Top all time greats by Bud Collins
- Thread starter 1hdbkhd
- Start date
whistleway
Semi-Pro
Yeah sure 3 of the top 5 are from USA
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Don't know enough about Tilden and Gonzalez. I do agree Laver as #1 in open era. The guy got 2 Grand Slams, one before open era and one after!
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
In a list of the all time great tennis players, I have a problem including anybody who won their championships while wearing long pants and a tie. Therefore, I would eliminate Tilden and replace him with someone like Emerson, Connors, or Agassi.
Bud Collins was born in 1929, which was after Bill Tilden won most of his championships. In fact, Tilden was dead by the time Collins started his career as a sportswriter, so I doubt he ever saw Tilden play (even as an old man). Therefore, most of Collins reasoning for including this guy seems to be out of respect for his numbers (7 US Championships and 3 Wimbledons), which were all won before tennis became a "professional" sport.
Bud Collins was born in 1929, which was after Bill Tilden won most of his championships. In fact, Tilden was dead by the time Collins started his career as a sportswriter, so I doubt he ever saw Tilden play (even as an old man). Therefore, most of Collins reasoning for including this guy seems to be out of respect for his numbers (7 US Championships and 3 Wimbledons), which were all won before tennis became a "professional" sport.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Jack the Hack said:
So historians can't rate people they never saw?
chess9
Hall of Fame
What value is this list?
Should we genuflect before it because it was generated the redoubtable Bud Collins?
Are these the guys we should model?
Doesn't the mere existence of such a list suggest that Hoad, Budge, Emerson, Vines, Osuna, McEnroe, Connors, and many others are chump change?
All of these guys are fantastic, and Gonzales(z) may be my personal favorite, but I would not put tennis players into heirarchical order like some pantheon of Gods.
-Robert
Should we genuflect before it because it was generated the redoubtable Bud Collins?
Are these the guys we should model?
Doesn't the mere existence of such a list suggest that Hoad, Budge, Emerson, Vines, Osuna, McEnroe, Connors, and many others are chump change?
All of these guys are fantastic, and Gonzales(z) may be my personal favorite, but I would not put tennis players into heirarchical order like some pantheon of Gods.
-Robert
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
The tennis guy said:
As I said, Collins is probably including Tilden based on his numbers (7 US Opens and 3 Wimbledons). However, those were all won in an era before real modern style professional athletes (defined as players that devote their lives to peak physical and mental training, and gain all of their income from the sport). If you are going to include people solely on the numbers, Roy Emerson beats out Tilden with his 12 Slam singles titles and 16 Slam doubles titles. Emerson is the only player to have won every Slam at least once in both singles and doubles. The knock on Emerson is that he won most of the titles after the best players in the world had turned professional (and were barred from playing the Slams). That's why I lean toward more modern players like Connors and Agassi over either Emerson or Tilden.
I think, its simply fun. You cannot in earnest compare different eras, nevertheless its fun to do it. And it make some sense, not to name one so called goat, but 5-6 sportsmen in a sport, who have engraved themselves into the collective memory, in boxing say Louis, Ali, Robinson, Amstrong and Duran, or in cycling Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault and Indururain, or in distance running Nurmi, Zatopek, Clarke (despite never winning something big), Abebe and Haile.
Fedubai
Semi-Pro
Is anyone doubting that Sampras would have beaten anyone in the 30s, 40s, and 50s? Debating who was better with all things like rackets, training, and fitness, being equal is for another time and place. We are debating who was the best. Therefore it has to be about more modern players, where technology and training is more equal. The others are just sentimental picks in my view...it does not matter what they could have been with new technology.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Fedubai said:
If that's all you care about, then maybe today's top 1000 even 10000 players will beat any great players in 30s, 40s, and 50s. Any top 100 players today would beat Borg with a wood racquet.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Jack, Tilden did more for the popularity of tennis worldwide than any other player. And in that era, the best players were still amateurs, the idea of a pro tour was still in its early stages. When Tilden joined the tour he made it legimate, he was the player that the fans wanted to see.
and his dominance was amazing(not to mention writing the most important tennis books), check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Tilden
Another factor to consider when reviewing the Grand Slam records of Hall of Famers who played prior to the dawning of the Open Era is that some of these champions had limited access to air travel. Many players would travel overseas on ships, which presented the prospect of weeks spent on a ship for an American player taking a voyage to Australia, for example.
