers of the old players.

I can't describe the whole system of ranking because it's too big. But I can tell you some points:
1. The tournaments are split into 6 categories - A (slams and pro slams), F (Finals, Masters, Grand slam cup), B (tier 1000 equivalents), C (tier 500 equivalents), D (tier 250 eq.) and E (futures, challengers, 2 men tournaments, weak tournaments). Every category has definite requirements to be fulfilled by the tournament to go into it. Within a category the pointing is not the same. For example the amateur tournaments before the OE are valued half or less of the pro and open tournaments. The tournaments been won by a player with only a challenge round get 5 or 6 times less points than the usual for the winner depending on the number of the draw.
2. Strong system has been built for assessing the performance in pro tours having in mind the wins, losses and the competition of every single tour.
3. Counted is the full career of the player (titles, finals, semis, Q, R16, R32, R64, R128). Some tournaments in the past had a draw of more than 128 and this level is counted with 0.
Interesting...a lot of work there.
 

muddlehead

Professional
Terrific list. Thx. Lot to digest, obviously. 1962. Thinking that Laver winning the Slam, even if it's over an inferior group of players, beats out Ken and Lew for number 1 that year. Considering, as well, that Ken and Lew could each defeat Laver handily in '62 ...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Such a database required a years-long research. Covered are more than 12,000 tournaments and tours and more than 1,100 players for this period.

Included is the full performance of the players for the respective year.

In order to assess the tournaments and the players’ performance fully, adequately, objectively and qualitative 3 basic methodologies were developed:
- methodology for assessing the status of the tournament;
- methodology for adopting and unifying the pre-open Era tournaments to the open era tournaments, which is often the main dispute in the public;
- methodology for assessing the professional tours in the pre-open Era;

Unlike to probably all other published rankings in ATP, the media or in the forums my rankings include also the data of the non-ATP tournaments which were regular tournaments with very high value and very often much higher paid compared to the ATP tournaments. This could lead to some potential inconsistencies in comparison to some official ATP rankings. For example 1982 when Lendl won 4 big non-ATP tournaments and the official gap between Connors and Lendl was very narrow.

Very rarely but in some years the performance of 2 players is equal. In this case both players have been ranked equally.

In the list below they are shown all the years’ top 3 players. After that list they are another 4 summarized lists:
- the players with most No 1s for the period;
- the players with most No 2s for the period;
- the players with most No 3s for the period;
- the strongest tennis seasons for all time expressed in points based on the methodologies;

I am apologizing in advance for the presentation of the lists as I have no options to format them adequately in the forum.

Top 3 players per year

Year
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
No 1​
Spencer Gore
Patrick Hadow
John Hartley
Herbert Lawford
William Renshaw
Ernest Renshaw
Herbert Lawford
Herbert Lawford
Herbert Lawford
Harry Grove
Ernest Lewis
Henry Slocum
Harry Barlow
Ernest Lewis
Harry Barlow
Harry Barlow
Joshua Pim
Harry Barlow
Harry Barlow
Harold Mahony
Reginald Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Harold Mahony
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Tony Wilding
Richard Williams
Richard Williams
Robert Murray
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Johnston
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Jean Borotra
Rene Lacoste
Henri Cochet
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Ellsworth Vines
Ellsworth Vines
Ellsworth Vines
Hans Nusslein
Ellsworth Vines
Don Budge
Bobby Riggs

