Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by granddog29, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    Yep.
    Perfect.

    It looks like the real majors are two :D
     
  2. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    No worries Dan.
    That's Ivan's Wonderland.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  3. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    This one is even better.

    "The Martini & Rossi Award, for any late-comers," (like Ivan! NM's note) "is a trophy put up for the world-titlist. Points are awarded for finishes in the quarter-finals or better in the five major tournaments - Australia, Italy, France, Wimbledon and U.S."
    Evening Star, 20 Aug 1967
     
  4. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,137
    Location:
    U.S
    why should I take it in account when talking about matches in very big tournaments ? makes no sense.

    I do take the tour matches into account when assessing the total H2H.

    and no problem with responding to the long post. I was out, not in front of my computer. And that's not something I could reply to in 3-4 mins.
     
  5. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
  6. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,137
    Location:
    U.S
    Like I said there are clear reasons why the names were so :

    US Championships - only open to amateurs
    US Pro - only open to the pros
    US Open - open .

    its not about no matter how it was called. Its about why they were called so. That there is a good reason that you could them in separate categories.

    Your statement was "But despite that current praises some experts still mention that Fed equaled Laver by majors, that Rosewall is still with 23 "


    so how does this statement of yours look like now ? Federer had already surpassed both Rosewall and Laver in terms of the value of majors won by the time he won Wimbledon 2012 , correct ? Going by your own definition. Its good to see you acknowledged that Federer's majors are clearly worth more than Rosewall's and Laver's.
    Now that we've settled that, lets move on.

    I was very clear that I don't agree with your way of counting. "Now lets look at it that way for a second (not that I agree)"
    Now, I agree you have to calculate the entire careers of the players to evaluate them fully. I already said I don't evaluate the way you do.
    I'm not saying Federer's career is better than Laver's and Rosewall's based on just the above. That's a different issue.
     
  7. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    Let's see how the Australian Open was treated in the ranking era.

    1973
    A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
    B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $100K.
    C : Assigned for tournaments paying out more than $75K but less than $100K.
    D : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with larger draws (64)
    E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K with smaller draws (32)
    F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, regularly paying at least $20K
    Australian Open had $30K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)

    1974
    A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
    B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
    C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
    D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
    E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
    F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
    Australian Open had $40K prize money, so it would have been a F category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as E)

    1975
    A : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
    B : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $125K.
    C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
    D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
    E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
    F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
    Australian Open had $55K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)

    1976
    AA : Category reserved for the Triple Crown events.
    A : Assigned to the most prestigious events of the regular series. Prize money over $150K.
    B : Assigned for tournaments paying out $125K
    C : Assigned for tournaments paying out $100K
    D : Assigned for tournaments paying out $75K
    E : Assigned for tournaments paying $50K
    F : Assigned to all other countable tournaments, paying out more than $25K.
    Australian Open had $65K prize money, so it would have been a E category, but it received a bonus step for being a Slam (pointed as D)

    So, as you can see there is a top Category (the Majors) that doesn't follow the prize money divisions.
    The Triple Crown events were among the richer of the circuit, but there were some richer ones (for example Las Vegas or Palm Springs) placed in a lower category.
    In a very few words : Australian Open was treated as a regular tournament, just with a little bonus for being a Slam, but away from being a Major.
    And there is no speculation: it is what happened.

    Let's go down now, without rankings, but with many info.

    1972
    Out of WCT, out of Grand Prix, $8,800 total prize money, almost all Australian players (like the Aussie Champs of 1920s - 1930s !) the worst Slam of the Open Era, clearly not a Major.

    1971
    Great tournament, part of WCT circuit that literally saved the Aussie Open after a 1970 in deep red and no money in the pockets of the Australian Federation.
    Not really Open (GP players could not play). I can close an eye on this one :)

    1970
    WCT/NTL players banned (so not really open and so almost all the best players missing), average prize money. Very difficult to close an eye.

    1969
    Average prize money, but medium/good field. It was the first Australian Open, so there was hype to play it even if some good players were missing.
    My opinion : if Laver didn't clinch the Grand Slam, it would have been contested like 1970 edition.
     
    NatF and abmk like this.
  8. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,137
    Location:
    U.S
    I don't follow golf too much, but Woods has 14 majors, not 16.
    And he was proclaimed as the GOAT of golf by so many, even though Jack Nicklaus has 18 majors, because of his dominance, if I am not mistaken.

