Top Ten...Forehands (all-time)

[pennc94]

Jimmy Arias' forehand was the forehand that launched a thousand forehands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cc0509]

YES!

This isn't a popularity contest or a legends rankings. It is an opinion based discussion of ONE stroke technique between all players. Perhaps you should have actually read the title of the thread FIRST before deciding that "legendary status" might have been a relevant criteria.

Don't make up red-herrings arguments because you ignorantly assumed the thread was about something other than what it was. For the record, I'm well aware that Borg and Lendl were considered to have great forehands for their day. But when it comes to physicality and technology, the greatest forehands from the 80s would get crushed by average forehands from the 2010s. And in a forehand to forehand rally, I honestly believe that Blake would hit more winners and force more errors against either Borg or Lendl. You disagreeing with my opinion doesn't mean that I am ignorant of tennis history, it just means that you are incapable of using logic and reason to argue a different point.

I read what you wrote and conclude that: 1) you are wrong and 2) ignorant about tennis history if you leave out all time greats like Lendl and Borg. It's just sheer stupidity which no amount of explaining on your part can fix. Your comment above about the greatest forehands of the 80s getting crushed by average forehands from the 2010s further proves your tennis history ignorance.

Have a nice day.

 

[captainbryce]

In this case, yes it does.

In this case (where you can't seem to make an actual argument), it DOESN'T. It just means you want to claim knowledge superiority and act douchy!

 

[captainbryce]

Hell, forget about historical context for a minute. Even if you accept the premise that modern power baseline tennis is about nothing but serves and forehands, you still can't justify having a third of your list being comprised of guys who've never made it out of the quarters of any slam in their careers.

I already have justified it. If you'd like to discredit it, you have to present a counter argument that invalidates (or at the very least challenges) my position. All you're doing right now is telling us that you strongly disagree. That is not an argument!

If your biggest weapon never works better than that, it's not that big a weapon.

Okay, now validate your claim that any of the players I listed have forehands than "never work", and you will have made an argument that will force me to reconsider my position. But given just how ridiculous that claim is, im not holding my breath.

Lendl had one big weapon, and he made it to 19 slam finals.

What is your point and how is that relevant to the thread. Are you suggesting that the only factor involved in Lendl reaching those finals was the efficacy of his forehand and nothing else. Not his opponents, not the depth of the game, not his own consistency, and health, and mental toughness, and supplementary skills...it was his forehand and his forehand alone that got him to those finals?

 

[captainbryce]

I read what you wrote and conclude that: 1) you are wrong and 2) ignorant about tennis history if you leave out all time greats like Lendl and Borg. It's just sheer stupidity which no amount of explaining on your part can fix.

You can "conclude" whatever you want, as I can just as easily conclude that you mentally deficient in the art of debate and incompetent to defend your position in a rational debate. Your conclusion means nothing when you can't back it up using reason and logic. Name calling is the last resort of a failed argument! If there was a fault in my logic, you should be able to discuss it and provide an appropriate counter argument. The fact that THIS is your response seems to indicate that there isn't really much to what you're saying at all.

Your comment above about the greatest forehands of the 80s getting crushed by average forehands from the 2010s further proves your tennis history ignorance.

No it doesn't. An argument that makes use of actual statistics MIGHT do that IF we assumed that you had the mental capacity and emotional stability to actually produce one. But since you haven't as of yet, then you haven't really proved anything other than the fact that you disagree. Yet another poster who doesn't understand the concept or definition of the word "proof".

Have a nice day.

Oh don't you worry, I certainly am!

 

[TMF]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Lendl
4. Tilden
5. Borg, Sampras, Del Potro

 

[pc1]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Lendl
4. Tilden
5. Borg, Sampras, Del Potro

I like your choice of Tilden.

 

[Noveson]

Federer being in first is about the only thing that list has right. How do you not have lendl on there? Novak should be on there as well, probably towards the bottom but he should make it, and Nadal could easily be higher.

What were you thinking putting Kyrgios and Jack Sock on the list!?!?

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

And players like Ashe and McEnroe introduced big serving to the game.

But neither of them would be considered the greatest server of all time (or even in the top ten).

Ellsworth Vines.

Poncho Gonzalez.



Just stop.​

 

[pc1]

Hell, forget about historical context for a minute. Even if you accept the premise that modern power baseline tennis is about nothing but serves and forehands, you still can't justify having a third of your list being comprised of guys who've never made it out of the quarters of any slam in their careers. If your biggest weapon never works better than that, it's not that big a weapon.

Lendl had one big weapon, and he made it to 19 slam finals.

Well, his backhand was pretty good too and some thought his serve was the best in tennis for a while.

 

[pc1]

The following post was copied from the two handed backhand thread because the discussion moved to forehands.

Oh well then that tears it. If "Raymond Lee" says it, well then gosh darn it, it MUST be true!

Well regardless of what Raymond Lee wrote I think that he did write that others like Jack Kramer, Ellsworth Vines, Bobby Riggs thought Pancho Segura's two handed forehand was the best single SHOT they have seen. Those who saw Segura's forehand and the Jimmy Connors' great backhand (essentially the same type of swing which is not strange considering that Segura was Jimmy Connors' coach)believe that Segura's forehand was better than the Connors' backhand. Segura's forehand was a powerfully hit forehand with great accuracy and disguise. He could lob well, drop shot and hit with great power with topspin. Even Laver thought Segura's forehand was the best he faced and he faced great forehands like Newcombe's, Fletcher's, Gimeno's, Nastase's, Gonzalez's, Hoad among others.

I disagree. Ellsworth Vines' forehand was one of the biggest and greatest of all time. In my view, on grass, had the superior forehand to Sock or F. Gonzalez, and he had the better serve than either of them on any surface. Segura and Perry also had great forehands. Not a big as Vines, but, perhaps steadier. I'm suspect that you know little about any of these three players.

Vines in the wood era was considered to have the hardest hit forehand in the history of tennis. It was a very flat forehand which was, along with his serve the basis of his game. Here's a little video of it. Take a look at the 35 second mark. Vines is the one with the cap.

One guy I think would have no problem adjusting his forehand is Borg. Check the comparison with Federer here.

Here's a video of Borg against Lendl. Lendl wasn't the player he would be yet but his forehand was awesome and perhaps he hit it consistently harder than in his prime. Notice that Borg's forehand was so powerful yet so consistent and accurate. It was almost like watching a metronome.

Borg against Connors. Check out the forehand passing shots.

Borg's forehand had everything you wanted in a forehand. Consistent strong power, great on the return, heavy topspin angles, disguise, variety of spin, ability to hit winners from the backcourt consistently and it never seemed to miss. I know it did miss at times but you got the impression it never missed.

 

[pennc94]

Here's a video of Borg against Lendl. Lendl wasn't the player he would be yet but his forehand was awesome and perhaps he hit it consistently harder than in his prime. Notice that Borg's forehand was so powerful yet so consistent and accurate. It was almost like watching a metronome.

Borg against Connors. Check out the forehand passing shots.

Thanks for posting these beauties. Today's tennis is great but watching these legends has something special today's tennis lacks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk