Which ATG has been the biggest loser in the Big 3 era?

Which ATG has been the biggest loser in the Big 3 era?

  • Rod Laver

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Ken Rosewall

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bjorn Borg

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • Jimmy Connors

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Ivan Lendl

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Andre Agassi

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • John McEnroe

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Mats Wilander

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Stefan Edberg

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Boris Becker

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Total voters
    22

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Which of the ATG players has seen his legacy be devalued the most by the Big 3 era?

Pete Sampras is a possibility since he was considered the GOAT and now isn't even top 3, but given that he didn't win RG there were always arguments against him, and his 7 Ws and 5 USOs are still very highly regarded.

Bjorn Borg is a real possibility. The Big 3 bumped the number of players with the CGS from 2 to 5, so even though Borg had 11 Majors and dominated across clay and grass, he's now arguably no longer top 5 AND he's missing 2 legs of the CGS.

John McEnroe also only won 2 legs of the CGS (all on fast courts), and given the style of play prevalent today he's looked upon as someone who might have struggled in more modern tennis.

Boris Becker never even made a final at RG and was essentially a Wimbledon specialist (he made only one final combined at RG/USO in his career), and his low number of weeks at No. 1 and lack of YE #1 threatens his continued place as an ATG.

---------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately, I think Borg has taken the biggest hit. He's dropped from #2/3 all time to #5 at best, and #6 if you rank Laver ahead of him. And now that the CGS has become more prevalent and important, his inability to win at either the AO or the USO really hurts his career.
 

PUSB

Professional
Which of the ATG players has seen his legacy be devalued the most by the Big 3 era?

Pete Sampras is a possibility since he was considered the GOAT and now isn't even top 3, but given that he didn't win RG there were always arguments against him, and his 7 Ws and 5 USOs are still very highly regarded.

Bjorn Borg is a real possibility. The Big 3 bumped the number of players with the CGS from 2 to 5, so even though Borg had 11 Majors and dominated across clay and grass, he's now arguably no longer top 5 AND he's missing 2 legs of the CGS.

John McEnroe also only won 2 legs of the CGS (all on fast courts), and given the style of play prevalent today he's looked upon as someone who might have struggled in more modern tennis.

Boris Becker never even made a final at RG and was essentially a Wimbledon specialist (he made only one final combined at RG/USO in his career), and his low number of weeks at No. 1 and lack of YE #1 threatens his continued place as an ATG.

---------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately, I think Borg has taken the biggest hit. He's dropped from #2/3 all time to #5 at best, and #6 if you rank Laver ahead of him. And now that the CGS has become more prevalent and important, his inability to win at either the AO or the USO really hurts his career.
Well of all those on the list only one is languishing at Her Majesty's Pleasure so I think there is really only one choice no?
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
How can anyone use the adjective "loser" when mentioning legends of the game? Everyone on the list are titans of tennis, with no exceptions. "Loser" is the last thing to call any of them.

Clearly I don't mean they are losers, but rather they have lost ground. IOW, who has lost the most stature in tennis history because of the Big 3 era?
 

Entername

Professional
Sampras' legacy probably lost the most aura. When he got to 14 everyone including myself thought it would take ages for it to ever be broken and for me, he was the GOAT of the modern era given his totality of titles won and dominance....in the 20 years since, his total of 14 majors has not only been surpassed but it's been absolutely obliberated by three (not one, not two, but THREE) different players
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
I'd say Lendl. Lendl's claim to fame was being good on the slower surfaces, along with sustained high level. It won him 8 slams and tons of time at #1.

For Laver, he's still got his claim to fame. Borg retired at 25 so there will always be that "what if" factor about him, and most of the others weren't that extremely high ranked to begin with.

Sampras went from #1 to #4 within 20 years, but his performances at the majors are still talked about. Lendl is largely irrelevant at this point. His 1986-1987 years were fantastic, but overshadowed by McEnroe's 1984. His distribution is good, but excels nowhere compared to other ATGs. His #1 records were beat by 3 people. His closest record other than the weeks at #1 is his RG record- 3.

The Big 3 completely filled up the hole Lendl left in the game, to an extent that no one of greater stature can say (Sampras, Laver, Borg).
 

AgassiSuperSlam11

Hall of Fame
The two guys in my avatar had their legacy and achievements a bit surpassed due to the "Big 3." Sampras obviously had 3 players past his GS total count something most of us thought wouldn't happen in decades and Agassi was the only player who won all 4 slams in 3 different surfaces until all the members of the "Big 3" accomplished it. Sampras failing to win the French now sticks out more with 3 players all doing it. In Fairness, Agassi still only player to win all 4 slams in 3 surfaces that included the old Wimbledon grass, and he is still the only player to win the Super Slam (4 Slams, Gold Medal, Year-End-Final).
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
Probably PETE. Since nearly all his records are now gone. But you still gotta respect him, bud.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Has to be Sampras, because the 14 majors (and 7 Wimbledons) was a huge thing about his legacy. There was more emphasis on the major tally in particular. 3 different players have gone well past it since. Even when Sampras retired, there were people who would point out that Borg had more dominant years than Sampras had, so Sampras wasn't considered the best of all time by everyone. Even Connors and Lendl had serious cases.