    Achievements do remain in history. So do impressions of the general people/other players/experts. That's why you have tons of articles/rankings etc.


    Those are measurements of those specific parameters. I already said you have to take the context into account for those years. Like Connors in 74 was 96-4. But he played only 7 top 10 players (TB ranking) IIRC. He played on the clearly weak Riordan tour. So that knocks the perceived dominance in that year down. You need to adjust vs the competition for that year.

    Point was you said peak play/dominance couldn't be measured. I've shown you how it can be.

    Dominance isn't the only indicator, but it is a significant one.
    These parameters by themselves don't cover the rating of a player's entire career, nor are they meant to.

    Your example of player A and player B is very much possible. But that aspect for A is covered by another parameter - longevity.

    The question is how much weight you give to these parameters --- peak play, dominance, consistency, being #1, adaptability to surfaces, longevity, h2h vs top 10 players etc.

    now that's a different issue. Gonzales and Rosewall are clearly under-rated by the public. Not my point. Point is I or others don't have reasons to belittle Rosewall purposely because :
    a) Laver is widely regarded as the competitor to Federer as the GOAT, not Rosewall. Do you see us consistently belittling Laver just to put Federer ahead ? Nope.
    b) and when I said historically about Gonzales, I meant by the players of those times and the experts of those times (not current ones who don't know)

    See below ........

    you need to remember that my list of the greatest players of all time - which is a mix of achievements and subjective opinion.
    Its not a list of players with most achivements. (considering overall length of career)

    they are not necessarily the same.
    Rosewall would be higher in a list of most achieved.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  9. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    I didn't reply right away because I wanted to be sure.
    So I double checked and as I have like more than ten thousands of clips, sometimes it takes time :D

    Check in the beginning of the article, where it states that the tournament was officiated by the English Federation, of which the ILTF was the successor.
    It says that only with the Hard Court in the name of the tournament, it could have been recognized.
    Because the World Grass Court was Wimbledon.

    [​IMG]

    So it is a official Major ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
    BobbyOne likes this.
  10. elegos7

    elegos7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    193
    Thanks for the article. It is always good to see original articles that help us clarify the organizational aspects of a tournament.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  11. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,118
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I rate Gonzlez as #1.

    You're a joke.
     
  12. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,656
    Nadal was top class last year, but he still lost to Shapo. And I'm by no means convinced at this time that Shapo is a future Borg, so if this is an indicator of things to come, we don't know it yet.
     
  13. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,656
    It's worse than that. Check points% for all players, HC, in 2003. One of many huge errors that the ATP never even bothered to take a look at.
     
    NoMercy likes this.
  14. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,421
    I agree, a nice post.
    Only one thing: we need to agree on the term "dominance".
    Borg in 1977-78 did not dominate. Indeed in 1977 Bjorn was 3rd !
     
  15. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,421
    What's the dominance ? Johnnymac 1981-84 ? Federer las year (AO-AO) ?
    When can a dominant period be defined?
    What characteristics must it have?
     
    Ivan69 likes this.
  16. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,118
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    In the past I've defined dominance as;

    1) 50%+ of majors won in that time period
    2) 50%+ of all tournaments entered won in that time period
    3) 90%+ win/loss record in that time period

    Generally for me at least the top 2 need to be picked, in the pro tour this might not work quite so well. In some years with a fuller tournament circuit the top 2 could be roughly right - win loss record is impossible though.
     
  17. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,656
    That's true. It is very clear from the records of Borg and Nadal that clay dominance looks more impressive in terms of games. Quite obviously what we are after is some kind of reliable connection between games won, matches won and events won.

    If we go only by games won, Borg and Nadal are clearly the best players of the OE, and no great grass-court player is in the running. But looking at matches we see the same kind of dominance in super years, regardless of the surface best suiting the player.

    I have only one additional thought: perhaps we can say that any player who has both an incredibly long career and who is at the very top or very close to the very top for many of those years has to be looked at with extra respect. Also that dominance and #1 are not always the same thing. For instance, in my mind Fed was more dominant last year than Nadal, in spite of the end of the year ranking.

