Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Trust me, it doesn't harm him. Sampras' Game Won percentages are in line with his record. Winning these close matches or winning or losing one sided matches are a part of the large sample of Games Won Percentage.
If, as you say, all the legends of the game have games won/loss records that are roughly aligned to their records, then that is fine. Games/sets win-Ioss records are not something I have ever looked into. I am much more interested in match wins and losses, but without doing any research, I can immediately think of one player who has a better tally of games won than other players of the same calibre: Ivo Karlovic. Most of his sets seem to finish in a tie-break!
 
Another thing we have to take into account is not just statistics but what is behind everything. We have to know the story behind the scenes.

For example one poster was discussing a head to head tour which I felt he slanted everything toward one player. This poster did not mention after a major injury that one player lost six matches in a row and throughout this head to head tour was plagued with injuries. It made it seem like the other player would have won no matter what mainly because of his greatness but I thought, in taking account the injuries that it was a sign of the great strength of the player who was injured. I could be wrong but I felt the poster favored the player who was not injured.

Let's look at another two players in Budge and Riggs. Now the exact won-lost records could be a bit off now with more information but in 1942 Budge won a World Championship Tour over Riggs, Kovac, Perry and Stoefen. Budge won it easily over second place Riggs by a score of 52-18 (or 54-18) to Riggs' 36-36. Seems impressive and I suppose it is but Perry was hurt with a major injury and wasn't Perry anymore. Kovacs, while an excellent player was known to be head case and Stoefen, while good was never on the level of the others. What is more interesting is that the record of Riggs versus Budge was only 15 to 10 in favor of Budge so even before Riggs improved greatly he clearly was troubling Budge.

Okay so WWII starts and Budge hurts his shoulder badly in a training exercise I believe. This affects his serve and overhead. Riggs of course having one of the best lobs of all time lobs Budge to death and wins the first tour around 24 to 22 after leading 12 to 2 early. Now do we look at the injury to Budge and think that Budge would have won if he was a healthy younger Budge? Maybe but we also should examine the personality of Riggs and how he was rumored to throw matches to keep things close perhaps for betting purposes or perhaps in this case to keep the score close for better box office. Riggs at this point KNEW he could beat Budge (at least he thought so but that means a lot) whenever he needed to. Riggs improved his serve to when many thought his serve was better than Budge at his peak. The volley and even his great controlled groundstrokes improved. I have seen articles of Riggs aceing Budge over 20 times in a match. On the Pro Tour later Riggs dominated in winning 14 of 30 tournaments with Budge winning only 3. Riggs imo was by far the best player on the Pro Tour. So this makes me suspicious that perhaps Riggs kept it close on tour. I am not sure if a peak Riggs versus a peak Budge wouldn't be very close and I'm not sure who would win. Clearly the bad shoulder didn't hurt him on return and yet Riggs hit a number of aces against Budge.

My point is that while we of course look at statistics the inside story must be known.
In every discussion, every judgement must be applied as fairly as possible. If discussing a particular tour and why that tour turned out the way it did, every relevant factor should be discussed. I have not read the discussion you refer to (I am fairly new here), so won't comment on that. My own views regarding Budge and Riggs post-war are that Budge's injury should always be mentioned as a factor in his decline. Regarding the previous early 1940s tour, Perry's injury was really serious. I recall him describing this in his autobiography. They had decided to play with a lightweight canvas and a tear appeared in it. Perry got caught in it and cartwheeled into the air and landed on his elbow, smashing it badly. In my view Budge was better than Riggs in 1942 (maybe not by a huge amount, but he was better). Budge was not the same after his injury, I posted that quote the other day from Riggs saying after the war Budge took something off the ball.
 
In every discussion, every judgement must be applied as fairly as possible. If discussing a particular tour and why that tour turned out the way it did, every relevant factor should be discussed. I have not read the discussion you refer to (I am fairly new here), so won't comment on that. My own views regarding Budge and Riggs post-war are that Budge's injury should always be mentioned as a factor in his decline. Regarding the previous early 1940s tour, Perry's injury was really serious. I recall him describing this in his autobiography. They had decided to play with a lightweight canvas and a tear appeared in it. Perry got caught in it and cartwheeled into the air and landed on his elbow, smashing it badly. In my view Budge was better than Riggs in 1942 (maybe not by a huge amount, but he was better). Budge was not the same after his injury, I posted that quote the other day from Riggs saying after the war Budge took something off the ball.
Agree totally with your post.

Of course Budge was superior to Riggs in 1942. My thought is that considering all the facts that Riggs was clearly superior to a weaker Budge and with Riggs' improvement I do wonder how strong Riggs truly was after the war. It would have been a heck of a World Championship Tour if both were 100% and by that I mean Budge would have not had the shoulder injury.
 
Agree totally with your post.

Of course Budge was superior to Riggs in 1942. My thought is that considering all the facts that Riggs was clearly superior to a weaker Budge and with Riggs' improvement I do wonder how strong Riggs truly was after the war. It would have been a heck of a World Championship Tour if both were 100% and by that I mean Budge would have not had the shoulder injury.
After the war Budge was a spent force (his injury meant he was no longer the old Budge). Riggs is underrated. He was clever and exploited opponents' weaknesses (I have read he had the best lob in history). There is very little footage of him online (I saw a badly put together youtube montage of his match against Court in 1973, but he was miles past his best then so very difficult to deduce anything from that). Budge was a great player and in his prime I pick him to beat Riggs in his prime. But as you say, that would be a great tour to watch!
 
Another thing we have to take into account is not just statistics but what is behind everything. We have to know the story behind the scenes.

For example one poster was discussing a head to head tour which I felt he slanted everything toward one player. This poster did not mention after a major injury that one player lost six matches in a row and throughout this head to head tour was plagued with injuries. It made it seem like the other player would have won no matter what mainly because of his greatness but I thought, in taking account the injuries that it was a sign of the great strength of the player who was injured. I could be wrong but I felt the poster favored the player who was not injured.
Your descent into pettiness over the last few months has been astonishing to watch. You've taken one swipe after another, at me, some of them far more extreme than the one I've quoted here which is mild by comparison -- and I've restrained myself from responding because I have been trying for months to make peace with you, somehow (which you know). And yet you persist with making these "arguments" which are personal -- "arguments" about my bias, motivation, etc. You got enough of those type of arguments during the recent wars that were driven by posters who are no longer here. You got enough, we all did. So why would you persist in this type of "argumentation"?

If you want to play by those rules -- if you want to talk about people, rather than stick to evidence -- then let me start with one question for you. Who first pinpointed the exact date of Vines' injury and posted a newspaper report that quoted Budge, on the day after the injury, attesting to it? There had never been such solid evidence of Vines' injury before this poster brought that information. So who was it? Shall we refer to him by name, or shall we do it your way and just refer to him as "one poster"?

