Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

[NoMercy]

I was going to wait till they collect (near-)full info on past top players than subscribe just for a couple months and gradually copy everything to my pc for unlimited personal use. Seems like their info isn't gonna get complete any soon like this though.

Tilden is honestly a disaster on TB.
Apart that he’s missing mostly of his early years career (wiki has more won tournaments in 12-17 than TB!), even in his best years there are giant holes.
And his final years, very bad too.
In 1945 he played more than 120 matches and TB has.... 8!

I feel that without NoMercy they need a miracle.

 

[Ivan69]

I don’t count exhibitions.
I’m talking about tournament play and I confirm those numbers are far from reality.
Let‘s say that the winning streak is 130 instead of 100, it‘s a pretty big difference.
The 130 is just an hypothetical number, not the exact one. I posted only one year out of the three on purpose.
Just to show you wrong.
But I won’t post the other two years, because you don’t deserve to know Tilden real playing activity and his records.

By the way, Bud Collins has (according to some sources) 138 amateur titles for Tilden, Wikipedia 128, Tennisbase 126 (if I counted correctly).
And NoMercy? NoMercy has 156.
And Ivan69?

Boring, NM. You are ridiculing yourself again and again. Just a month ago was the Vienna case.
Anyway, if you are so curious about my number of Tilden am titles then you have 3 attempts to find it out. Then I will tell.

About the winning streak I will review my data and will tell about it later.

 

[Ivan69]

My post was just about showing Ivan69 wrong as usual. And showing that without TennisBase he’s lost. That’s why I decided to stop sharing my info with TB, so people like him can’t go anywhere.

Ha-ha-ha. As usual so deluded. Don't care at all what you are sharing. Fortunately they are many other sources, unlike what Nomercy is thinking. Not to forget that TB has a lot of wrong or incorrect info which should be checked always.

 

[NoMercy]

Boring, NM. You are ridiculing yourself again and again. Just a month ago was the Vienna case.
Anyway, if you are so curious about my number of Tilden am titles then you have 3 attempts to find it out. Then I will tell.

About the winning streak I will review my data and will tell about it later.

Review your data?
I think I've read something like 102 in one of your post.
But I may be wrong.

 

[NoMercy]

Ha-ha-ha. As usual so deluded. Don't care at all what you are sharing. Fortunately they are many other sources, unlike what Nomercy is thinking. Not to forget that TB has a lot of wrong or incorrect info which should be checked always.

I agree!
Many wrong and incorrect info.
And so they will stay.

 

[Ivan69]

I was going to wait till they collect (near-)full info on past top players than subscribe just for a couple months and gradually copy everything to my pc for unlimited personal use. Seems like their info isn't gonna get complete any soon like this though.

For sure, you can use TB. But please have in mind - it has a large database but still misses titles and matches especially for old players. The surface is also incorrect for some tournaments.

 

[Ivan69]

Review your data?
I think I've read something like 102 in one of your post.
But I may be wrong.

The info is on another computer and I am not at home till the end of the week.

So, what is your first suggestion?

 

[NoMercy]

Ha-ha-ha. As usual so deluded. Don't care at all what you are sharing. Fortunately they are many other sources, unlike what Nomercy is thinking. Not to forget that TB has a lot of wrong or incorrect info which should be checked always.

Ivan69 wrote:
"Drob, please do not worry about the confrontational words of Nomercy above. The figures in your article are correct. 214-3 is the balance in tournaments. 227-4 is the balance incl. exhibitions."

Tennisbase Tilden activity in 1923-1924-1925, without and with exhibitions:
1923 -> 59-1 -- 67-1
1924 -> 66-1 -- 68-2
1925 -> 89-1 -- 92-1

total -> 214-3 -- 227-4

What a coincidence!
They are the same as the "correct numbers".....

But let's remember that "Fortunately they are many other sources, unlike what Nomercy is thinking. Not to forget that TB has a lot of wrong or incorrect info"

Thanks for the advice Ivan!