Bill Tilden, the player some experts regard as the most dominant player in tennis history, won a total of 10 major tournaments and compiled an astounding 907-62 match record as an amateur competing from 1912-1930. Tilden captured six consecutive United States National titles (the tournament now known as the U.S. Open) from 1920-25 and went on to win the 1929 U.S. nationals. He was prevented from playing the French championships for much of his amateur career as international players were not permitted to play the French until 1925. Tilden won Wimbledon three times (1920, 1921 and 1930) and was a two-time French finalist, including 1927 when he fell to Rene Lacoste, 6-4, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 11-9.
The 6-foot-2 Tilden, who owned the most imposing serve of his time, played an ambitious baseline game and certainly would have been a championship contender at the Australian Championships, but did not compete Down Under due to the arduous travel conditions. Considering the fact he was clearly the most dominant player of his era, how many majors would Tilden have won had he played Australia? Would he have won the French had he been eligible during much of his amateur career?
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14812&bannerregion=
And wearing shorts didn't become common until the 40s, so you are disregarding many greats(like Grand Slam winner Don Budge) with that criteria.
I wonder how many sports writers saw Babe Ruth or Jesse Owens play. No one doubts their greatness, though.
When kids your age start ragging on Federer in 20/30 years as being obsolete, inferior to "modern" players, you will realize how illinformed you were. The technology is constantly changing, even players from only 10 years ago never got to use the strings that are common today(& a modern player like Blake says it make a huge difference)
What if Nadal had to play McEnroe with a wood raquet today? Are you confident that superior training would make a difference?
Its amazing that so many are clueless that equipment has changed tennis more than any other factor, not training, fitness, etc.
FYI Pancho Gonzalez was hitting 120 mph serves in the 50s. He was so dominate they actually changed the rules for a while, not allowing him to approach the net off the serve.
Its a shame Federer seems to have more respect for past greats than most of his young fans do.
and his dominance was amazing(not to mention writing the most important tennis books), check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Tilden
Another factor to consider when reviewing the Grand Slam records of Hall of Famers who played prior to the dawning of the Open Era is that some of these champions had limited access to air travel. Many players would travel overseas on ships, which presented the prospect of weeks spent on a ship for an American player taking a voyage to Australia, for example.
Bill Tilden, the player some experts regard as the most dominant player in tennis history, won a total of 10 major tournaments and compiled an astounding 907-62 match record as an amateur competing from 1912-1930. Tilden captured six consecutive United States National titles (the tournament now known as the U.S. Open) from 1920-25 and went on to win the 1929 U.S. nationals. He was prevented from playing the French championships for much of his amateur career as international players were not permitted to play the French until 1925. Tilden won Wimbledon three times (1920, 1921 and 1930) and was a two-time French finalist, including 1927 when he fell to Rene Lacoste, 6-4, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 11-9.
The 6-foot-2 Tilden, who owned the most imposing serve of his time, played an ambitious baseline game and certainly would have been a championship contender at the Australian Championships, but did not compete Down Under due to the arduous travel conditions. Considering the fact he was clearly the most dominant player of his era, how many majors would Tilden have won had he played Australia? Would he have won the French had he been eligible during much of his amateur career?
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14812&bannerregion=
And wearing shorts didn't become common until the 40s, so you are disregarding many greats(like Grand Slam winner Don Budge) with that criteria.
'
I wonder how many sports writers saw Babe Ruth or Jesse Owens play. No one doubts their greatness, though.
When kids your age start ragging on Federer in 20/30 years as being obsolete, inferior to "modern" players, you will realize how illinformed you were. The technology is constantly changing, even players from only 10 years ago never got to use the strings that are common today(& a modern player like Blake says it make a huge difference)
What if Nadal had to play McEnroe with a wood raquet today? Are you confident that superior training would make a difference?
Its amazing that so many are clueless that equipment has changed tennis more than any other factor, not training, fitness, etc.
FYI Pancho Gonzalez was hitting 120 mph serves in the 50s. He was so dominate they actually changed the rules for a while, not allowing him to approach the net off the serve.
Its a shame Federer seems to have more respect for past greats than most of his young fans do.