And if you want to persist along that line, then go back and read the discussion you're talking about. You are now misreading, or disregarding, everything I post.

About a year ago you protested that I was misinterpreting your posts. When I tried to make peace with you a few months ago I agreed that we all surely misinterpreted one another to some degree and I was prepared to acknowledge my own mistakes in that regard -- and I told you that. But I told you that it should be a two-way street. And your response, astonishingly, was to take public pot-shots at my writings, trying to prove my bias by "analyzing" my posts. And you make many posts about many subject, but I've noticed that the posts that you make that are about me, you continue editing for weeks at a time, long after every one else has left the discussion.

You want to continue going down this road?
 
Your descent into pettiness over the last few months has been astonishing to watch. You've taken one swipe after another, at me, some of them far more extreme than the one I've quoted here which is mild by comparison -- and I've restrained myself from responding because I have been trying for months to make peace with you, somehow (which you know). And yet you persist with making these "arguments" which are personal -- "arguments" about my bias, motivation, etc. You got enough of those type of arguments during the recent wars that were driven by posters who are no longer here. You got enough, we all did. So why would you persist in this type of "argumentation"?

If you want to play by those rules -- if you want to talk about people, rather than stick to evidence -- then let me start with one question for you. Who first pinpointed the exact date of Vines' injury and posted a newspaper report that quoted Budge, on the day after the injury, attesting to it? There had never been such solid evidence of Vines' injury before this poster brought that information. So who was it? Shall we refer to him by name, or shall we do it your way and just refer to him as "one poster"?

And if you want to persist along that line, then go back and read the discussion you're talking about. You are now misreading, or disregarding, everything I post.

About a year ago you protested that I was misinterpreting your posts. When I tried to make peace with you a few months ago I agreed that we all surely misinterpreted one another to some degree and I was prepared to acknowledge my own mistakes in that regard -- and I told you that. But I told you that it should be a two-way street. And your response, astonishingly, was to take public pot-shots at my writings, trying to prove my bias by "analyzing" my posts. And you make many posts about many subject, but I've noticed that the posts that you make that are about me, you continue editing for weeks at a time, long after every one else has left the discussion.

You want to continue going down this road?
I can't comment on any past disagreements you two have, as I haven't seen them. But I do know that krosero is correct in that PC1 has mentioned him "the other poster" etc. several times in discussions in the short time I have been a member here. There was one occasion on my book thread where concern was raised about someone possibly influencing my book. And I replied that it was my book and no one is influencing me in writing the narrative sections. Any assistance I receive on the research side will be clearly labelled on an event by event basis (so far I have undertaken the vast majority of the research myself, mainly using online resources such as newspaper archives, but the book is far from complete). If krosero writes a chapter (maybe krosero may choose to write a full book himself) that will be his and I won't be influencing him in writing it. Regarding tennis history, I have my views, but only reasoned logical argument backed up by facts can have any impact on me changing them. I don't belong to a particular group or faction, never have.
 
Trust me, it doesn't harm him. Sampras' Game Won percentages are in line with his record. Winning these close matches or winning or losing one sided matches are a part of the large sample of Games Won Percentage.
You know I’m not especially a fan of percentages pc1

But I do think it’s unfair that someone like Sampras, who knew he could win on one break a set, is penalised because his game percentage is lower than, say, Borg.
 
Another thing we have to take into account is not just statistics but what is behind everything. We have to know the story behind the scenes.

For example one poster was discussing a head to head tour which I felt he slanted everything toward one player. This poster did not mention after a major injury that one player lost six matches in a row and throughout this head to head tour was plagued with injuries. It made it seem like the other player would have won no matter what mainly because of his greatness but I thought, in taking account the injuries that it was a sign of the great strength of the player who was injured. I could be wrong but I felt the poster favored the player who was not injured.

Let's look at another two players in Budge and Riggs. Now the exact won-lost records could be a bit off now with more information but in 1942 Budge won a World Championship Tour over Riggs, Kovac, Perry and Stoefen. Budge won it easily over second place Riggs by a score of 52-18 (or 54-18) to Riggs' 36-36. Seems impressive and I suppose it is but Perry was hurt with a major injury and wasn't Perry anymore. Kovacs, while an excellent player was known to be head case and Stoefen, while good was never on the level of the others. What is more interesting is that the record of Riggs versus Budge was only 15 to 10 in favor of Budge so even before Riggs improved greatly he clearly was troubling Budge.

Okay so WWII starts and Budge hurts his shoulder badly in a training exercise I believe. This affects his serve and overhead. Riggs of course having one of the best lobs of all time lobs Budge to death and wins the first tour around 24 to 22 after leading 12 to 2 early. Now do we look at the injury to Budge and think that Budge would have won if he was a healthy younger Budge? Maybe but we also should examine the personality of Riggs and how he was rumored to throw matches to keep things close perhaps for betting purposes or perhaps in this case to keep the score close for better box office. Riggs at this point KNEW he could beat Budge (at least he thought so but that means a lot) whenever he needed to. Riggs improved his serve to where many thought his serve was better than Budge at his peak. The volley and even his great controlled groundstrokes improved. I have seen articles of Riggs aceing Budge over 20 times in a match. On the Pro Tour later Riggs dominated in winning 14 of 30 tournaments with Budge winning only 3. Riggs imo was by far the best player on the Pro Tour. So this makes me suspicious that perhaps Riggs kept it close on tour. Remember that Riggs led 12-2 early and Budge got closer but never quite overtook him. Later Riggs won another tour from Budge. It does make it suspicious whether Riggs kept it close or not!

I am not sure if a peak Riggs versus a peak Budge wouldn't be very close and I'm not sure who would win. Clearly the bad shoulder didn't hurt him on return and yet Riggs hit a number of aces against Budge.

My point is that while we of course look at statistics the inside story must be known.
I would like to continue on the question of BPOAT.

I think this.

The classification methods (ranking, contenders, GOAT) are of various types but generally there have been two:
1) the "current" one based on achievements (then the problem is to understand if achievements are only majors or other)
2) the "old" one that was presumably used until the 60s, where the best player in the world was indicated (but without a count on the majors ... also because WT >> majors)

On the "current" I have not for the moment anything to add (also because I simulated my ranking a few days ago), I would like to face my ranking hypothesizing the "old" method.

I do not know what the method was exactly but I can presume what it was: and that is the BPOAT contenders are only the top players who have been deemed "almost unbeatable" for a fairly long period (how long I hypothesize 3 years) and continuous.

The "almost unbeatable" I saw playing (ie since 1976) are only Borg (1978-80), Federer (5 years) and Djokovic (3 years). Sampras was number one for 6 years but he never gave me the feeling of "almost unbeatable" for the sore point of the red clay and especially for a certain weakness in level 2 tournaments (which I consider very important ... the big ones titles not slam). McEnroe seemed "almost unbeatable" in 1984, but also in 1981 but two years are few for me.
Connors remember him "almost unbeatable" in 1976 (I think also in 1974). But it's still only two years.
I have never seen Lendl and Nadal as "almost unbeatable".