 

[Ivan69]

I agree!
Many wrong and incorrect info.
And so they will stay.

Don't care. Just to smash your eternal illusion about the "only" source.

 

[Ivan69]

Ivan69 wrote:
"Drob, please do not worry about the confrontational words of Nomercy above. The figures in your article are correct. 214-3 is the balance in tournaments. 227-4 is the balance incl. exhibitions."

Tennisbase Tilden activity in 1923-1924-1925, without and with exhibitions:
1923 -> 59-1 -- 67-1
1924 -> 66-1 -- 68-2
1925 -> 89-1 -- 92-1

total -> 214-3 -- 227-4

What a coincidence!
They are the same as the "correct numbers".....

But let's remember that "Fortunately they are many other sources, unlike what Nomercy is thinking. Not to forget that TB has a lot of wrong or incorrect info"

Thanks for the advice Ivan!

As I said I am not on my computer. Maybe a problem of not reading or not understanding.

 

[NoMercy]

As I said I am not on my computer. Maybe a problem of not reading or not understanding.

I got it!
It‘s just a nice coincidence that both numbers are so perfectly the same and so perfectly wrong.
It’s like winning the lottery

 

[NoMercy]

Don't care. Just to smash your eternal illusion about the "only" source.

So maybe you should use the other sources to give Drob some more “correct” numbers.
The ones you gave him are a little, let’s say, off.....

 

[Ivan69]

I agree!
Many wrong and incorrect info.
And so they will stay.

2 brilliant sentences of Nomercy:

"I am the chief source of TB."

"I agree!
Many wrong and incorrect info."

It seems that deceived are the owner of TB at first place and all subscribers (current and in the past) at a second.
Can we trust to the source? Obviously not. I feel sorry more to the owner that he worked maybe since years with Nomercy and all the incorrect and missed info could be fixed. But ... that's the only in the world Nomercy who doesn't want that the info is full and correct.
I am also sad about the owner of TB because he has invested maybe huge resources and money and had the unique chance to built up an incredible database but is unable to manage it without a help.

 

[NoMercy]

2 brilliant sentences of Nomercy:

"I am the chief source of TB."

"I agree!
Many wrong and incorrect info."

It seems that deceived are the owner of TB at first place and all subscribers (current and in the past) at a second.
Can we trust to the source? Obviously not. I feel sorry more to the owner that he worked maybe since years with Nomercy and all the incorrect and missed info could be fixed. But ... that's the only in the world Nomercy who doesn't want that the info is full and correct.
I am also sad about the owner of TB because he has invested maybe huge resources and money and had the unique chance to built up an incredible database but is unable to manage it without a help.

You should help him.
I’m sure he will be super happy with all your data

 

[urban]

I think, No Mercy put it right. The 1920s were certainly not the most competitive era, but i find it wrong, to simply dismiss Tilden' astonishing runs as a streak over club players. Thats not true. In the US in the 1920s there was more international play than say in Australia in the 1950s. Japan, Spain with Alonso, Australia with Patterson, South Africa with Norton and Kinsey, the French, all had strong Davis Cup teams and played around their DC ties in tournaments in the US. Following long time observers and experts like Danzig or Myers, the 1920s were higher regarded than the 1930s. And the arguments then against the competition of the earlier era of the Dohertys were very similar.
Another point is mentioned by Frank Deford. Tennis had yet to develop a standard style of play, it was much more diverse than today, when everything is streamlined. You had very unorthodox styles like the forehand of Johnston (ultra western) or Shimizu (who hit it with his backhand side of the racket), or the backhand of old Brookes. Borotra (who came from Pelota) and Richards were pure serve and volleyers (without a big serve), Johnston a powerful baseliner. It was Tilden, who standarized tennis, with his eastern grip, and his allround, allcourt swing style.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think, No Mercy put it right. The 1920s were certainly not the most competitive era, but i find it wrong, to simply dismiss Tilden' astonishing runs as a streak over club players. Thats not true. In the US in the 1920s there was more international play than say in Australia in the 1950s. Japan, Spain with Alonso, Australia with Patterson, South Africa with Norton and Kinsey, the French, all had strong Davis Cup teams and played around their DC ties in tournaments in the US. Following long time observers and experts like Danzig or Myers, the 1920s were higher regarded than the 1930s. And the arguments then against the competition of the earlier era of the Dohertys were very similar.
Another point is mentioned by Frank Deford. Tennis had yet to develop a standard style of play, it was much more diverse than today, when everything is streamlined. You had very unorthodox styles like the forehand of Johnston (ultra western) or Shimizu (who hit it with his backhand side of the racket), or the backhand of old Brookes. Borotra (who came from Pelota) and Richards were pure serve and volleyers (without a big serve), Johnston a powerful baseliner. It was Tilden, who standarized tennis, with his eastern grip, and his allround, allcourt swing style.