U
Under Dog
Guest
1hdbkhd said:
My Top 5 would be:
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Jimmy Connors (For winning U.S. Open on all of the surfaces, titles won, and weeks at Number 1)
5. Andre Agassi (For his career Slam)
Fedubai
Semi-Pro
Just to clarify, think of every generation's best player in a line, all with their time's technology, training, etc. Once you think of the best ever from that admittedly cold standpoint, you get Sampras. Otherwise, what are the criteria for the best? The most talented, the most slams in the shortest time, the level of dominance, what?
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Fedubai said:
If that's your criteria, why are you so sure Sampras is better than Federer?
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
So you changed your criteria. You are comparing accompolishment now, not who is the better player.Fedubai said:
If you compare accompolishment, which is what Bud Collins is doing, Laver is ahead of Sampras.
Fedubai
Semi-Pro
I'm comparing accomplishment within a recent time gap. It's not the difference between Perry and Federer. It was only 10 years ago. It's not strictly generational, but you could compare Federer with Sampras I think without running into serious technology or training differences. Again, it's a subjective topic, and people who've been fans longer than I have bring more real views to the subject. That's just my opinion. In the end, I don't really care. It's a nice debate, but...
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Fedubai said:
Laver won 4 slams in the same year TWICE.
hoosierbr
Hall of Fame
Tilden was a fascinating figure. He was also gay and was blacklisted from getting any decent paying job after his playing career was over. He ended up in Los Angeles teaching lessons and even played a little tennis with Charlie Chaplin, a tennis fanatic.
He died broke and alone. Very sad ending for one of the all-time greats. He'd probably be very successful had he played in the modern era.
If you take out the homosexuality aspect, there seems to be a great though tragic connection between Tilden and Roscoe Tanner, two big-serving giants whose personal problems proved to be their undoing.
He died broke and alone. Very sad ending for one of the all-time greats. He'd probably be very successful had he played in the modern era.
If you take out the homosexuality aspect, there seems to be a great though tragic connection between Tilden and Roscoe Tanner, two big-serving giants whose personal problems proved to be their undoing.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Fedubai said:
Yes, 3 on grass, 1 on clay. It doesn't matter what it is played on, no one has come close since.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
urban said:
Thanks urban... this make a little more sense as to why Tilden is in there.
Moose,
I'm not one of these youngsters that thinks that today's players are the best ever. In fact, with the exception of Federer and Nadal, I think that most of the top players from the late 70's and 80's would dominate now. In my opinion, tennis had more depth and variety back then.
As far as Tilden goes, I have his book (I got it from my Grandma, who actually went to school with Don Budge) and I agree that he had an impact on the popularity of the sport in America. However, by modern standards, I doubt that he would be as dominate a player today. Here is a choice quote from the Wiki site that you linked:
"Although Tilden almost never drank, he smoked heavily and disdained what today would be considered a healthy life style for an athlete; for most of his life his diet consisted of 3 enormous meals a day of steak and potatoes, with, perhaps, the occasional lamb chop."
Maybe Tilden was so good that he would have had the same type of results if he was born in modern times. However, the fact is that he was born into a wealthy family and played a sport that was largely only accessible to the rich during his era. Therefore, there was less competition for him to dominate and his accomplishments are not comparable to modern results.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Fedubai said:
Laver wasn't allowed to play in slams between his two slams.
If number of slams is criteria, then Roy Emerson is No. 2 all time great then.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
hoosierbr said:
Tilden was an interesting figure. However, his financial downfall had less to do with his homosexuality than with his lavish spending and poor investment choices. Also, his "blacklisting" from the clubs later in life were a result of two convictions for molesting underage males, which he spent more than a year in prison for.
Fedubai
Semi-Pro
Arrgh, whatever. You got me beat. There are just too many factors. Level of competition, training, technology, how often they played, talent. I don't think that all of today's players are better. They just have advances in technology that many players didn't have. Would the 100th ranked player with a Babolat beat Borg with a wooden racket? Sad but maybe true. Most of today's players have limited games. This generation is about power. I think from now on I will dabble in the greatest ever argument to learn about past players, since there are so many dead ends.
hoosierbr
Hall of Fame
Jack the Hack said:
True but there were a couple of instances were his sexuality kept him out of good jobs, before he was arrested.
He also spent a lot of his money on writing and producing plays and movies he starred in. They all flopped. Maybe the Williams sisters should take notice.
Supernatural_Serve
Professional
ok, I win a point for guessing Bud's list and in order, but I have been listening to him announce tennis for at least 30 years, so I had an advantage.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Fedubai said:
Agree with you this time.