My personal ranking of the players I saw is:
1) Borg
2) Federer
3) Djokovic

Then I try to add the players that I have not seen and I think that Laver is placed above Borg, while Rosewall (and Riggs) I can not think "almost unbeatable".

Then I think I enter Pancho Gonzalez near Laver.

Basically this is my BPOAT ranking:

Laver
Gonzalez
Borg
Federer
Djokovic
------------------
Sampras
McEnroe
Connors
Nadal
Lendl
Rosewall
Riggs

Missing Jack Kramer, which (I can of course be wrong) for me is not "almost unbeatable" but he is the unbeatable. He's the only player that has dominated most of all. Jack is my only BPOAT.

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
Kramer BPOAT
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Borg T1
5) Federer T1
6) Djokovic T1
7) Sampras T1/T2
8) McEnroe T1/T2
9) Connors T2
10) Nadal T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Rosewall T2/T3
13) Riggs T2/T3
 
Last edited:
My ranking Post War II
(Kramer unclassifiable, almost certainly the best player in history, Riggs unclassifiable, suggests that he can be placed between 10-15)

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
Kramer BPOAT
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Borg T1
5) Federer T1
6) Djokovic T1
7) Sampras T1/T2
8) McEnroe T1/T2
9) Connors T2
10) Nadal T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Rosewall T2/T3
13) Riggs T2/T3

Comments on the individual ATG
I have already commented Kramer: the my feeling was that the only unbeatable so Jack is my BPOAT but playing a few big tournaments and clearly favoring the WT and having a short career is difficult to classify in the ranking GOAT.
Federer, Laver and Gonzalez have great requirements for both rankings. Also Djokovic and Borg. Slightly further back Sampras in the BPOAT for the reasons already written.
Nadal, Rosewall, Lendl, Riggs have won a lot but they are back in the BPOAT ranking. Better Connors, seriously "almost unbeatable" a couple of years.
 
I would like to continue on the question of BPOAT.

I think this.

The classification methods (ranking, contenders, GOAT) are of various types but generally there have been two:
1) the "current" one based on achievements (then the problem is to understand if achievements are only majors or other)
2) the "old" one that was presumably used until the 60s, where the best player in the world was indicated (but without a count on the majors ... also because WT >> majors)

On the "current" I have not for the moment anything to add (also because I simulated my ranking a few days ago), I would like to face my ranking hypothesizing the "old" method.

I do not know what the method was exactly but I can presume what it was: and that is the BPOAT contenders are only the top players who have been deemed "almost unbeatable" for a fairly long period (how long I hypothesize 3 years) and continuous.

The "almost unbeatable" I saw playing (ie since 1976) are only Borg (1978-80), Federer (5 years) and Djokovic (3 years). Sampras was number one for 6 years but he never gave me the feeling of "almost unbeatable" for the sore point of the red clay and especially for a certain weakness in level 2 tournaments (which I consider very important ... the big ones titles not slam). McEnroe seemed "almost unbeatable" in 1984, but also in 1981 but two years are few for me.
Connors remember him "almost unbeatable" in 1976 (I think also in 1974). But it's still only two years.
I have never seen Lendl and Nadal as "almost unbeatable".

My personal ranking of the players I saw is:
1) Borg
2) Federer
3) Djokovic

Then I try to add the players that I have not seen and I think that Laver is placed above Borg, while Rosewall (and Riggs) I can not think "almost unbeatable".

Then I think I enter Pancho Gonzalez near Laver.

Basically this is my BPOAT ranking:

Laver
Gonzalez
Borg
Federer
Djokovic
------------------
Sampras
McEnroe
Connors
Nadal
Lendl
Rosewall
Riggs

Missing Jack Kramer, which (I can of course be wrong) for me is not "almost unbeatable" but he is the unbeaatable. He's the only player that has dominated most of all. Jack is may only BPOAT.

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
Kramer BPOAT
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Borg T1
5) Federer T1
6) Djokovic T1
7) Sampras T1/T2
8) McEnroe T1/T2
9) Connors T2
10) Nadal T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Rosewall T2/T3
13) Riggs T2/T3
The majors were important in the past. Wimbledon and the US were clearly defined majors, with the French a little behind. The world championship series was a clearly defined major for the pros. When reading all the autobiographies of players, these accomplishments are always mentioned. Whilst Wembley, US Pro and French Pro may not have been as clearly defined as majors as the others, they were consistently the best tournaments. Wembley had TV coverage in the UK which very few tournaments had then.

Regarding your comments on players' dominance, I agree overall on Sampras, but he was close to unbeatable at Wimbledon (he lost one match there between 1993 and 2000, winning 7 titles). Borg was beatable every year at the US Open, Federer every year at the French, but yes I would go along generally that they were dominant and Djokovic also. Connors was dominant in 1974, McEnroe was dominant in 1984. Rosewall was dominant in 1962-3. Laver dominated the late 60s. Gonzales was dominant. Budge was almost unbeatable for a period, winning a grand slam in amateurs (without Vines and Perry) and then winning all but one of the Wembley, French Pro and US Pro events he entered between 1939 and 1942, plus every world series. Tilden didn't lose a grand slam match in the early 20s. He was virtually unbeatable in that period. Kramer was dominant. So I agree mostly with your comments on dominant players.
 
The majors were important in the past. Wimbledon and the US were clearly defined majors, with the French a little behind. The world championship series was a clearly defined major for the pros. When reading all the autobiographies of players, these accomplishments are always mentioned. Whilst Wembley, US Pro and French Pro may not have been as clearly defined as majors as the others, they were consistently the best tournaments. Wembley had TV coverage in the UK which very few tournaments had then.

Regarding your comments on players' dominance, I agree overall on Sampras, but he was close to unbeatable at Wimbledon (he lost one match there between 1993 and 2000, winning 7 titles). Borg was beatable every year at the US Open, Federer every year at the French, but yes I would go along generally that they were dominant and Djokovic also. Connors was dominant in 1974, McEnroe was dominant in 1984. Rosewall was dominant in 1962-3. Laver dominated the late 60s. Gonzales was dominant. Budge was almost unbeatable for a period, winning a grand slam in amateurs (without Vines and Perry) and then winning all but one of the Wembley, French Pro and US Pro events he entered between 1939 and 1942, plus every world series. Tilden didn't lose a grand slam match in the early 20s. He was virtually unbeatable in that period. Kramer was dominant. So I agree mostly with your comments on dominant players.
Some quiet clarifications.

The slam tournaments in the post War II-1967 period were amateurs ... here usually writes posters more prepared than me for that period but it seems to me that slam tournaments were not very relevant.;)

IMHO Pro majors are worth half of the current slams, while World Tours are much more valuable:eek:. I can obviously be wrong.