There were no doubt some outstanding players in the twenties, but their number should not be overestimated. Only a few of them won majors.

The 1920's followed a major war of catastrophic effects on the population of young men of tennis age. That alone would explain the dearth of champion talent

emerging right after the war ended in 1918. The Four Musketeers had been too young to get into the thick of front-line battle, where huge numbers were

killed.

Richard Williams returned from WWI with a chest full of medals, but seemed to have lost his strength for long matches.

Tilden had been spared combat. Johnston also seems to have escaped battle unscathed, not sure if he was drafted or not.

 

[urban]

Same could be said about the late 40s and early 50s. On the other hand, the 1920s, the Golden Twenties generated an enormous growth in international sports within much bigger international competition, media and public attention. Stars like Ruth, Gehrig, Dempsey, Nurmi, Red Grange, Andrade, Zamora, Man O' War, Tilden, Lenglen, Wills and others emerged and became household names in the US and over the world.

 

[Britanian]

And I would add another point.
I’m not sure you chose your point very wisely.
Excluding the Davis Cup, the 21-25 Us National Championships were the most important and competitive tournament.
As the Davis Cup final rounds were played in the USA, 3/4 top teams were there.
How important or competitive were the Australian Championships in the 50s?
Try to check how many foreign players played the US National in 21-25 and in Aus Champs 53 & 55.
And then think that there are 30 years between the two eras.
I would think that in the 50s traveling was easier than in the 20s....

Not agree with all you said.

1221 Tilden won Bristol Cup Wim &USO ... no need to say he is the boss.
1222-> 1925 he only wins USO ... even if USO would have been the best tournaments it's not enough ...
& I m not so sure it was the most competitive. maybe in 1922 but 1923-1924-1925

 

[NoMercy]

Not agree with all you said.

1221 Tilden won Bristol Cup Wim &USO ... no need to say he is the boss.
1222-> 1925 he only wins USO ... even if USO would have been the best tournaments it's not enough ...
& I m not so sure it was the most competitive. maybe in 1922 but 1923-1924-1925

1) From your reply I feel that you don't know a lot of those years. Davis Cup was the focus of the season and was the main (if not the only) reason to make players travel.
Tilden (and johnston) won 7 consecutive Davis Cups. In 21-26, the US National had most (if not all) of the amateur top10. You can check yourself.
Players were going to the USA to win the Davis Cup, but also to challenge Tilden. Wimbledon was regarded as the World Championships but no Wimbledon Champion felt like that if he was not going to be able to defeat Tilden. Tilden is without a doubt the world number one in 20-25.
2) 1921 was Tilden worst year of 1920-25 as level of play, per Tilden statement.
He came back from Australia exhausted, he traveled to Europe sick and he won the World Hard Court Championships thanks to a weak draw. He injured his hand, skipped Beckenham and able to play last minute the Challenge Round in Wimbledon saving match points vs. Norton. Back in the States he never played high level and at the US National he was lucky vs. johnston because the latter suffered heavy food poisoning the night before their match. Every reporter said a healthy johnston would have easily beaten that Tilden. 1921 was the year with less played matches in 1918-1927 for Tilden, as he was not good.
His best years were without any doubts 1923-24, followed by 1925, 1920, 1922 and 1921, last.

