Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by granddog29, Aug 19, 2013.
Think you forgot Pancho.
I think we made a very good and objective exercise with comparing the titles.
Gonzalez? Nadal? Djokovic? Wilander over Lendl?
Nadal and Djokovic, nah. For his sheer strength of will, and ability to have turned so relatively little game into so much success Nadal would be close, but I just have so little respect for the tennis I've watched the last 15 years compared to what came before. I'm not sure I'd have had Federer in there until his 2014 rejuvenation.
As for Gonzalez, I just hold the never winning anything significant on clay thing against him.
Why Wilander over Lendl? It's for sure debatable, but for me the two majors on grass (both of which Lendl competed in) makes the difference. Kooyong's slower stuff may not be quite Wimbledon, but it's something, and like Gonzalez that hole in his resume counts against Lendl for me.
Of course some of the guys I listed had such holes too, but I think most of them (Borg, Sampras) had other stupidly huge accomplishments to overshadow said gaps. McEnroe maybe not, but would you hold against me taking Johnny Mac over Lendl? only one of those men is a genius with a racket in his hand. Maybe Gonzalez could have gone in over Mac, but I'll go with the one I've watched more of.
It seems that ypur criteria includes niether accomplishments nor peak level of play.
No, I'd say accomplishments is exactly what it's based on. As for peak level of play, removed from context it means little to nothing. Ultimately it is context itself which is king to me. Numbers alone are worthless.
Federer and Nadal are the 2 greatest of all time and that cannot be debated.
Not with you...
There is some cogitive dissonance in you comment. The the absence on Gonzalez, Nadal and Djokovic is a glaring oversight in your list on the basis of both accomplishments and level of play. I agree that context is required to compare levels of play, equipment being the most significant factor. But, that is no good reason to disregard level of play which you have done despite your admonition to the contrary.
It can, and successfully has been, by more knowledgeable observers.
Federer is the greatest but Nadal is not there yet, but he is in the top 5.
At least he got one of the two players right.
The one with the 23-15 H2H advantage?
The one who has the most grand slam trophies and holds/shares most of the important tennis records. Capiche?
The only male players who have won the Grand Slam in the history of Tennis are Don Budge, and Rod Laver. Since Laver won amateur, pro and open Grand Slams, won the most titles, was #1 for the most weeks (except Tilden and Gonzalez), was year end #1 for 7-8 straight years and has a winning record against him greatest rivals, obviously you are referring to The Rocket.
Congratulations for finally coming to your senses. Better late than never. Capisce!
You know exactly what I meant so don't try to be naive. Google "Federer 19 Grand Slams" and you see millions of hits. Federer holds the men's record with 19 Grand Slam titles, that's the fact! He's widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time along with Laver, but his breathtaking 2017 season has earned the mantle as the greatest of all-time. If you don't agree that's fine, but that's not going to change the majority of the people's POV.
Argumentum ad populum! Don’t be naive yourself! You know perfectly well that Federer has ZERO Grand Slams. That is a fact. Capisce!
PS: BTW, Fed’s breathtaking 2017 earned him a year end ranking of #2. Again. Capisce!
Back to a dick measuring competition...
Unfortunately for Ken and Rod ( ) this is one area with a definite height correlation
Apparently you have data I don't have.
Just don't ask me how I got it
Not going there!
Rod disagrees... and Federer bashfully concedes
Only a few posters from former pro tennis forum like you think he has won zero slams, but in the real world Federer has won a record of 19 Grand Slams titles. Deal with it.
Winning 2 more Grand Slam titles moves him ahead of Laver was a bitter pill for you to swallow.
Everyone who knows what the Grand Slam is knows that Federer has won exactly ZERO Grand Slams. Deal with that.
Federer’s major title count is not relevant to his ranking against players who were barred from playing the majors for most of their careers. Capisce!
You need to get out more and stop living in the past. This is 2018, not in the 60s.
Of course it's relevant. In fact, total grand slam count is the most important criteria in evaluation player's ATG.
You need to learn that tennis didn't start in 2003. If total Grand Slam count is the most important criteria for ATG evaluation, then Laver is the GOAT, Budge is #2, and Federer is tied with the rest of the field with ZERO Grand Slams. Capisce?
You’re wrong. This is the list of slam winners. You’re acting like a 12 years old kid.
Most Grand Slam titles
1. Roger Federer 19*(career slam)
2. Rafael Nadal 16*(career slam)
3. Pete Sampras 14
4. Novak Djokovic 12*(career slam)
5. Björn Borg 11
6. Andre Agassi 8(career slam)
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Jimmy Connors 8
9. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
11. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6
Tennis started after 1968? Right.
Very funny. Your irony is exceeded only by your hypocrisy.
Do you realize that anyone can copy a list like that?
Do you honestly think that copying lists proves that you are knowledgeable about tennis history?
TMF, If your claim is right then why do you rank Laver still very high even though several players have won more GS tournaments ( Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, Emerson) ???
You must be 5 or 6.
Nope. Anyone who watches tennis would know the grand slam winners from the list are only from the open era, because pre open era slams aren't worth the same during split pro/amateur era.
Strange that you are not aware.
Pretty much all tennis information we posted are from the internet, and wiki is part of it.
There's nothing wrong with the list anyway.
Again, I've said so many times already that the Grand Slam count is not the be-all and end-all debate. It's the most important criteria, but there are other important ones like ranking, performances, level of domination, records, longevity, etc. Laver is not judge simply by his slam count by me, although some fans do and I think that's incorrect.
No, that's right....I was not aware that pre-open slams were worth less, in fact, I am still not aware of that.
You have to evaluate the strength of the field.
The list is wrong and misleading because if we would follow it, giants like Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would vanish from the list of the all-time greats!!
Internet your friend, .#1 poster
Guys, let's see again the advantages given to Federer. Shame, shame, shame! It's very very obvious that he is scared to play in a day session.
Is this the great champion? Shame.
Bobby, I am not surprised of many misguided Federer fans. They will never learn the tennis history. They just won't learn it because it doesn't favor him.
Another misguided student.
Better read what is the meaning of "slam" and "grand slam", Mr. Wiki!
So then, tennis began in the open era? You are the one here acting like a 12 year old. Surely you know that had: Laver, Gonzalez or Rosewall not played the pro tour or if there was no pro tour, each of these players would have won at least 19 slams and probably more.
In fact tennis began in 2003. Before there were only challengers.
Separate names with a comma.