Sampras was incredibly dominant at Wimbledon. Incredibly dominant. I mean, however, the overall domination, all year round in all those that I think are the biggers events ... and Borg 1978-80 IMHO was > Sampras overall. I think that Sampras would always arrive second at the end of the year in those three years of swedish peak. Borg always arrived in the final in NY, then he lost it's true, Pete in Paris was very far from the final.

Connors IMHO was more dominant in 1976 (and also in 1978 .. even if he was lightly behind Borg) than in 1974. But I think I'm the only one to think so ... so we bypass.:)
Laver certainly dominated in the late 60s. But always IMHO was clearly the best player in 1970, and best player in 1971 and 1972, even without winning slam tournaments.

I did not include the great champions pre War II (Tilden, Budge, Vines etc.), I agree on their domination.
 
Some quiet clarifications.

The slam tournaments in the post War II-1967 period were amateurs ... here usually writes posters more prepared than me for that period but it seems to me that slam tournaments were not very relevant.;)

IMHO Pro majors are worth half of the current slams, while World Tours are much more valuable:eek:. I can obviously be wrong.

Sampras was incredibly dominant at Wimbledon. Incredibly dominant. I mean, however, the overall domination, all year round in all those that I think are the biggers events ... and Borg 1978-80 IMHO was > Sampras overall. I think that Sampras would always arrive second at the end of the year in those three years of swedish peak. Borg always arrived in the final in NY, then he lost it's true, Pete in Paris was very far from the final.

Connors IMHO was more dominant in 1976 (and also in 1978 .. even if he was lightly behind Borg) than in 1974. But I think I'm the only one to think so ... so we bypass.:)
Laver certainly dominated in the late 60s. But always IMHO was clearly the best player in 1970, and best player in 1971 and 1972, even without winning slam tournaments.

I did not include the great champions pre War II (Tilden, Budge, Vines etc.), I agree on their domination.
Yes, I agree mostly. Wimbledon and US were the top events for the amateurs and the French a little behind. What we consider the value of the amateurs to be is another matter. The pros after Kramer turned pro were always dominant and increasingly so from the late 50s. Before 1939 it was a bit more even (in my view Budge was the top player in 1938 and he was amateur, but Vines and Perry were numbers 2 and 3 and they were pro). Before Tilden turned pro at the end of 1930 there was pro tennis (and there were some good pro players), but the pros were clearly behind the amateurs. Personally my focus is always on the pros rather than the amateurs after the mid 1930s. Connors was more dominant in 1974 (he couldn't enter the French due to a WTT ban, so he might have won the Grand Slam that year). I agree completely on Sampras and Borg. Sampras' French Open record was poor. I saw virtually all Sampras' Grand Slam matches live on TV. I think you talk good sense, KG. I look forward to your further thoughts.
 
I can't comment on any past disagreements you two have, as I haven't seen them. But I do know that krosero is correct in that PC1 has mentioned him "the other poster" etc. several times in discussions in the short time I have been a member here. There was one occasion on my book thread where concern was raised about someone possibly influencing my book. And I replied that it was my book and no one is influencing me in writing the narrative sections. Any assistance I receive on the research side will be clearly labelled on an event by event basis (so far I have undertaken the vast majority of the research myself, mainly using online resources such as newspaper archives, but the book is far from complete). If krosero writes a chapter (maybe krosero may choose to write a full book himself) that will be his and I won't be influencing him in writing it. Regarding tennis history, I have my views, but only reasoned logical argument backed up by facts can have any impact on me changing them. I don't belong to a particular group or faction, never have.
We had a long chat today and worked things out -- at least, we worked out as much as can be done in one phone call. But that's good enough, at least for now.
 
Yes, I agree mostly. Wimbledon and US were the top events for the amateurs and the French a little behind. What we consider the value of the amateurs to be is another matter. The pros after Kramer turned pro were always dominant and increasingly so from the late 50s. Before 1939 it was a bit more even (in my view Budge was the top player in 1938 and he was amateur, but Vines and Perry were numbers 2 and 3 and they were pro). Before Tilden turned pro at the end of 1930 there was pro tennis (and there were some good pro players), but the pros were clearly behind the amateurs. Personally my focus is always on the pros rather than the amateurs after the mid 1930s. Connors was more dominant in 1974 (he couldn't enter the French due to a WTT ban, so he might have won the Grand Slam that year). I agree completely on Sampras and Borg. Sampras' French Open record was poor. I saw virtually all Sampras' Grand Slam matches live on TV. I think you talk good sense, KG. I look forward to your further thoughts.
Okay, as far as Pro-amateurs are concerned, I was referring exclusively to Post War II.
Before World War II I have no knowledge but it seems to me that your speech goes in the right direction: there was a period where amateurs> Pro.
 
IMO, Nadal's injuries are mostly due to his game style, which enabled him to win 17 slams but also hurt his body. Staying in shape and avoiding injuries are part of being a great athlete, especially in an individual sport. But then, if Nadal did not play the way he did, perhaps he would not have won as much as he did. The main reason I think that Federer, Rosewall, and Gonzalez played very well for as long as they did, for a longer time than most, is because of their natural ability and their game style.
Yes. (See my post no. 12,793 above.) :)
 
(Updated ranking, something like this order)

Federer
Laver/Nadal
Gonzales/Djokovic
Sampras
Rosewall
Borg
McEnroe
Connors.

Not sure where Gonzales should fit in, but I think he would probably be top 5. Djokovic has done enough to move ahead of Sampras and Borg now and is top 5 for me.
 
(Updated ranking, something like this order)

Federer
Laver/Nadal
Gonzales/Djokovic
Sampras
Rosewall
Borg
McEnroe
Connors.

Not sure where Gonzales should fit in, but I think he would probably be top 5. Djokovic has done enough to move ahead of Sampras and Borg now and is top 5 for me.
A good list if only considering players from about 1955 onwards. Rosewall a little low though. Still, from 1955 onwards a good list.
 
Funny of KG to ask what greatness is. I like his carefully constructed naive style a lot - keep up the good work, mate.

After a little deliberation I thought that, if one separates the issue of what greatness is / should be based upon from what greatness *is*, it is simply a measure of respect one has for a person in a certain context - in our case, as a tennis player. By saying player X is greater than player Y, you confer greater respect to player X's tennis / tennis career than player Y's. That's not the same as preference; I like del Potro more than Kafelnikov (who devolved into a petty man making a lot of abrasive comments on current Russian tennis players who are 'underperforming'), but Kafelnikov's body of work in tennis is still greater at the moment, though I would like Delpo to win another slam and change that. We often react negatively to others coming forward with differing greatness lists, because it feels unpleasant to see someone you have top respect for underrated (in your opinion) in favour of another who you do not think deserves as much respect.
 
A good list if only considering players from about 1955 onwards. Rosewall a little low though. Still, from 1955 onwards a good list.
Thanks.