I agree with anyone's greatest list as long as they state their criteria, and apply the citeria consistently.
You can't say Sampras is the greatest because he has most slam titles, then you don't list Roy Emerson as No. 2 because you inject other criteria in there where you don't state what it is.
cuddles26
Banned
The tennis guy said:
I dont know that much about tennis back in the 60s and before but didnt Emerson win alot of grand slams with alot of the best players on the pro circuit? Players that were generaly considered superior to him, 3 or 4 of them, to boot. That could be why he is viewed differently from Sampras when the significance of where they stand in slams won totals.
uNIVERSE mAN
Rookie
The tennis guy said:
three of those slams on grass.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
What you say is true Jack(about Tilden's diet), but that was true of all athletes in any sport back in the 20s/30s, etc. Who knows what Laver's diet was compared to Federer. Not sure that it matters.
There was a recent article in fox sports about scientists putting Albert Pujols through a serious of test similar to those conducted on Babe Ruth in the 20s. Tests for hand-eye coordination, reflexes, etc. They scored almost identical. Its a shame that #1 tennis players aren't tested over the years so we can see how they measure up to each other. It wouldn't surprise me if Tilden compared favorably to all the other greats. People make too much about the game being faster, etc today, not acknowledging the basics are still the same. All the greats had phenomenal hand-eye, reflexes, stroke production. And really a tennis court is only 39 feet wide & long, so what if a player today is slightly faster than a player from the past, it really doesn't make a difference often when you take the whole package into consideration. Agassi's footspeed didn't exactly hold him back from great things. Who knows Tilden may be faster, in a timed test, than he is.
and regardless of tilden's competition, you can't ignore his numbers. he has to be top 5 anyway you cut it. he played 969 matches over 19 years winning 94%. I doubt he was just playing the same 10 guys over & over again.
and did you see this?
"In 1941, when Bill Tilden was 48 years old, he toured the United States playing head-to-head matches with Don Budge, who at that time was incontestably the greatest player in the world. Tilden lost 51 matches to the 25-year-old Budge — but somehow found the means to beat him 7 times."
that shows some incredible talent/longevity. If Tilden could play that high level of tennis into his 40s, I think that proves something when having the GOAT discussions. He was able to adjust to the game getting bigger, better, etc.
and if you're going to penalize him for being from a rich family, what about mcenroe? or any great champion really? hardly any tennis players are working class, it is still an expensive sport
and when did it stop being a sport for rich guys? during the 30s? 40s? your criteria for excluding him is shaky, since you can't pinpoint when tennis became more accessible.
Too many fans get caught up in this when comparing players. 3 of the 4 slams were on grass until 1974, it seems absurd to devalue a hundred years worth of players on this fact. And Laver won a ton of events on hardcourt, clay, whatever. He wasn't a grasscourt specialist(nor was every champion prior to 1974, & not everyone was a S&Ver either)
If they had hardcourt slam in 1969, Laver would have still won it, he was the best all around player, its not like hardcourt was something he had never played on or something.
And I don't buy that sampras would have won so many more slams had there been more grass slams. if there were more grass slams, players would have gotten better on grass & more would have challenged him. and not all grasscourts were the same as many older players say when talking about forest hills, wimbledon, kooyang.
lol
I thought this was interesting. Emerson won the '67 French Open(playing amateurs). In 1968 it was open to pros, & as the defending champ he lost to Pancho Gonzales, the best player of the 50s, who was a decade older than Emerson(& clay wasn't Pancho's best surface) who had been banned from the majors the last 15 years or so.
Emerson is an alltime great, but Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, & many others with less slams are a lot better.
There was a recent article in fox sports about scientists putting Albert Pujols through a serious of test similar to those conducted on Babe Ruth in the 20s. Tests for hand-eye coordination, reflexes, etc. They scored almost identical. Its a shame that #1 tennis players aren't tested over the years so we can see how they measure up to each other. It wouldn't surprise me if Tilden compared favorably to all the other greats. People make too much about the game being faster, etc today, not acknowledging the basics are still the same. All the greats had phenomenal hand-eye, reflexes, stroke production. And really a tennis court is only 39 feet wide & long, so what if a player today is slightly faster than a player from the past, it really doesn't make a difference often when you take the whole package into consideration. Agassi's footspeed didn't exactly hold him back from great things. Who knows Tilden may be faster, in a timed test, than he is.
and regardless of tilden's competition, you can't ignore his numbers. he has to be top 5 anyway you cut it. he played 969 matches over 19 years winning 94%. I doubt he was just playing the same 10 guys over & over again.
and did you see this?