 

[NoMercy]

Not agree with all you said.

1221 Tilden won Bristol Cup Wim &USO ... no need to say he is the boss.
1222-> 1925 he only wins USO ... even if USO would have been the best tournaments it's not enough ...
& I m not so sure it was the most competitive. maybe in 1922 but 1923-1924-1925

Let’s check 23-25 for example, using the Wallis Myers amateur Top 10.

1923: Tilden, Johnston, Anderson, Williams, Hunter, Richards, Norton, Alonso, Washer, Cochet.
Missing only Washer and Cochet.

1924: Tilden, Richards, Anderson, Johnston, Lacoste, Borotra, Kinsey, Patterson, Cochet, Alonso.
Missing only Anderson and Cochet.

1925: Tilden, Johnston, Richards, Lacoste, Williams, Borotra, Patterson, Alonso, Norton, Harada.
Missing only Patterson.

It’s very difficult you can find a more competitive tournament, considering the fact that having or not having Tilden in the draw makes all the difference of this world.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Same could be said about the late 40s and early 50s. On the other hand, the 1920s, the Golden Twenties generated an enormous growth in international sports within much bigger international competition, media and public attention. Stars like Ruth, Gehrig, Dempsey, Nurmi, Red Grange, Andrade, Zamora, Man O' War, Tilden, Lenglen, Wills and others emerged and became household names in the US and over the world.

Absolutely, the same could be said about post-WWII. I have no doubt that many fine players were killed, starting with Joe Hunt, who was killed in a training flight.

Tennis was probably lucky in WWII. Germany must have lost many young tennis players, but Kramer, Schroeder, Larsen, Mulloy, Riggs, Patty, Drobny, Seixas,

Petra, Bromwich were all fortunate to go through the war without getting killed. Bromwich and Larsen were wounded.

Ruth, Gehrig, Dempsey, Red Grange were not involved in combat in WWI. But the fields they faced were certainly diminished by the casualties of war.

 

[Drob]

1924 William Tilden activity, part 3

28 Jul - 3 Aug, Southern California Champs, Los Angeles Tennis Club, hard
R64: Tilden d. Wilson Jones 60 61
R32: Tilden d. Bradshaw Harrison 62 61
R16: Tilden d. Arthur Kussman 61 60
QF: Tilden d. Harold Godshall 63 63
SF: Tilden d. Wallace Bates 60 61
F: Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 26 64 86 62

7-8 Aug, ONS, Kansas City, Rockhill Club, clay
Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 62 63
Tilden d. Paul Bennett 63 62
Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 63 63

12 Aug, ONS, Chicago, South Side Tennis Club, clay
Tilden d. George Lott 64 63

14-16 Aug, ONS, Providence, Agawam Hunt Club, grass
Tilden d. Howard Kinsey 61 62
Tilden d. Takeichi Harada 62 36 63

25 Aug - 2 Sept, US Champs, New York, West Side Tennis Club, grass
R128: BYE
R64: Tilden d. Manuel Alonso 62 36 64 64
R32: Tilden d. Lucien Williams 60 62 61
R16: Tilden d. Jack Wright 64 86 64
QF: Tilden d. Howard Kinsey 63 64 36 62
SF: Tilden d. Vincent Richards 46 62 86 46 64
F: Tilden d. William Johnston 61 97 62

11-13 Sept, Davis Cup, Philadelphia, Germantown Cricket Club, grass
RR: Tilden d. Gerald Patterson 64 62 62
RR: Tilden d. Pat O’Hara Wood 62 61 61