Gonzales was winning big titles in the late 1940's so I prefer to say the list goes back at least 70 years.
I did consider earlier players like Tilden, Vines, Perry, Budge etc, but the case for the post WW2 players onwards struck me as more compelling. Perhaps Kramer has a case for top ten.

I think it's pretty close between Gonzales, Sampras and Rosewall. These places can be considered interchangeable. I think no.7 for Ken is perfectly fine: he could possibly move up a place or two in my list, ahead of Pancho and Pete as he could have a claim to be a more rounded player on all surfaces.

Pete though is a six time year end world no.1 and seven time Wimbledon champion, with 14 Slams and 5 YEC so the guy has a good claim to be top five all time.

McEnroe and Connors are interchangeable for me too.

Where would you place Rosewall in your own all time list, Pro tennis historian? I do rate Ken highly myself.
 
Thanks.

Gonzales was winning big titles in the late 1940's so I prefer to say the list goes back at least 70 years.
I did consider earlier players like Tilden, Vines, Perry, Budge etc, but the case for the post WW2 players onwards struck me as more compelling. Perhaps Kramer has a case for top ten.

I think it's pretty close between Gonzales, Sampras and Rosewall. These places can be considered interchangeable. I think no.7 for Ken is perfectly fine: he could possibly move up a place or two in my list, ahead of Pancho and Pete as he could have a claim to be a more rounded player on all surfaces.

Pete though is a six time year end world no.1 and seven time Wimbledon champion, with 14 Slams and 5 YEC so the guy has a good claim to be top five all time.

McEnroe and Connors are interchangeable for me too.

Where would you place Rosewall in your own all time list, Pro tennis historian? I do rate Ken highly myself.
I have written my list (on the other all time list, Xavier G.). On my list Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were all co-number ones. Let us not forget that if we add Grand Slams, Wembley Pro, US Pro, French Pro & World championship series titles together, Rosewall is number one on the list (a list compiled of those titles only considering each of these titles as one full title. I accept we all have different systems of calculating all time greats). Also on total tournaments won (major and minor), Ken is high on the list (way above Sampras). There are other factors also such as head to heads, opposition in winning majors etc., but for me Ken is always above Pete Sampras. Actually if we are factoring dominance into the calculation, I agree with KG. Sampras was never dominant (I probably saw more of Sampras' matches than any other player and have the highest regard for him as a champion, but only at Wimbledon did he feel truly dominant). Sampras never won more than 2 grand slam titles per year. Sampras was ranked year end number one all those years because he lacked a consistent rival (during the 1993-98 period Agassi only rivalled Sampras for around a year in 1995 and there was no one else who had any consistency, other than Muster on clay in 1995-6, but Muster never even won a round at Wimbledon and never reached US Open semis). You say "perhaps Kramer has a case for top 10". Kramer is clearly above McEnroe and Connors. That's fair enough if you wish to consider a specific time span, ie post-war.
 
Funny of KG to ask what greatness is. I like his carefully constructed naive style a lot - keep up the good work, mate.

After a little deliberation I thought that, if one separates the issue of what greatness is / should be based upon from what greatness *is*, it is simply a measure of respect one has for a person in a certain context - in our case, as a tennis player. By saying player X is greater than player Y, you confer greater respect to player X's tennis / tennis career than player Y's. That's not the same as preference; I like del Potro more than Kafelnikov (who devolved into a petty man making a lot of abrasive comments on current Russian tennis players who are 'underperforming'), but Kafelnikov's body of work in tennis is still greater at the moment, though I would like Delpo to win another slam and change that. We often react negatively to others coming forward with differing greatness lists, because it feels unpleasant to see someone you have top respect for underrated (in your opinion) in favour of another who you do not think deserves as much respect.
Greatness in sports is complex.
We tend to think that greatness = achievements but in my opinion is incomplete.
We then tend to argue that achievements = slam tournaments. Then achievemnts = slam = greatness ... it's largely incomplete.
So we need to understand what is meant by size. There is no description so everyone has a different opinion.
The concept attributed to the old best player experts / champions is very simple, very banal but effective probably for that period. The achievements do not count, the fact that a player is the best player because he dominates opponents.

Kramer was definitely one of the 3 or 4 best players Post War II (for me the 1th). Connors absolutely not, but Connors achievements >>> those obtained by Kramer.
To obtain a huge amount of achievements not only longevity is needed but an extraordinary consistency, every year for at least 8 or 10 or 12 years you have to win a lot, always. Kramer was not lucky enough to do it.

Size should not include preferences.
But I think we can say that while the career of Kaf Del Potro, Del Potro has perhaps given the feeling of being a best player compared to Kafelnikov, he had some moments, some matches, some tournaments where his level seemed better.
 
Last edited:
I have written my list (on the other all time list, Xavier G.). On my list Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were all co-number ones. Let us not forget that if we add Grand Slams, Wembley Pro, US Pro, French Pro & World championship series titles together, Rosewall is number one on the list (a list compiled of those titles only considering each of these titles as one full title. I accept we all have different systems of calculating all time greats). Also on total tournaments won (major and minor), Ken is high on the list (way above Sampras). There are other factors also such as head to heads, opposition in winning majors etc., but for me Ken is always above Pete Sampras. Actually if we are factoring dominance into the calculation, I agree with KG. Sampras was never dominant (I probably saw more of Sampras' matches than any other player and have the highest regard for him as a champion, but only at Wimbledon did he feel truly dominant). Sampras never won more than 2 grand slam titles per year. Sampras was ranked year end number one all those years because he lacked a consistent rival (during the 1993-98 period Agassi only rivalled Sampras for around a year in 1995 and there was no one else who had any consistency, other than Muster on clay in 1995-6, but Muster never even won a round at Wimbledon and never reached US Open semis). You say "perhaps Kramer has a case for top 10". Kramer is clearly above McEnroe and Connors. That's fair enough if you wish to consider a specific time span, ie post-war.
So on your list, Rosewall, Gonzales, Laver, Federer AND Nadal are ALL co-number ones?

Well, it's your list! :)
We'll have to differ on that matter.

As for Sampras, yep, he was truly dominant on Wimbledon grass at his peak.
If you consider Rosewall a greater all-around player than Sampras, I can accept that.
 
Funny of KG to ask what greatness is. I like his carefully constructed naive style a lot - keep up the good work, mate.