"In 1941, when Bill Tilden was 48 years old, he toured the United States playing head-to-head matches with Don Budge, who at that time was incontestably the greatest player in the world. Tilden lost 51 matches to the 25-year-old Budge — but somehow found the means to beat him 7 times."
that shows some incredible talent/longevity. If Tilden could play that high level of tennis into his 40s, I think that proves something when having the GOAT discussions. He was able to adjust to the game getting bigger, better, etc.
and if you're going to penalize him for being from a rich family, what about mcenroe? or any great champion really? hardly any tennis players are working class, it is still an expensive sport
and when did it stop being a sport for rich guys? during the 30s? 40s? your criteria for excluding him is shaky, since you can't pinpoint when tennis became more accessible.
Too many fans get caught up in this when comparing players. 3 of the 4 slams were on grass until 1974, it seems absurd to devalue a hundred years worth of players on this fact. And Laver won a ton of events on hardcourt, clay, whatever. He wasn't a grasscourt specialist(nor was every champion prior to 1974, & not everyone was a S&Ver either)
If they had hardcourt slam in 1969, Laver would have still won it, he was the best all around player, its not like hardcourt was something he had never played on or something.
And I don't buy that sampras would have won so many more slams had there been more grass slams. if there were more grass slams, players would have gotten better on grass & more would have challenged him. and not all grasscourts were the same as many older players say when talking about forest hills, wimbledon, kooyang.
lol
I thought this was interesting. Emerson won the '67 French Open(playing amateurs). In 1968 it was open to pros, & as the defending champ he lost to Pancho Gonzales, the best player of the 50s, who was a decade older than Emerson(& clay wasn't Pancho's best surface) who had been banned from the majors the last 15 years or so.
Emerson is an alltime great, but Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, & many others with less slams are a lot better.
Moose Malloy said:
Hooa, this tells a lot about the quality of slams Roy Emerson won.
And probably the 1st Gland Slam Laver won with similar quality ?
And this Pancho Gonzales guy always become big problem when we structure
our holy discussion of all time greats ! (if you know what I mean).
superman1
Legend
Some guys here are overly dismissive of the past greats, and some are overly venerating of them. Let's just face facts - the game is harder now than ever. All of these lists are nonsense because there is no way to measure who was better than who. You can only say who was the best in their era. If we're talking greatest of all time, then certainly guys like Laver and Tilden and Gonzalez would be the highest, since they accomplished so much. Yet I have no doubt that guys like Federer and Sampras could be extremely competitive with all of those guys, if not dominant. Sure, Nadal with a wooden racquet would be horrible, but if he had grown up with a wooden racquet, I have no doubt that he'd kick a lot of ass. A guy that can cover the court like he does would certainly pose a threat to anyone in any era. Who was better than who? Who knows? Who cares? There's a pretty big list of the greats of the sport. Federer still has a ways to go, but he should get to the top of that list eventually. Nadal still has a very long way to go to even be mentioned along these names.
lambielspins
Banned
Moose Malloy said:
Do you mean by this:
1)What if Nadal and McEnroe were both in their primes using wood rackets?
2)What if Nadal played McEnroe today using a wood racket, and McEnroe a modern day raquet?
3)What if Nadal played McEnroe today both using a wood racket?
my answers then would be:
1)Would have been interesting, but probably favor McEnroe who is more the raquet artist of the two.
2)McEnroe might have a good chance hard to say though.
3)Nadal would crush McEnroe due to the age difference.
U
Under Dog
Guest
I was not aware that Laver's slams came on grass (3 of 4). Is this true for noth Grand Slams?
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
Moose Malloy said:
Tilden was still playing (and winning) tour matches agains much younger pros in his late 50s, a feat which I think is unparalleled in the sport.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
fastdunn said:
There is inconsistency in your argument. If you discount Emerson's slam titles, then you need to take consideration of Laver who wasn't allowed to play for several years. Once he was allowed to play, and everyone was playing, he won THE slam immediately.
This is the problem with slective discount one's achievment while don't give consideration to others.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
uNIVERSE mAN said:
One on CLAY. It's not ALL on grass!