Don Budge
Don Budge
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Bobby Riggs
Bobby Riggs
Jack Kramer
Jack Kramer
Jack Kramer
Jack Kramer
Frank Sedgman
Frank Sedgman
Jack Kramer
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Lew Hoad
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Ilie Nastase
Ilie Nastase
Jimmy Connors
Arthur Ashe
Jimmy Connors
Guillermo Vilas
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Ivan Lendl
Ivan Lendl
Mats Wilander
Ivan Lendl
Stefan Edberg
Stefan Edberg
Jim Courier
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Marcelo Rios
Andre Agassi
Gustavo Kuerten
Lleyton Hewitt
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Andy Murray
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
No 2​
William Marshall
Lestocq Erskine
Vere Thomas Goold
William Renshaw
Herbert Lawford
Herbert Lawford
Ernest Renshaw
Charles Grinstead
James Dwight
Ernest Lewis
Herbert Lawford
Willoughby Hamilton
Willoughby Hamilton
Harry Barlow
Joshua Pim
Joshua Pim
Harold Mahony
Harold Mahony
Harold Mahony
Robert Wrenn
Wilberforce Eaves
Harold Mahony
Reginald Doherty
Arthur Gore
William Larned
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Sidney Smith
Arthur Gore
Arthur Gore
Josiah Ritchie
Tony Wilding
Otto Froitzheim
Josiah Ritchie
Josiah Ritchie
Maurice McLoughlin
James Parke
Francis Lowe
Bill Johnston
Bill Johnston
Nathaniel Niles
Robert Murray
Bill Johnston
Francis Lowe
Francis Lowe
Bill Johnston
Bill Tilden
Jean Borotra
Rene Lacoste
Vincent Richards
Henri Cochet
Rene Lacoste
Jean Borotra
Karel Kozeluh
Karel Kozeluh
Karel Kozeluh
Hans Nusslein
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Fred Perry
Bill Tilden
Fred Perry
Ellsworth Vines
Fred Perry
Don Budge
Bobby Riggs
Bobby Riggs
Joe Hunt
Frank Parker
Frank Parker
Don Budge
Bobby Riggs
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Jaroslav Drobny
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Frank Sedgman
Pancho Segura
Tony Trabert
Lew Hoad
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall

Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Ken Rosewall
Tony Roche
Ken Rosewall
John Newcombe

Ken Rosewall
Stan Smith
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
Bjorn Borg
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
John McEnroe
Ivan Lendl
Jimmy Connors
Ivan Lendl
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Ivan Lendl
Boris Becker
Boris Becker
Jim Courier
Stefan Edberg
Jim Courier
Andre Agassi
Andre Agassi
Michael Chang
Michael Chang
Pete Sampras
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Marat Safin
Gustavo Kuerten
Andre Agassi
Roger Federer
Andy Roddick
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Andy Murray
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
No 3​
Charles Heathcote
Herbert Lawford
William Renshaw
Otway Woodhouse
Richard Richardson
Richard Sears
Richard Sears
Ernest Renshaw
Ernest Renshaw
Herbert Lawford
Ernest Renshaw
Howard Taylor
William Renshaw
Oliver Campbell
Harold Mahony
Ernest Lewis
Harry Barlow
Wilfred Baddeley
Robert Wrenn
Reginald Doherty
Laurence Doherty
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
Sidney Smith
William Larned
Harold Mahony
Norman Brookes
Josiah Ritchie
William Larned
Arthur Gore
Fred Alexander
Beals Wright
Charles Dixon
Andre Gobert
Maurice McLoughlin
Richard Williams
Maurice McLoughlin
Robert Murray
Richard Williams
Ichiya Kumagae
Gerald Patterson
Bill Johnston
Brian Norton
Brian Norton
Vincent Richards
Rene Lacoste
Vincent Richards
Bill Tilden
Bill Tilden
Karel Kozeluh
Henri Cochet
John Doeg
Ellsworth Vines
Hans Nusslein
Jack Crawford
Fred Perry
Hans Nusslein
Don Budge
Don Budge
Don Budge
Fred Perry
Don McNeill

Fred Perry
Frank Kovacs
Bruce Barnes
Bill Talbert
Welby van Horn
Fred Perry
Frank Parker
Frank Parker
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Pancho Segura
Frank Sedgman
Ken Rosewall
Tony Trabert
Pancho Segura
Lew Hoad
Frank Sedgman

Pancho Segura
Lew Hoad
Rod Laver
Andres Gimeno
Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales
Andres Gimeno
Tony Roche
Arthur Ashe
Tom Okker
Arthur Ashe
Arthur Ashe

John Newcombe
Tom Okker
Guillermo Vilas
Manuel Orantes
Ilie Nastase
Bjorn Borg
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander
Stefan Edberg
Mats Wilander
Stefan Edberg
Stefan Edberg
Ivan Lendl
Boris Becker
Goran Ivanisevic
Michael Stich
Boris Becker
Thomas Muster
Boris Becker
Patrick Rafter
Patrick Rafter
Pete Sampras
Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Marat Safin
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Lleyton Hewitt
Andy Roddick
Nikolay Davydenko
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Andy Murray
David Ferrer
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Stan Wawrinka
Alexander Zverev
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Dominic Thiem
I'd put Hewitt as the 3rd best in 2005 instead of Roddick and Delpo as the 3rd best in 2009 instead of Novak.