14 Sept, ONS, Indianapolis, Hawthorne Tennis Club, clay
Tilden vs. Howard Kinsey 63 46 UNF

18 Sept, ONS, Culver Military Academy, clay
Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 64 36 63

16-20 Sept, Indiana State Championships, Indianapolis, Hawthorne Tennis Club, clay
R64: Tilden d. H. Flinn 60 60
R32: Tilden d. Robert Lang 61 61
R16: Tilden d. Thomas Hendricks 60 61
QF: Tilden d. Julius Sagalowsky 60 60
SF: Tilden d. Louis Kuhler 62 63 62
F: Tilden d. John Hennessey 62 62 61

21 Sept, ONS, Chicago, Skokie Country Club, clay
Vincent Richards d. Tilden 79 63 61

22-24 Sept, ONS, Cincinnati, Hyde Park Tennis Club, clay
Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 63 1210 62
Tilden d. Kirk Reid 63 1614
Tilden d. John Hennessey 46 62 62 97

25 Sept, ONS, Cleveland, University Club, clay
Tilden d. Alfred Chapin 46 63 63

6-11 Oct, Virginia Hot Springs Tennis Club Open, clay
R32: BYE
R16: w/o
QF: Tilden d. Franklin Ferguson 60 60
SF: Tilden d. Frederick Gwynne 61 62 63
F: Tilden d. Cedric Major 63 36 62 61

12 Oct, ONS, Cynwyd Club, clay
Tilden d. Wallace Johnson 62 63

19 Oct, ONS, Trenton Tennis Club, clay
Tilden d. Wallace Johnson 75
Tilden d. Manuel Alonso 75

15 Nov, ONS, Berkeley Tennis Club, hard
Tilden d. Ray Casey 63 62

16 Nov, ONS, San Francisco, Golden Gate Park, hard
Tilden vs. William Johnston 75 79 UNF

22-23 Nov, ONS, Los Angeles Tennis Club, hard
Tilden d. Ray Casey 64 46 61
Tilden d. Harvey Snodgrass 60 64 64

You have found additional matches. You are always finding additional matches. You are a genius at it and you know you have our admiration. The percentage win-loss actually increases w your numbers.

 

[Drob]

The 1920's followed a major war of catastrophic effects on the population of young men of tennis age. That alone would explain the dearth of champion talent

emerging right after the war ended in 1918. The Four Musketeers had been too young to get into the thick of front-line battle, where huge numbers were
killed.

[/QUOTE]

Think Borotra was in the thick of it.

 

[Drob]

Every champion is the result of his era.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Dan Lobb]

The 1920's followed a major war of catastrophic effects on the population of young men of tennis age. That alone would explain the dearth of champion talent

emerging right after the war ended in 1918. The Four Musketeers had been too young to get into the thick of front-line battle, where huge numbers were
killed.

Think Borotra was in the thick of it.
[/QUOTE]
As I recall, you are right.

 

[Ivan69]

I don’t count exhibitions.
I’m talking about tournament play and I confirm those numbers are far from reality.
Let‘s say that the winning streak is 130 instead of 100, it‘s a pretty big difference.
The 130 is just an hypothetical number, not the exact one. I posted only one year out of the three on purpose.
Just to show you wrong.
But I won’t post the other two years, because you don’t deserve to know Tilden real playing activity and his records.

By the way, Bud Collins has (according to some sources) 138 amateur titles for Tilden, Wikipedia 128, Tennisbase 126 (if I counted correctly).
And NoMercy? NoMercy has 156.
And Ivan69?

Just checked, 142 am titles. Oh, don't worry about Tilden's activity. Step by step I find it more and more. Still need to read 2 almanacs but now I am very busy.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Every champion is the result of his era.

[/QUOTE]
And some eras were weak.

 

[NoMercy]

Just checked, 142 am titles. Oh, don't worry about Tilden's activity. Step by step I find it more and more. Still need to read 2 almanacs but now I am very busy.

I don’t worry at all, as I have 3500+ singles matches for Big Bill.
Keep reading, reading is good, but I think you will need way more than two almanacs.
But I guess it’s better than nothing...

 

[Ivan69]

I don’t worry at all, as I have 3500+ singles matches for Big Bill.
Keep reading, reading is good, but I think you will need way more than two almanacs.
But I guess it’s better than nothing...