After a little deliberation I thought that, if one separates the issue of what greatness is / should be based upon from what greatness *is*, it is simply a measure of respect one has for a person in a certain context - in our case, as a tennis player. By saying player X is greater than player Y, you confer greater respect to player X's tennis / tennis career than player Y's. That's not the same as preference; I like del Potro more than Kafelnikov (who devolved into a petty man making a lot of abrasive comments on current Russian tennis players who are 'underperforming'), but Kafelnikov's body of work in tennis is still greater at the moment, though I would like Delpo to win another slam and change that. We often react negatively to others coming forward with differing greatness lists, because it feels unpleasant to see someone you have top respect for underrated (in your opinion) in favour of another who you do not think deserves as much respect.
I think that the term "greatness" in tennis (and generally in sport) includes many aspects:
1) achievements ... but what are achievements? for me they are slam + other titles relevant to the historical period of the top player (so Pro World Tours, the definitive ones (properly or improperly) Pro majors, other Big titles (Pro or open, even big Open invitational). only slam For others only slam + Pro majors.
2) records
3) striking companies (I do not know what the English term, for example 5 Wimbly of filas are a striking company of Borg ... and for me it is worth> 5 slam
4) historical importance of the top player, "has the top player helped to elevate the world of tennis a lot?"
5) iconicity of the top player
6) beauty of the style of play
7) domain, has little to do with achievements, for example Agassi has a palmares (roll of honor?) Very good but has never dominated a year !!
8) completeness, this is an aspect that I have never considered in my reasoning but it certainly has an importance.
 
So on your list, Rosewall, Gonzales, Laver, Federer AND Nadal are ALL co-number ones?

Well, it's your list! :)
We'll have to differ on that matter.

As for Sampras, yep, he was truly dominant on Wimbledon grass at his peak.
If you consider Rosewall a greater all-around player than Sampras, I can accept that.
I don't feel the need to definately select one player as the G.O.A.T. if I don't feel there is one player clearly above several others. For me those five are the best. Djokovic may join them in a couple of years time if he continues in the form he has been showing in the second half of this year. I have a feeling Djokovic may continue winning for a long time to come and may finish his career as the clear G.O.A.T., but that's speculation on my part and I could be proved wrong.
 
I think that the term "greatness" in tennis (and generally in sport) includes many aspects:
1) achievements ... but what are achievements? for me they are slam + other titles relevant to the historical period of the top player (so Pro World Tours, the definitive ones (properly or improperly) Pro majors, other Big titles (Pro or open, even big Open invitational). only slam For others only slam + Pro majors.
2) records
3) striking companies (I do not know what the English term, for example 5 Wimbly of filas are a striking company of Borg ... and for me it is worth> 5 slam
4) historical importance of the top player, "has the top player helped to elevate the world of tennis a lot?"
5) iconicity of the top player
6) beauty of the style of play
7) domain, has little to do with achievements, for example Agassi has a palmares (roll of honor?) Very good but has never dominated a year !!
8) completeness, this is an aspect that I have never considered in my reasoning but it certainly has an importance.
I don't know what you mean about striking companies. To me beauty of the style of play has no place in an all time great ranking. There are many players that have won nothing of note that may be beautiful to watch. This is no measure of greatness.
 
I don't know what you mean about striking companies.
I don't know how to translate the concept: incredible entreprise?:(
For example, when Nadal wins 10 RG, what does he do? An incredible .....
To me beauty of the style of play has no place in an all time great ranking. There are many players that have won nothing of note that may be beautiful to watch. This is no measure of greatness.
I understand your point of view (which I understand is the point of view of the great majority) but I don't agree.
IMHO counts a lot the style of play (both from the aesthetic point of view, from the point of view of the particularity of the shots, that from the point of view of the "creation of a style").
I think that many of those who claim that they do not include the game style actually consider that factor.
Federer is more idolized for the game than for the majors.
Many big names in sport have been loved more for the style game than for achievements (Jordan, Maradona, Stenmark, Lewis, Crujiff, Beckenbauer, Ali, Leonard ...)
 
I don't know how to translate the concept: incredible entreprise?:(
For example, when Nadal wins 10 RG, what does he do? An incredible .....

I understand your point of view (which I understand is the point of view of the great majority) but I don't agree.
IMHO counts a lot the style of play (both from the aesthetic point of view, from the point of view of the particularity of the shots, that from the point of view of the "creation of a style").
I think that many of those who claim that they do not include the game style actually consider that factor.
Federer is more idolized for the game than for the majors.
Many big names in sport have been loved more for the style game than for achievements (Jordan, Maradona, Stenmark, Lewis, Crujiff, Beckenbauer, Ali, Leonard ...)
Yes I see what you mean on incredible enterprise. Yes this could be a factor in choosing the G.O.A.T.

Quality of play is not the same as beauty of game style. If we are ranking players on beauty of game style, then all sorts of non-champions start appearing on the list. Is Gael Monfils the G.O.A.T.?! I don't think so. He may be the M.E.P.A.T. (most entertaining player of all time) but he certainly isn't the G.O.A.T.! If there is a champions M.E.P.A.T. list then Federer might lead (though personally there are many that could tie for C.M.E.P.A.T. on my list).
 
Yes I see what you mean on incredible enterprise. Yes this could be a factor in choosing the G.O.A.T.

Quality of play is not the same as beauty of game style. If we are ranking players on beauty of game style, then all sorts of non-champions start appearing on the list. Is Gael Monfils the G.O.A.T.?! I don't think so. He may be the M.E.P.A.T. (most entertaining player of all time) but he certainly isn't the G.O.A.T.! If there is a champions M.E.P.A.T. list then Federer might lead (though personally there are many that could tie for C.M.E.P.A.T. on my list).
I just wanted to clarify one thing:
I don't claim that the beauty of style is the only parameter factor for decreeing GOAT,
1) I think it is a parameter/factor, certainly minor, but a parameter/factor,
2) I have the impression (obviously I can be wrong) that many fans think that it is a parameter/factor but they do not say it.
 
I just wanted to clarify one thing:
I don't claim that the beauty of style is the only parameter factor for decreeing GOAT,
1) I think it is a parameter/factor, certainly minor, but a parameter/factor,
2) I have the impression (obviously I can be wrong) that many fans think that it is a parameter/factor but they do not say it.
Beauty of style has no place in any all time great list I recognise. There are many crazy lists that have all sorts of ridiculous factors (ignorance of history being the main factor, ie the tennis channel's). But if we are talking about creating the best list we can, we should choose the most important and relevant factors. That's my view anyway.
 
For this reason Kramer was considered by many to be the best in the pre Open Era history. Jack was the unbeatable.
Actually I can say that Post War II was the only real unbeatable.
For this reason he is my BPOAT (Best Player of All Time).
Nobody gave the impression after him of having an invincibility aura for a long time. Nobody.
Really you mean this !!! Maybe it's a joke.
Please check how many are the active years of Kramer as a pro.
Please check the strength of his opponents in the first 2 series (out of 4 total).
Please answer yourselves why Kramer didn't played vs Gonzalez in World series after 1950.
 
Tennis analysts on TV have very little knowledge of past eras.

Recently, when Novak Djokovic was playing to become the first man to win all nine Masters series titles, the commentators were discussing whether Lendl should also be acknowledged in this category, since he'd won equivalents of all nine during his career. To their credit, they agreed that he should be - but what was most notable for me was that they described Lendl as "an early pioneer of the sport" (I'm paraphrasing).