Perfectly agree with 2008. Djokovic was the 2nd best that year instead of Fed, the rankings just did not reflect that.

I'd also put Thiem as the 2nd best in 2020 instead of Nadal.
 

NonP

Legend
I knew Tilden was a dominant player in his day, but I never realized just HOW dominant he was I guess.

LOL, don't be fooled by the faux-objective "methodology" nonsense. No list that ranks Borg 3rd for '77 below not only Vilas but Connors, Becker second to Lendl in '89 (gee remind you of another dubious ranking that people still grouse about?), AND Rios 1st over both Sampras and Rafter for '98, to name but a few egregious examples, deserves to be taken all that seriously. Nor does any fool who likes to think himself immune to "sympathies or personal feelings" when they invariably inform all human constructs.

Wiki's compilation of contemporary and historical rankings by experts and respected journalists is a far more accurate reflection of tennis history. Study that one instead of this autoexercise in back-patting:

 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
LOL, don't be fooled by the faux-objective "methodology" nonsense. No list that ranks Borg 3rd for '77 below not only Vilas but Connors, Becker second to Lendl in '89 (gee remind you of another dubious ranking that people still grouse about?), AND Rios 1st over both Sampras and Rafter for '98, to name but a few egregious examples, deserves to be taken all that seriously. Nor does any fool who likes to think himself immune to "sympathies or personal feelings" when they invariably inform all human constructs.

Wiki's compilation of contemporary and historical rankings by experts and respected journalists is a far more accurate reflection of tennis history. Study that one instead of this autoexercise in back-patting:

Some of them are hilarious.
Tilden ahead of Perry and Vines in 1937.
Johnston ahead of Tilden in 1923.
Tilden ahead of Cochet in 1929-30.
Segura ahead of Kramer in 1951.

Well, and many more :D
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Terrific list. Thx. Lot to digest, obviously. 1962. Thinking that Laver winning the Slam, even if it's over an inferior group of players, beats out Ken and Lew for number 1 that year. Considering, as well, that Ken and Lew could each defeat Laver handily in '62 ...
In 1962 Laver was still an amateur. So he was not able to play Ken and Lew. This happened in the beginning of 1963.

Laver had a Slam in 1962. But as I have written above the amateur tournaments have less value than the pro. The simple reason is the competition in amat was weaker. Even the slam and another 18 won tournaments that year do not give him the advantage.
 

NonP

Legend
Some of them are hilarious.
Tilden ahead of Perry and Vines in 1937.
Johnston ahead of Tilden in 1923.
Tilden ahead of Cochet in 1929-30.
Segura ahead of Kramer in 1951.

Well, and many more :D

A real historian would think twice if his new "findings" diverged so much from established opinion, but not your dear objective BFF.

Davis Cup??

Team sport, bro!!!
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I'd put Hewitt as the 3rd best in 2005 instead of Roddick and Delpo as the 3rd best in 2009 instead of Novak.

Perfectly agree with 2008. Djokovic was the 2nd best that year instead of Fed, the rankings just did not reflect that.

I'd also put Thiem as the 2nd best in 2020 instead of Nadal.
In 2005 Hewitt has only 1 small title, Roddick - 5. That's the difference. The other achievements are almost the same - 1 slam final, 1 Masters final, some semis.
In 2009 except the incredible US, the finals on Masters and Canada and the semi on RG Delpo had nothing other substantial.
For 2020 I agree that Thiem has very good chances for No 2.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
LOL, don't be fooled by the faux-objective "methodology" nonsense. No list that ranks Borg 3rd for '77 below not only Vilas but Connors, Becker second to Lendl in '89 (gee remind you of another dubious ranking that people still grouse about?), AND Rios 1st over both Sampras and Rafter for '98, to name but a few egregious examples, deserves to be taken all that seriously. Nor does any fool who likes to think himself immune to "sympathies or personal feelings" when they invariably inform all human constructs.