14 missing titles with appox. 70 matches and a couple of other tournaments where Tilden is possibly not the champion is not bad. The previous almanacs gave me 6 to 8 additional tournaments and 10-20 additional ONS each. Sooner or later the level of 150 titles and 3,200 matches will be reached. Whether I will find a couple of another titles and 100-150 other ONS or not is not critical.
More important is that your theory about Wiki, TB and whatever goes to the thrash again and again. Underestimating the people makes your behavior, as NonP said in another thread, "childish and petty".
And yes, you worry too much if someone has a lot of stats (not necessarily me). The reality is different.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is an open question for anyone who wants to tackle it....we know from an interview with Trabert that Kramer kept a points system for the May-September 1960 tournament series, although the final tournament in Australia in December was apparently not played or cancelled.


What was the point standing on that elusive list for 1960?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Any Top Ten list is dependent upon which criteria are being used. For an all-time list, it makes no sense to talk about achievements,which are vastly different from one age to another. Surfaces make all the difference for some players.

So here is a Grass list, looking at level of play only, not interested in numbers of majors or matches won. This puts names like Williams, Vines, Hoad, Sedgman into the mix. This is a Top Ten, which means exactly that, ten players, no order. Peak range of years are provided.

Top Ten:

Williams (1914-1916), Tilden (1920-1927), Vines (1931-1939), Budge (1937-1942), Sedgman (1950-1959), Gonzales (1949-61), Hoad (1956-1961), Laver (1961-1969), Sampras (1992-2000), Federer (2003-2017)

Honourable Mentions: Kramer, McEnroe, Borg, Djokovic, Lacoste, Rosewall, Newcombe, Connors, Trabert

This is not carved in stone like Mount Rushmore (which itself should probably not be circumscribed to its existing facial profiles).

 

[RS]

I don’t worry at all, as I have 3500+ singles matches for Big Bill.
Keep reading, reading is good, but I think you will need way more than two almanacs.
But I guess it’s better than nothing...

Crazy to think a player from back then could play that many matches and into late 40s to 50s.

 

[CyBorg]

My take on the GOAT debate is that I just have what I call the upper tier of players. The best of the best. Players who dominated their eras. There's about 10 of them, maybe.

But I don't rank them, because I think this is simply foolish.

Also any GOAT list without Pancho Gonzales (the most underrated tennis player of all time) is garbage. Many garbage lists out there, especially those made by mainstream media pundits.

 

[CyBorg]

Just my subjective opinion of the players I had a chance to see on TV / film.

He's right. Ranking Emerson over Rosewall is embarrassing.

Emerson is not a top-10 player.

 

[DSH]

My take on the GOAT debate is that I just have what I call the upper tier of players. The best of the best. Players who dominated their eras. There's about 10 of them, maybe.

But I don't rank them, because I think this is simply foolish.

Also any GOAT list without Pancho Gonzales (the most underrated tennis player of all time) is garbage. Many garbage lists out there, especially those made by mainstream media pundits.

Tell us!

 

[MissileBackHand99]

I can’t rank them, as I think that’s an impossible task

My ten best are (going chronologically) - Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Bjorg, Agassi, Nadal, Federer

Damn....forgot Budge, Sampras, McEnroe (all of whom belong on this same tier of the top level of all-time greats)

 

[KG1965]

My ranking GOAT Post War II - MALE
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two americans is halved.

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

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

I undoubtedly prefer the GOAT Ranking, it fascinates me less a ranking made only on the perception of the peak (as it used so many years ago).

 

[NonP]

Thought about posting this in GPPD as an antidote to the ahistorical nonsense that follows any extra major for the Big 3, but we know how much good it'd do. Anyhoo Rafa's 4th FO without a set dropped is as much a testament to his kingsmanship on terre battue as a reflection of today's historically godawful CC field on the men's side. Some of you might have noticed moi pointing out that Novak has been the only one capable of offering meaningful opposition to Rafa since '10 or so (today's lopsided result notwithstanding) and that it's been historically the 40% mark in return games won that all but guaranteed a RG championship.