    I'd always look very carefully at aging players who are not longer #1 but who are still winning top events long past an age that is expected for that, which is why I look very carefully at both Gonzalez and Rosewall in this respect, and I also believe that is a powerful argument for those who look at Tilden. I'm not so sure about Connors, because he hung on for so many years but really was no longer winning big titles after 1983.
     
  18. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,421
    It seems to me a good criterion, it is difficult to say if it is the best.

    The problem is that mathematics does not go hand in hand with perception (McEnroe dominated the period 1981-84 even if two years did not dominate).

    Furthermore ...
    when two players are very close, does the dominator exist? Can they be two dominators? Federer and Nadal have massacred everyone in 2017.
    One is dominator? Both ? Or no one?
     
    Ivan69 likes this.
  19. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    I know Gary.
    My point was that I often spit on ATP database for its inaccurate record of the info.
    But this has not anything to do with ATP ranking points allocation during the years, that followed a categorization of the tournaments
     
  20. NoMercy

    NoMercy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,816
    I wrote that in a previous post.
    The 1971-72 and 1974 are the reason I have Rosewall so high in my all time list
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  21. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,086
    I Agree!
     
  22. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,086
    Before 1968 the majors were: Wimbledon, Australian Championships, French Championships and the US Championships. From 1968, when the open era began, the majors were: Wimbledon, US Open, French Open and Australian Open. South Africa, German or Italian championships or open were Never considered majors, nor are they today.
     
    BobbyOne and Ivan69 like this.
  23. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,421
    I'm tackling Sampras' career in another thread, and I'm putting your attention here to an issue I was thinking about: the competion (weak or not weak).

    I would like to make a speech about the competition.

    It's a popular/common thought that some times have had little competition (2017-2018) or beginning OE or Sampras Era.
    Other times a stratospheric competition (1976-late 80s) or early Fedalovic.

    In fact, we often read: Sampras won a lot because the only opponent was Agassi. Or Pioline!:(:mad:

    By-pass that in the last year and a half there have been too many injuries ....first and only time in history so extraordinary case....
    otherwise the competition has always been high IMO.
    It's been different.:cool:


    Federer had as main adversaries Nadal & Djokovic (TIER 1) + Wawr & Murray (TIER 2), the others proved to be very poor.
    Also McEnroe for example had Connors, Borg, Lendl (TIER 1) but perhaps apart from Vilas (TIER 2) the others proved to be much lower level.
    Sampras had perhaps only Agassi in TIER 1 but had to fight with an army of TIER 2.

    Is it more difficult to win when there are two monsters in circulation but then there is a gap or when there is only one monster and so many dangerous players?
     
    Ivan69 likes this.
  24. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Sad? I am pretty well. My idea? It's not mine.
     
  25. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Perfect. Then why Rome is not considered major for that years?
     
  26. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Well. TB has a similar point system. I am happy to be in such companion.
     
  27. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    The tour matches are similar to the big tournament matches - high level of competition, top players played.
     
  28. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
  29. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,589
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Players since 1920 who have been called the GOAT by a decent amount of players/experts...at least for a short time.
    1. Tilden
    2. Vines
    3. Budge
    4. Kramer
    5. Gonzalez
    6. Laver
    7. Connors-yes a number of people were in awe of Connors and called him the GOAT.
    8. Borg
    9. Sampras
    10. Federer
    11. Nadal
    12. Djokovic
    13. McEnroe

    Federer seems to get the most feedback as the GOAT but Laver gets a lot I think because of his Grand Slams. Kramer seems to get the most from past players.

    Tilden may have even equaled Federer over the years. Even in 1969 he ranked easily first in a vote by great tennis experts like Bud Collins!
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  30. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,589
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    That’s why I say I think Gonzalez would have probably won the French Pro or if it could have been played, a hypothetical French Open in the 1960s. He was an excellent clay player. The French Pro wasn’t played much in his top years.
     
  31. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,589
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I don’t like it. We’re discussing singles. If you want a thread about a great Davis Cup player then you can include doubles.
     
  32. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,421
    13!! And Rosewall ?
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,589
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    How many experts REALLY call him the GOAT?
     