Wiki's compilation of contemporary and historical rankings by experts and respected journalists is a far more accurate reflection of tennis history. Study that one instead of this autoexercise in back-patting:

Instead of spitting you should have known that the ATP rankings in the 70s and 80s were inconsistent and not fully reliable. But all your "sources", "experts" and media repeat what ATP wrote without analysing it.

For 1998 you should have known that the official gap b/n No 1 Sampras and No 2 Rios was about 230 points. But what you probably don't know is that Grand slam cup was not an ATP tournament back then. It was one of the biggest and richest tournaments in the 90s. ATP realized its mistake some 2-3 years ago including it but not assigning points to the winner Rios and the other players. GSC was tennis-wise similar to Masters, so at least 500-600 points should be awarded to the winner according to the respective pointing system back then.

Oh, please don't trust to Wiki. It has a wrong and limited info and only gives a big misleading to the readers.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
A real historian would think twice if his new "findings" diverged so much from established opinion, but not your dear objective BFF.
Long repeated mistakes are always going to an "established opinion". Even they are mistakes most of the people don't try to check and analyse them.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Some of them are hilarious.
Tilden ahead of Perry and Vines in 1937.
Johnston ahead of Tilden in 1923.
Tilden ahead of Cochet in 1929-30.
Segura ahead of Kramer in 1951.

Well, and many more :D
20 titles for Tilden and 2-3 for Cochet in 1930 !?!?!? No more comments!
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
20 titles for Tilden and 2-3 for Cochet in 1930 !?!?!? No more comments!
There is nothing to comment.
In those years the best player in the world was the one winning the H2H in big events: Davis, RG, Wimbledon, NY.
Nobody in the world was thinking Tilden was number one.
Not even Tilden, that very honestly said he was number 3.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
There is nothing to comment.
In those years the best player in the world was the one winning the H2H in big events: Davis, RG, Wimbledon, NY.
Nobody in the world was thinking Tilden was number one.
Not even Tilden, that very honestly said he was number 3.
I know that very well and I strongly disagree. What somebody thought in 1930-1931 doesn't mean at all it was right and fair. Tennis-wise it is totally nonsense that 1, 2 or 3 matches per year decide the ranking. I am using the whole performance - the best way of assessing the players' efforts and achievements. It's your choice if you like it or not.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I know that very well and I strongly disagree. What somebody thought in 1930-1931 doesn't mean at all it was right and fair. Tennis-wise it is totally nonsense that 1, 2 or 3 matches per year decide the ranking. I am using the whole performance - the best way of assessing the players' efforts and achievements. It's your choice if you like it or not.
You can disagree but it’s how it works in those days. Cochet knew he was number one. He didn’t care to play 20 useless tournaments on the Riviera against very poor competition.

Likewise Tilden didn’t care to go to Europe when he was Davis Cup and US Champs holder.
Johnston thought about retirement after 1923 NY loss because he was hopeless against Tilden. And you have him as number one???

Definitely a very good number one, that thinks to retire because too weak :D
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
You can disagree but it’s how it works in those days. Cochet knew he was number one. He didn’t care to play 20 useless tournaments on the Riviera against very poor competition.

Likewise Tilden didn’t care to go to Europe when he was Davis Cup and US Champs holder.
Johnston thought about retirement after 1923 NY loss because he was hopeless against Tilden. And you have it as number one???
A very good number one, that thinks to retire because to weak :D
Yeah, it's how it worked. And ... it worked terrible.;) I don't care if Cochet or Tilden or somebody else did care or did not to go here or there. :laughing:
In 1923 Johnston won 3 big titles - Wim, WHC and Seabright and had a final at US Nationals. In the same way Tilden had US Nationals and USCC. A big difference! Clear No 1 for Johnston.
 

DMP

Professional
Team sport, bro!!!

Not when they are playing.

Also I am not one to distinguish between singles and doubles. They are all tennis. I may give a lot less weight to doubles these days, but IMO it all counts.

Still, in the end it is all opinion .