But at least the right guys reached the final rounds, right? Not so fast, 'cause out of the 60 RG finalists since '91 only 7 have failed to win 30% or more of their return games on clay in 10 separate years:

1996 Stich
2003 Verkerk
2005 Puerta
2009 Federer
2010 Soderling
2011 Federer
2015 Wawrinka
2017 Wawrinka
2018 Thiem
2019 Thiem

And I can tell you that apart from '09 Fed none of 'em made up for it in the service department, either. (I'll try to follow up with a more in-depth look later this week.) So 9 out of these 10 hail from after the '90s (and FYI even '96 Stich won 57.1% of his overall games on dirt, higher than anyone else on the list except '09 Fed who won 58.4%), or 2 if we split it between pre- and post-Nadal. Now I dunno know about you but I'm getting this sense that maybe extra FOs for Fed, Novak and Thiem wouldn't be so easy in previous eras.

Of course you can play only who's in front of you and I'm sure Rafa would've dominated any CC field without Borg, just not quite to this extent as the likes of Lendl, Wilander, Courier, Bruguera and Kuerten would've likely stolen a few RGs from him. Does that mean his overall/CC resume is inflated? YMMV.

 

[urban]

Seems that the 20 majors mark wasn't that good a record, when only after a few years, that is was set, one has reached it and another is nearing it. Now, i expect that Nadal will surpass the mark at least in June, and that Djokovic will have more years and weeks at Nr. 1 than Federer. But lets celebrate Nadal for a moment. Come rain, come shine, he goes through all the RG draws like a bulldozer, combining the topspin of Borg with the sheer power of Lendl or Courier. I think, especially in the power department on his forehand he has still improved with age, although he may has lost a step on speed. Truely impressive, leaves someone speechless. Who knows, who is the best modern player of those 3 at the top, the race will go on the next years, but you make no big mistake, if any mistake,, when nominating NADAL. 13 is not that nice a number, 14 or 15 sounds better, and he can do it.

 

[KG1965]

Seems that the 20 majors mark wasn't that good a record, when only after a few years, that is was set, one has reached it and another is nearing it. Now, i expect that Nadal will surpass the mark at least in June, and that Djokovic will have more years and weeks at Nr. 1 than Federer. But lets celebrate Nadal for a moment. Come rain, come shine, he goes through all the RG draws like a bulldozer, combining the topspin of Borg with the sheer power of Lendl or Courier. I think, especially in the power department on his forehand he has still improved with age, although he may has lost a step on speed. Truely impressive, leaves someone speechless. Who knows, who is the best modern player of those 3 at the top, the race will go on the next years, but you make no big mistake, if any mistake,, when nominating NADAL. 13 is not that nice a number, 14 or 15 sounds better, and he can do it.

I agree on everything.

For me Fedr was first with a small margin over Laver, but not very debatable. Today he is being downsized because his 20 slam record is downsized.
He stays first but by an even smaller margin then ... by a questionable margin.

 

[DSH]

Seems that the 20 majors mark wasn't that good a record, when only after a few years, that is was set, one has reached it and another is nearing it. Now, i expect that Nadal will surpass the mark at least in June, and that Djokovic will have more years and weeks at Nr. 1 than Federer. But lets celebrate Nadal for a moment. Come rain, come shine, he goes through all the RG draws like a bulldozer, combining the topspin of Borg with the sheer power of Lendl or Courier. I think, especially in the power department on his forehand he has still improved with age, although he may has lost a step on speed. Truely impressive, leaves someone speechless. Who knows, who is the best modern player of those 3 at the top, the race will go on the next years, but you make no big mistake, if any mistake,, when nominating NADAL. 13 is not that nice a number, 14 or 15 sounds better, and he can do it.

Manolo Santana predicted in 2017 (after he won 'La Décima´) that Nadal can finish with 15 RG titles.
Maybe he can do it after all!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Manolo Santana predicted in 2017 (after he won 'La Décima´) that Nadal can finish with 15 RG titles.
Maybe he can do it after all!