  34. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    No. It doesn't matter at all. Hundreds of tournaments have changed their names.
    That's exactly the issue. The entire career of Laver and Rosewall is better than Fed's one.
    My calculations are the same as yours but cover all the achievements. Even not all. Because I don't calculate the thousands ONS the pros have played.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  35. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Worst slam but SLAM!!!!!!!!!!!! Take it or leave it.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  36. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,086
    Rome was NEVER considered a Major, an important tournament for sure, but not a major.
     
    BobbyOne and Ivan69 like this.
  37. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    No, dear abmk! Everybody talks and remembers the titles. If you go back to the articles you will read that experts and journalists raised the question if it's possible for Woods to beat the record by titles. This was the main theme.
    You are contradicting yourself - talking of the dominance of Connors in 74 but at the same time having played weaker events and vs lower ranked players. That's what I told you before. You can't define some dominance without analysing the level of competition. And objectively you can't be dominant if there is a strong competition.
    I am giving a low weight of all these indicators because the results matter. If the results are closer than other indicators like H2H matter.
    All these indicators (peak play, dominance, consistency, being #1, adaptability to surfaces, longevity, h2h vs top 10) are secondary because they affect the most important - the results, the titles, the records. Nobody mentions the dominance of Phelps but everybody knows about his 23 titles IIRC.
    Again widely regarded? As I told this is not a reasonable and fully informed opinion. Even by the players and experts of that time which didn't knew all the achievements of the players. These were fully personal opinions based on their direct matches. Thus these opinions are not representative.
    Yeah. And this is the main problem. The achievements in your estimates takes a little part. But they are the most important. Because all the players in all sports are fighting 100% for titles and results not for dominance or peak play. Thus the achievements should consist at least 90% of the evaluation of a player.
     
  38. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Ok. Gonz by default. Not a big difference. By default not achievement-wise.
     
  39. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    How have you defined these percentages?
     
  40. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,118
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    The percentages define the dominance, the definition of the percentages is self-explanatory.
     
  41. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Well. Winning big titles from 73 to 83 is pretty good.:)
     
  42. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,086
    Then deduct Laver's 6 amateur slams, Rosewall's 4 and Emerson's12. In that case Rod has 5 slams, Rosewall-4 and whatever credit you want to give their pro majors-slams. Also, the 69 and 71 AO were highly competitive and deserve to be called full OE slams. The fact though that Rosewall won the 72 WCT, there is a good possibility he could have won the 72 AO, had the competition been as strong as the year before. Rosewall was an exceptional big tournament competitor and winner, equal to Laver and Gonzalez, at least.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  43. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,421
    POST WAR II
    Post update AO2018 (after Nadal 2017 and a definitive reading of Sampras)... WORK IN PROGRESS....
    Federer GOAT
    2) Laver T1
    3) Gonzalez T1
    4) Nadal T1/T2
    5) Rosewall T2
    6) Sampras T2
    7) Borg T2
    8) Connors T2
    9) McEnroe T3
    10) Djokovic T3
    11) Lendl T3
    12) Agassi T4

    I am not able to give a serious judgment on Kramer, Riggs, Segura and Hoad.:mad::(:confused:

    Clarification: the ranking is clearly not precise because speculative as I can not really get into the merits of the Pro / Am period.
    Without giving a ranking of what were the big events Pro/Am v OE, is impossible for me to make a comparison between the 2 ages.
     
  44. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    No. Rosewall is somewhere between 50 and 100. But pc1 respects him a lot.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  45. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,118
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I recall an interview with Borg at the USO where he said he'd won all the major events except the USO - he named Wimbledon, the French, The Masters/Dallas (IIRC) and also Rome.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  46. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,589
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    I’ve seen him play. Have you?
     
  47. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    But why 50%? Why not 2%? Or 70%? Nothing could define the so called "dominance". You need quality criteria for that.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  48. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,086
    As to the Post WW II list I mostly agree, except I would put Rosewall along with Nadal at Tier 1/ Tier 2. Also, I would put Agassi in T3 and Djokovic in T2
     
    KG1965 likes this.
  49. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,464
    Yes. Rome was a big event wanted by Borg but not a slam.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  50. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,118
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I just gave you a definition for dominance. If you have a different one that's fine but we can come up with a criteria for dominance just like you come up with criteria to rate tournaments.

    Major =/= Slam

    Wembley was not a slam but was a major, WCT finals not a slam but a major - especially in 1972 with the non-major AO ;)
     

Share This Page