PS Whenever I see lists like this I am always reminded of a famous comedy sketch here in the UK


which I can paraphrase as "The OP has all the right names, just not necessarily in the right order".
 

muddlehead

Professional
In 1962 Laver was still an amateur. So he was not able to play Ken and Lew. This happened in the beginning of 1963.

" " Laver had a Slam in 1962. But as I have written above the amateur tournaments have less value than the pro. The simple reason is the competition in amat was weaker. Even the slam and another 18 won tournaments that year do not give him the advantage. " "



We agree to disagree. All good.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Quality is the key not the quantity. Amateur slams and tournaments were far less competitive. The best players were in the pro division. In the first matches as a pro Laver had very bad losses.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
Congratulations on the hard work.

What can you tell us about your "requirements" for the Category B, or "Masters Equivalents"?

As @DMP asked, what about Davis Cup?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Congratulations on the hard work.

What can you tell us about your "requirements" for the Category B, or "Masters Equivalents"?

As @DMP asked, what about Davis Cup?

Thanks.
About the requirements - there is a complex of indicators defining the status of every category. They work combined. For B they are:
- number of draw - at least 24 in the open era, at least 16 in the pre-open pro, at least 32 in the pre-open amateur, at least 8 in RR; some rare exclusions are possible (for example Wimbledon pro which has an A category)
- competition - at least 3 or 4 top 10 players attended depending on the era;
- prize money (for the open era and pro pre open) - second best money after the slams (not necessary that all B tournaments have equal money); exclusion from this criteria are some top tournaments like Masters, Grand slam cup, WCT Finals (71, 72), TOC (70, 71), ATP Finals which are categorised higher than B under the name "Finals" (F).
- history (predominantly in the pre-open era and early open) - big tournaments with a long history (30-50-100-140 years); this indicator has a less weight compared to the other 3;
As of 1996 the B category fully responds to the "Super 9" and "Masters series". Before 1996 they were called Super 9 but in fact they were more than 9.

Davis Cup was very important and I have it in my database. It is not included in the listing above due to several basic reasons:
- it is a team competition - the target is that the team wins no matter if a player A wins or looses a match(es);
- the attribution of every single player to the team result is not measurable - the player may win all the matches but the team may loose anyway; and vice versa;
- the participation of the players is (was) often inconsistent - more often are the cases when the players, particularly the top players, played only the semis and/or the finals; even if they win they haven't played all the rounds, i.e. do they deserve to be called the winners when other players have won the previous rounds.
- not at last is the status of the Challenge round - you know in the past the winner goes directly to the finals in the next year. Tennis-wise it is fully inappropriate if a team wins only in a Ch round not playing all the rounds. The same case is valid for all those tournaments held in the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th century which had the format with a Challenge round.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
About the requirements - there is a complex of indicators defining the status of every category. They work combined. For B they are:
- number of draw - at least 24 in the open era, at least 16 in the pre-open pro, at least 32 in the pre-open amateur, at least 8 in RR; some rare exclusions are possible (for example Wimbledon pro which has an A category)
- competition - at least 3 or 4 top 10 players attended depending on the era;
- prize money (for the open era and pro pre open) - second best money after the slams (not necessary that all B tournaments have equal money); exclusion from this criteria are some top tournaments like Masters, Grand slam cup, WCT Finals (71, 72), TOC (70, 71), ATP Finals which are categorised higher than B under the name "Finals" (F).
- history (predominantly in the pre-open era and early open) - big tournaments with a long history (30-50-100-140 years); this indicator has a less weight compared to the other 3;
As of 1996 the B category fully responds to the "Super 9" and "Masters series". Before 1996 they were called Super 9 but in fact they were more than 9.

Davis Cup was very important and I have it in my database. It is not included in the listing above due to several basic reasons:
- it is a team competition - the target is that the team wins no matter if a player A wins or looses a match(es);
- the attribution of every single player to the team result is not measurable - the player may win all the matches but the team may loose anyway; and vice versa;
- the participation of the players is (was) often inconsistent - more often are the cases when the players, particularly the top players, played only the semis and/or the finals; even if they win they haven't played all the rounds, i.e. do they deserve to be called the winners when other players have won the previous rounds.
- not at last is the status of the Challenge round - you know in the past the winner goes directly to the finals in the next year. Tennis-wise it is fully inappropriate if a team wins only in a Ch round not playing all the rounds. The same case is valid for all those tournaments held in the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th century which had the format with a Challenge round.