The point I'm making is that tennis is all about the here and now to analysts in the media. Even relatively recent Open Era players like Lendl are thought of solely in terms of being pioneers for today's superstars. Laver may as well have invented tennis, the way he is referred to (with a great deal of respect, but also as if he were a deity emerging from a void, before which there was no tennis). Guys like Kramer, Gonzales and anyone else who had the misfortune to play tennis before 1968 simply don't exist.
All true. These commentators are wrong for sure. The category acknowledged to Nole means that he won ALL the Masters titles available in the tour. The number (in this case 9) doesn't matter. In Lendl's time the Masters equivalents varied between 13 and 15-16. And Lendl didn't won ALL of them.
 
Disagree totally. Tilden had a few huge injuries around 1925 which I believe gave an opening for the Musketeers to start winning. First of all he had part of a finger amputated and second he had a major knee injury that was so bad that when he ran there was a huge loud clicking that everyone could hear. Despite that Tilden was still great. He won in 1930 a total of I believe 18 tournaments including the championships of five nations. He won Wimbledon, the Italian and many other big tournaments.

Do you think Gonzalez, Rosewall or any of the players you ranked ahead of Tilden could have done better in Tilden's era? Frankly Tilden's strokes with the exception of the serve (and it's very close there) and the volley were probably clearly better than those of Gonzalez.
Agree with you and will add some stats.
Bill was 5 years older than Borotra, 8 years older than Cochet and 11 years older than Lacoste.
Even that fact according to documented matches he was 11-3 vs Borotra, 25-12 vs Cochet and 3-7 vs Lacoste.
Bill beat Cochet even at an age of 46.
Almost all the matches vs Lacoste were very close matches 3 of 5 where no dominance was available.

The claims of pro historian about Tilden are pretty wrong. Does he know that when loosing the series vs Vines Bill was 41-42 ???
 
But one thing must be kept in mind: until at least 70s the concept was completely different, even opposite.
There was the best player, the player that gave the feeling of being the dominator, the dominant.
Generally winning the World Tour, but also always winning, everywhere. Nobody was interested in counting Pro tournaments, or Pro majors. No one ranked according to how many Pro majors had won Kramer or Segura.
This method rewards the yield peak in a not very long period.
Nobody was interested or no one ranked acc. to tournaments? Wrong. In your case Segura was announced World champion for 1951 after having won US pro. The fact that Kramer was not interested in tournaments means nothing. Segura, Budge, Riggs, then later Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert etc. played in almost all tournaments. Obviously they were highly valuable for them.
 
Another thing we have to take into account is not just statistics but what is behind everything. We have to know the story behind the scenes.

For example one poster was discussing a head to head tour which I felt he slanted everything toward one player. This poster did not mention after a major injury that one player lost six matches in a row and throughout this head to head tour was plagued with injuries. It made it seem like the other player would have won no matter what mainly because of his greatness but I thought, in taking account the injuries that it was a sign of the great strength of the player who was injured. I could be wrong but I felt the poster favored the player who was not injured.

Let's look at another two players in Budge and Riggs. Now the exact won-lost records could be a bit off now with more information but in 1942 Budge won a World Championship Tour over Riggs, Kovac, Perry and Stoefen. Budge won it easily over second place Riggs by a score of 52-18 (or 54-18) to Riggs' 36-36. Seems impressive and I suppose it is but Perry was hurt with a major injury and wasn't Perry anymore. Kovacs, while an excellent player was known to be head case and Stoefen, while good was never on the level of the others. What is more interesting is that the record of Riggs versus Budge was only 15 to 10 in favor of Budge so even before Riggs improved greatly he clearly was troubling Budge.

Okay so WWII starts and Budge hurts his shoulder badly in a training exercise I believe. This affects his serve and overhead. Riggs of course having one of the best lobs of all time lobs Budge to death and wins the first tour around 24 to 22 after leading 12 to 2 early. Now do we look at the injury to Budge and think that Budge would have won if he was a healthy younger Budge? Maybe but we also should examine the personality of Riggs and how he was rumored to throw matches to keep things close perhaps for betting purposes or perhaps in this case to keep the score close for better box office. Riggs at this point KNEW he could beat Budge (at least he thought so but that means a lot) whenever he needed to. Riggs improved his serve to where many thought his serve was better than Budge at his peak. The volley and even his great controlled groundstrokes improved. I have seen articles of Riggs aceing Budge over 20 times in a match. On the Pro Tour later Riggs dominated in winning 14 of 30 tournaments with Budge winning only 3. Riggs imo was by far the best player on the Pro Tour. So this makes me suspicious that perhaps Riggs kept it close on tour. Remember that Riggs led 12-2 early and Budge got closer but never quite overtook him. Later Riggs won another tour from Budge. It does make it suspicious whether Riggs kept it close or not!

I am not sure if a peak Riggs versus a peak Budge wouldn't be very close and I'm not sure who would win. Clearly the bad shoulder didn't hurt him on return and yet Riggs hit a number of aces against Budge.

My point is that while we of course look at statistics the inside story must be known.
The behind the scenes stories would be always interesting and indicative. They could explain many things and answer many questions.
But still I believe we shouldn't speculate "what would have happened if ...". We just don't know whether Budge would have won if not injured.
Injuries have been always part of the game. Some players had/have the luck not to be injured. Other players had/have the misfortune to be injured occasionally or often. Take a look what happened to Tsonga - an excellent top 10 player but suffered a lot in the last year and a half. Raonic, Wawrinka and Nishi also can't reach their top form. Different bodies' structure, different types of injuries, different period for rehab.
 
I would like to continue on the question of BPOAT.

I think this.

The classification methods (ranking, contenders, GOAT) are of various types but generally there have been two:
1) the "current" one based on achievements (then the problem is to understand if achievements are only majors or other)
2) the "old" one that was presumably used until the 60s, where the best player in the world was indicated (but without a count on the majors ... also because WT >> majors)

On the "current" I have not for the moment anything to add (also because I simulated my ranking a few days ago), I would like to face my ranking hypothesizing the "old" method.

I do not know what the method was exactly but I can presume what it was: and that is the BPOAT contenders are only the top players who have been deemed "almost unbeatable" for a fairly long period (how long I hypothesize 3 years) and continuous.

The "almost unbeatable" I saw playing (ie since 1976) are only Borg (1978-80), Federer (5 years) and Djokovic (3 years). Sampras was number one for 6 years but he never gave me the feeling of "almost unbeatable" for the sore point of the red clay and especially for a certain weakness in level 2 tournaments (which I consider very important ... the big ones titles not slam). McEnroe seemed "almost unbeatable" in 1984, but also in 1981 but two years are few for me.
Connors remember him "almost unbeatable" in 1976 (I think also in 1974). But it's still only two years.
I have never seen Lendl and Nadal as "almost unbeatable".