Why not? This is a weak clay era. He can win them for another 5-10 years maybe.

 

[DSH]

Why not? This is a weak clay era. He can win them for another 5-10 years maybe.

Will you admit that it is also a weak grass era too?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Will you admit that it is also a weak grass era too?

Sure looks like it. There are at least two generations of missing tennis champions who failed to show up.

 

[Patriots]

I can’t rank them, as I think that’s an impossible task

My ten best are (going chronologically) - Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Bjorg, Agassi, Nadal, Federer

Damn....forgot Budge, Sampras, McEnroe (all of whom belong on this same tier of the top level of all-time greats)

No Lendl ?

 

[CyBorg]

Tell us!

At the very least:

Tilden
Gonzales
Laver
Rosewall
Borg
Sampras
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic

 

[Dan Lobb]

I can’t rank them, as I think that’s an impossible task

My ten best are (going chronologically) - Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Bjorg, Agassi, Nadal, Federer

Damn....forgot Budge, Sampras, McEnroe (all of whom belong on this same tier of the top level of all-time greats)

Right, impossible to rank across the Great Divide of the nineties, when the racquet heads swelled to enormous expanses and changed the game.

That was really a game-changer, and allowed more two-handed stroke play. We live in a different tennis world today.

So your top ten contains twelve names....not bad.

 

[thrust]

Lets play a bit and see Borg ( who as all know just played open era)

As a champ: 6 RG, 5 W, 2 Masters, 1 Dallas: 14
As beaten finalist: 1 W, 2 Masters, 3 WCT Dallas,4 USO all of them x 0,5:5 additional points

So Bjorn totals 19 points ( in fact, bit more than Newk double!!!)

There are, of course other factors like years being n1, DC and TMS or equivalent wins, HtH agaunst top ten etc
And there is also another and decissive poundering factor which we All need to monitorise: strengths of eras
My rate factor is:
1950,1970,1980: 100%
1990,2010-.1930: 90%
2000,1960: 80%
From 1900 to 1930: 70%
In Emmo' s case, since he played in the 60, his totals are: 6 x 0,80: 5 points player
In Newk' s case, he played the 70 and 60, so that the points aquired in the 70 are worthy 100% but those he acquired in the 60 would be worthy just 80%

I know my sistem is not perfect but is easy, measured, direct and most important of all...IT IS FUN;-)

As great of a player Emerson was, you really cannot compare him to the players who were major tournament winners in the open era as Emmo won NO major events that I know of in the open era, neither slams or any masters titles or WCT finals in Dallas.

 

[Dan Lobb]

As great of a player Emerson was, you really cannot compare him to the players who were major tournament winners in the open era as Emmo won NO major events that I know of in the open era, neither slams or any masters titles or WCT finals in Dallas.

Emmo was not bad, he did beat some big name players for some of his slam wins, Laver and others.

 

[socallefty]

For me, ATP singles players should be measured by their ability to win matches (career winning % - see link below), win tournaments and win the major tournaments (Grand Slams). I also think that it is hard enough to compare players from different decades within the Open Era and it is impossible to compare pros with the amateur champions.

Win/Loss Index | ATP Tour | Tennis

In-depth data analysis of the performance of ATP World Tour players. Featuring year-to-date, 52-week, and career data for the top players in men's professional tennis.

www.atptour.com

So, my top 10 list of Open-era champions would be as follows:

1. Djokovic (helped by subjective eye test of watching Indian Wells tournament in person since Nineties, 17 Slams)
2. Nadal (clay dominance, 20 Slams)
3. Federer (20 Slams, 2nd in titles won)
4. Sampras (14 Slams)
5. Connors (record 109 titles)
6. Lendl (high number of titles)
7. Borg (hurt by early retirement)
8. Laver (hurt by mostly winning on grass and considering only his Open-era career)
9. McEnroe
10. Agassi