Thanks. My approach is roughly similar, but much more demanding on the strength-of-field category.

You did this from 1920-on?
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
I can see why it took so long. I just did 1968-95, and I never want to analyze another tournament. And it only gets more difficult as you go back in time.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I can see why it took so long. I just did 1968-95, and I never want to analyze another tournament. And it only gets more difficult as you go back in time.
My wife got very angry in the last 4 years. :oops: Similar to you I've had some moments being on the edge. It was my strong dream to have a detailed look on the whole history. And this kept me cool and patient. :) The biggest problem was that the whole info was hugely fragmented and I was forced to search in thousands of sources.
 

NonP

Legend
Instead of spitting you should have known that the ATP rankings in the 70s and 80s were inconsistent and not fully reliable. But all your "sources", "experts" and media repeat what ATP wrote without analysing it.

For 1998 you should have known that the official gap b/n No 1 Sampras and No 2 Rios was about 230 points. But what you probably don't know is that Grand slam cup was not an ATP tournament back then. It was one of the biggest and richest tournaments in the 90s. ATP realized its mistake some 2-3 years ago including it but not assigning points to the winner Rios and the other players. GSC was tennis-wise similar to Masters, so at least 500-600 points should be awarded to the winner according to the respective pointing system back then.

Oh, please don't trust to Wiki. It has a wrong and limited info and only gives a big misleading to the readers.
Long repeated mistakes are always going to an "established opinion". Even they are mistakes most of the people don't try to check and analyse them.
I know that very well and I strongly disagree. What somebody thought in 1930-1931 doesn't mean at all it was right and fair. Tennis-wise it is totally nonsense that 1, 2 or 3 matches per year decide the ranking. I am using the whole performance - the best way of assessing the players' efforts and achievements. It's your choice if you like it or not.

If you care to pull your head out of the sand once in a while you would've seen that I was criticizing the ATP rankings myself, but you don't and didn't. Nor do the sources cited in the Wiki article merely repeat whatever the "official" rankings said. Some of us might call such indifference to actual words "spitting."

And sorry, you don't get to choose what the criteria were after the fact. Nor is your or anyone else's post hoc determination relevant in the slightest. What really matters is what the players themselves thought were important at the time, and since the GSC despite its huge payout didn't offer any ranking points the guys acted accordingly and began to pull out of the tournament as the years went by - only one of the year's Slam champs participated in the '98 edition, you know the same one you insist was so crucial to the year-end rankings - hence its eventual dissolution and merger with the WTF (or whatever the hell it was called) in '99. This was no longer those crazy days of the (early) Open Era where even the top pros had to chase money to provide for their family, and while money was/remains an important concern for more recent players it is by no means a preeminent one as the highest-ranking pros earn more than enough to live like a king/queen.

Not when they are playing.

Also I am not one to distinguish between singles and doubles. They are all tennis. I may give a lot less weight to doubles these days, but IMO it all counts.

Still, in the end it is all opinion .

PS Whenever I see lists like this I am always reminded of a famous comedy sketch here in the UK


which I can paraphrase as "The OP has all the right names, just not necessarily in the right order".

Think you missed my obvious snark. DC was obviously a big part of every ATG's resume until fairly recently, and any system that downplays if not outright ignores its importance is suspect by default.

As for that sketch... love Previn but farce wasn't one of his fortes. Besides we Mericans do it better (read: more rude and vulgar):

 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
LOL, don't be fooled by the faux-objective "methodology" nonsense. No list that ranks Borg 3rd for '77 below not only Vilas but Connors, Becker second to Lendl in '89 (gee remind you of another dubious ranking that people still grouse about?), AND Rios 1st over both Sampras and Rafter for '98, to name but a few egregious examples, deserves to be taken all that seriously. Nor does any fool who likes to think himself immune to "sympathies or personal feelings" when they invariably inform all human constructs.

Wiki's compilation of contemporary and historical rankings by experts and respected journalists is a far more accurate reflection of tennis history. Study that one instead of this autoexercise in back-patting:

A lot of people have been working hard on that Wiki list, it changes over the weeks, but usually with some reason.