My personal ranking of the players I saw is:
1) Borg
2) Federer
3) Djokovic

Then I try to add the players that I have not seen and I think that Laver is placed above Borg, while Rosewall (and Riggs) I can not think "almost unbeatable".

Then I think I enter Pancho Gonzalez near Laver.

Basically this is my BPOAT ranking:

Laver
Gonzalez
Borg
Federer
Djokovic
------------------
Sampras
McEnroe
Connors
Nadal
Lendl
Rosewall
Riggs

Missing Jack Kramer, which (I can of course be wrong) for me is not "almost unbeatable" but he is the unbeatable. He's the only player that has dominated most of all. Jack is my only BPOAT.

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
Kramer BPOAT
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Borg T1
5) Federer T1
6) Djokovic T1
7) Sampras T1/T2
8) McEnroe T1/T2
9) Connors T2
10) Nadal T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Rosewall T2/T3
13) Riggs T2/T3
Interesting is the making of rankings without showing the criteria about that. Especially BPOAT.
Very interesting are the terms "unbeatable" and "almost unbeatable".
One of the most interesting issues is that the "unbeatable" Kramer had a short pro career, low number of matches played and a W/L ratio of 70%, below many other players.
 
The majors were important in the past. Wimbledon and the US were clearly defined majors, with the French a little behind. The world championship series was a clearly defined major for the pros. When reading all the autobiographies of players, these accomplishments are always mentioned. Whilst Wembley, US Pro and French Pro may not have been as clearly defined as majors as the others, they were consistently the best tournaments. Wembley had TV coverage in the UK which very few tournaments had then.

Regarding your comments on players' dominance, I agree overall on Sampras, but he was close to unbeatable at Wimbledon (he lost one match there between 1993 and 2000, winning 7 titles). Borg was beatable every year at the US Open, Federer every year at the French, but yes I would go along generally that they were dominant and Djokovic also. Connors was dominant in 1974, McEnroe was dominant in 1984. Rosewall was dominant in 1962-3. Laver dominated the late 60s. Gonzales was dominant. Budge was almost unbeatable for a period, winning a grand slam in amateurs (without Vines and Perry) and then winning all but one of the Wembley, French Pro and US Pro events he entered between 1939 and 1942, plus every world series. Tilden didn't lose a grand slam match in the early 20s. He was virtually unbeatable in that period. Kramer was dominant. So I agree mostly with your comments on dominant players.
Some quiet clarifications.

The slam tournaments in the post War II-1967 period were amateurs ... here usually writes posters more prepared than me for that period but it seems to me that slam tournaments were not very relevant.;)

IMHO Pro majors are worth half of the current slams, while World Tours are much more valuable:eek:. I can obviously be wrong.

Sampras was incredibly dominant at Wimbledon. Incredibly dominant. I mean, however, the overall domination, all year round in all those that I think are the biggers events ... and Borg 1978-80 IMHO was > Sampras overall. I think that Sampras would always arrive second at the end of the year in those three years of swedish peak. Borg always arrived in the final in NY, then he lost it's true, Pete in Paris was very far from the final.

Connors IMHO was more dominant in 1976 (and also in 1978 .. even if he was lightly behind Borg) than in 1974. But I think I'm the only one to think so ... so we bypass.:)
Laver certainly dominated in the late 60s. But always IMHO was clearly the best player in 1970, and best player in 1971 and 1972, even without winning slam tournaments.

I did not include the great champions pre War II (Tilden, Budge, Vines etc.), I agree on their domination.
A lot of talking about "domination". Will somebody from you tell finally which are your equally measured criteria for "domination"?
And at least one point - a "dominator" (I personally don't like this word) need to have an excellent performance on ALL SURFACES. To be a great clay-courter or grass-courter is far not enough. Players like Tilden, Rosewall, Laver, Federer, Djokovic and a few other were/are complete players. Most of the players were/are good on 1 or 2 surfaces and not so good on other.
 
Agree with you and will add some stats.
Bill was 5 years older than Borotra, 8 years older than Cochet and 11 years older than Lacoste.
Even that fact according to documented matches he was 11-3 vs Borotra, 25-12 vs Cochet and 3-7 vs Lacoste.
Bill beat Cochet even at an age of 46.
Almost all the matches vs Lacoste were very close matches 3 of 5 where no dominance was available.

The claims of pro historian about Tilden are pretty wrong. Does he know that when loosing the series vs Vines Bill was 41-42 ???
My "claims" were correct. Tilden beat Cochet a lot when they were pros after Cochet declined. Grand Slam records Tilden v Cochet 1-4, Tilden v Lacoste 0-4. I never said Tilden lost a lot to Borotra (I never mentioned Borotra!) Stop trying to pigeon-hole me as a Tilden-hater! You skew every remark people write and try and try and turn it into a conflict. I take exception to you even replying to my comments, when I have clearly indicated the way I feel about your malicious spiteful ignorant behaviour. P☆☆☆ off back to the playground.
 
Last edited:
My "claims" were correct. Tilden beat Cochet a lot when they were pros after Cochet declined. Grand Slam records Tilden v Cochet 1-4, Tilden v Lacoste 0-4. I never said Tilden lost a lot to Borotra (I never mentioned Borotra!) Stop trying to pigeon-hole me as a Tilden-hater! You skew every remark people write and try and try and turn it into a conflict. I take exception to you even replying to my comments, when I have clearly indicated the way I feel about your malicious spiteful ignorant behaviour. P☆☆☆ off back to the playground.
Oh, don't be so angry. I haven't told you are a Tilden-hater. I said that your claims and conclusions are wrong.
It was you diminishing Tilden's career by claiming that he played vs weak opponents. And I can't agree.
It was you claiming that Cochet and Lacoste dominated Tilden with the argument of couple of matches only. And still you didn't responded what you do understand under dominance.
It was you mentioning the musketeers and that's why I posted the balance vs the top 3 of them. Also Borotra because he was a top player in that times.
It was you mentioning the "declining" Cochet. Even in the 30s Cochet won titles, reached finals, semis etc. Was he "declining" or just the other guys like Tilden, Nusslein, Vines were better ???
It was you mentioning Johnston as the only strong opponent of Tilden. What about Vinie Richards, Brian Norton, Frank Hunter, Manuel Alonso ???
It was you obviously ignoring the info about the injuries of Bill mentioned by pc1 which give some good explanation of his game in the late 20s.
It was you stating about the losses in WS vs Vines as an argument. Could it be mentioned as an argument at all when Bill was 41-42 and Vines was 23-24.

The "only slams counts" concept doesn't work. It never will work because the good players either in the early 20th century or in 2018 were/are ALWAYS hungry to win not only slam titles.
Instead of talking about malice and ignorant behavior please analyze better what is the value of these couple of losses vs the French guys in the context of the whole beautiful career of Mr. Bill Tilden. And here I am not talking about your ranking but about the proper evaluation of the players.
 
Top