It looks better all the time. Glad to see you like it and give credit.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
If you care to pull your head out of the sand once in a while you would've seen that I was criticizing the ATP rankings myself, but you don't and didn't. Nor do the sources cited in the Wiki article merely repeat whatever the "official" rankings said. Some of us might call such indifference to actual words "spitting."

And sorry, you don't get to choose what the criteria were after the fact. Nor is your or anyone else's post hoc determination relevant in the slightest. What really matters is what the players themselves thought were important at the time, and since the GSC despite its huge payout didn't offer any ranking points the guys acted accordingly and began to pull out of the tournament as the years went by - only one of the year's Slam champs participated in the '98 edition, you know the same one you insist was so crucial to the year-end rankings - hence its eventual dissolution and merger with the WTF (or whatever the hell it was called) in '99. This was no longer those crazy days of the (early) Open Era where even the top pros had to chase money to provide for their family, and while money was/remains an important concern for more recent players it is by no means a preeminent one as the highest-ranking pros earn more than enough to live like a king/queen.



Think you missed my obvious snark. DC was obviously a big part of every ATG's resume until fairly recently, and any system that downplays if not outright ignores its importance is suspect by default.

As for that sketch... love Previn but farce wasn't one of his fortes. Besides we Mericans do it better (read: more rude and vulgar):

Obviously you are poorly acquainted with the facts. Pete didn't ignore GSC as a tournament. He played there 6 times. In 1998 the tournament was held at the end of September, 2 weeks after USO. In the previous years it was held in December. Pete decided to rest more after USO. He even refused to play at DC semis in Milwaukee in the period 25-27 Sep. The U.S.T.A. president Harry Marmion was furious that Sampras and Agassi didn't play there.

Rafter has already promised to play DC 25-27 Sep. in order that Australia can keep its place in the World Group for the next year. And he kept his promise, played and won.

As for wiki, you can keep working with wrong and limited info. It's only your problem.
 

NonP

Legend
A lot of people have been working hard on that Wiki list, it changes over the weeks, but usually with some reason.

It looks better all the time. Glad to see you like it and give credit.

I see in there a total of 73 mentions of your darling Hoad. You seem to be slacking off, Lobb!

Obviously you are poorly acquainted with the facts. Pete didn't ignore GSC as a tournament. He played there 6 times. In 1998 the tournament was held at the end of September, 2 weeks after USO. In the previous years it was held in December. Pete decided to rest more after USO. He even refused to play at DC semis in Milwaukee in the period 25-27 Sep. The U.S.T.A. president Harry Marmion was furious that Sampras and Agassi didn't play there.

Rafter has already promised to play DC 25-27 Sep. in order that Australia can keep its place in the World Group for the next year. And he kept his promise, played and won.

As for wiki, you can keep working with wrong and limited info. It's only your problem.

Kid, I know more about Sampras or the '90s off the top of my head than you ever will. And WTF does his DC participation or lack thereof have to do with his treating the GSC as a second-class option? The fact remains that only one of the four Slam champs in '98 bothered to show up for that year's edition, but since that doesn't jibe with your simple-minded pursuit of your flawed "system" you just brush it aside and act like these guys had to skip it due to extenuating circumstances or outstanding obligations when that's in fact precisely why the GSC wasn't this all-important event you think it was. All you're showing here is that Pete thought extra rest for his ongoing YE#1 campaign was more important, ditto Rafter and the DC despite its own lack of ranking points. In other words you just undermined not one but two of your own criteria, except you're too blind to see it even when it's spelled out with Sharpies.

Those experts and historians cited in the Wiki article have followed the game and studied this particular issue far more than you and your coterie of wannabes, and your "methodology" would be laughed out of the room if they were only half as serious and humble about their work than you are with your own. But I'm not as serious or humble as they are or pretend to be, and I know and say your rankings are ahistorical nonsense. I'm almost sorry you wasted all that time on such a fruitless endeavor, though you seem to rather enjoy time-wasting as an end in and of itself.
 

CyBorg

Legend
LOL, don't be fooled by the faux-objective "methodology" nonsense. No list that ranks Borg 3rd for '77 below not only Vilas but Connors, Becker second to Lendl in '89 (gee remind you of another dubious ranking that people still grouse about?), AND Rios 1st over both Sampras and Rafter for '98, to name but a few egregious examples, deserves to be taken all that seriously. Nor does any fool who likes to think himself immune to "sympathies or personal feelings" when they invariably inform all human constructs.

Wiki's compilation of contemporary and historical rankings by experts and respected journalists is a far more accurate reflection of tennis history. Study that one instead of this autoexercise in back-patting:


I'm going to have to agree with NonP on this. Connors not top 3 in 1975, Borg not top 3 in 1981 are both unacceptable. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I'm going to have to agree with NonP on this. Connors not top 3 in 1975, Borg not top 3 in 1981 are both unacceptable. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Using a 2000s system to evaluate tennis history makes you understand how much he knows/understands about tennis history.

Tilden ahead of Vines and Perry in 1937 is my favorite :D
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I see in there a total of 73 mentions of your darling Hoad. You seem to be slacking off, Lobb!



Kid, I know more about Sampras or the '90s off the top of my head than you ever will. And WTF does his DC participation or lack thereof have to do with his treating the GSC as a second-class option? The fact remains that only one of the four Slam champs in '98 bothered to show up for that year's edition, but since that doesn't jibe with your simple-minded pursuit of your flawed "system" you just brush it aside and act like these guys had to skip it due to extenuating circumstances or outstanding obligations when that's in fact precisely why the GSC wasn't this all-important event you think it was. All you're showing here is that Pete thought extra rest for his ongoing YE#1 campaign was more important, ditto Rafter and the DC despite its own lack of ranking points. In other words you just undermined not one but two of your own criteria, except you're too blind to see it even when it's spelled out with Sharpies.

Those experts and historians cited in the Wiki article have followed the game and studied this particular issue far more than you and your coterie of wannabes, and your "methodology" would be laughed out of the room if they were only half as serious and humble about their work than you are with your own. But I'm not as serious or humble as they are or pretend to be, and I know and say your rankings are ahistorical nonsense. I'm almost sorry you wasted all that time on such a fruitless endeavor, though you seem to rather enjoy time-wasting as an end in and of itself.
I saw what you know (don't know). Did those "experts" tell you that GSC was the richest tournament? More than slams!!!

The problem is not that you don't know. The problem is that you don't want to know relying on unchecked wiki info. No need of further comments.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I saw what you know (don't know). Did those "experts" tell you that GSC was the richest tournament? More than slams!!!

The problem is not that you don't know. The problem is that you don't want to know relying on unchecked wiki info. No need of further comments.
Ivan, the Wiki rankings article has been much changed in recent weeks, through much hard work. Some years took work to change, like 1953 (Hoad there? No? I guess some other players are also on my radar.), 1947, 1951, 1956, 1959, 1977 (after much debate).

I advise you to re-examine those rankings and the accompanying information, you may find them improved and more to your liking now.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I'm going to have to agree with NonP on this. Connors not top 3 in 1975, Borg not top 3 in 1981 are both unacceptable. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I prefer to be constructive instead of stating this or another player "should" be here or there. Let's see Connors' performance in 1975 - no big titles, 4 finals at USO (falling to Orantes), Wim (falling to Ashe), the weaker AO and Stockholm. Nothing else significant.
Orantes - 4 big titles, 2 finals in Rome and Tokyo
Ashe - 4 big titles, finals in Indianapolis, semis in Masters and Boston
Borg - 2 big titles, finals in Masters in WCT finals, semis in USO and Stockholm

This is just briefly the picture. The difference b/w Connors and the other 3 is obvious.

As for 1981 Borg's play was limited due to some injuries. He played only 12 tournaments. I am not sure why this question is raised when even ATP didn't rank Borg in top 3 that year. He is 4th, same as mine.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Ivan, the Wiki rankings article has been much changed in recent weeks, through much hard work. Some years took work to change, like 1953 (Hoad there? No? I guess some other players are also on my radar.), 1947, 1951, 1956, 1959, 1977 (after much debate).

I advise you to re-examine those rankings and the accompanying information, you may find them improved and more to your liking now.
You can give me a link to those rankings and tell me what is the basis for their preparation.
 
Top