Borg will always have winning 11 majors and retiring from Grand Slam play at age 25, and only playing 3 majors per year too. He still has that now.

Laver still has the Grand Slam, and the legacy of that, even though Djokovic did hold all 4 majors at the same time for a period of 5 weeks (5 June 2016 - 10 July 2016)
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
Federer.

At least Pete is still considered the greatest of his era. Federer literally went from first to last in his own “Big 3” era.
That would be a bit harsh. Roger Federer had a very long reign at the top of big 3 era.

We can't ding him just because he didn't retire while at the helm. I actually liked the fact that he's still around.
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
If you think these guys legacies have been “hurt” by the Big 3 inflating their resumes on the back of medical advancements, poly string, homogenized playing conditions, and unprecedented legions of MUGs from 2017-2022 then your opinion isn’t worth the keyboard it’s written on.

i view each older ATG’s achievements in higher and higher esteem as we see more Ruud’s and Berrettini’s in Slam finals. They did it the hard way.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Borg actually is the one that lost the LEAST. He's still the only player to dominate Wimbledon and Roland Garros, and in an era where Wimbledon isn't what it is now.

He's still a unique player since none of the Big 3 were able to do that.

Sampras is actually the correct call. Everyone beat his slam record, everyone was able to get the CGS which he didn't, two of the three broke his weeks at #1, one broke his YE#1. He doesn't have his Wimbledon record either.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Odd that Sampras is missing from the list. When he retired with 14 Slams to his name everyone, including Sampras himself, assumed his record would never be surpassed for many years to come and yet, less than two decades later, no less than 3 players had all surpassed him. How quickly his record was relegated to a distant 4th in the list of all time greats! Surely his is the legacy most 'hurt' (if we want to call it that) by the rapid overtaking by the Big 3?

Accordingly my vote goes to the one I can't even vote for!!
 
Last edited:

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
If you think these guys legacies have been “hurt” by the Big 3 inflating their resumes on the back of medical advancements, poly string, homogenized playing conditions, and unprecedented legions of MUGs from 2017-2022 then your opinion isn’t worth the keyboard it’s written on.

i view each older ATG’s achievements in higher and higher esteem as we see more Ruud’s and Berrettini’s in Slam finals. They did it the hard way.

You think those players didn't have "easy" rivals in slam finals?

One could argue it's the other way around, the Big 3 did it the hard way facing each other. How many would each of them have if one of the other two didn't exist?
 
IF anything Sampras' case is strengthened as a GOAT contender now. . At least when it comes to Federer. He didn't let two guys overtake him. No one really lost... Except Fed in the end. He goes from hands down GOAT next to Laver, to 3rd greatest of the last 20 years.

Agassi's legacy will always be secured because he achieve the Career Slam, Olympic Gold, YEC under the most polarizing conditions in history. Only player to do it. Nadal's/Djokovic double career slam (to me at least) is less impressive than Agassi's career slam in the 90s because of the conditions. . The other guys played so long ago, they don't get dinged for anything
 
Last edited:

darthrafa

Hall of Fame
except agassi, i wonder ppl knowing them will think the big 3 would affect their status.
by the same token, if ppl do not know them, nothing they will lose
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
You think those players didn't have "easy" rivals in slam finals?

One could argue it's the other way around, the Big 3 did it the hard way facing each other. How many would each of them have if one of the other two didn't exist?
The difference is they had similar prime numbers to the Big 3 who have shamelessly and disgustingly vultured from the worst era of modern tennis history in their mid 30s. Imagine some of these guys with the medical and technological advantages the Big 3 have.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Borg actually is the one that lost the LEAST. He's still the only player to dominate Wimbledon and Roland Garros, and in an era where Wimbledon isn't what it is now.

He's still a unique player since none of the Big 3 were able to do that.

Sampras is actually the correct call. Everyone beat his slam record, everyone was able to get the CGS which he didn't, two of the three broke his weeks at #1, one broke his YE#1. He doesn't have his Wimbledon record either.
I think one of the few records that Sampras has left is 6 consecutive year-end number 1s (1993-1998).
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Odd that Sampras is mising from the list. When he retired with 14 Slams to his name everyone, including Sampras himself, assumed his record would never be surpassed for many years to come and yet, less than two decades later, no less than 3 players had all surpassed him. How quickly his record was relegated to a distant 4th in the list of all time greats! Surely his is the legacy most 'hurt' (if we want to call it that) by the rapid overtaking by the Big 3?

Accordingly my vote goes to the one I can't even vote for!!

Yeah, I screwed up. I thought I had included Sampras in the poll, but apparently forgot! That's why I discussed him in my OP.
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
IF anything Sampras' case is strengthened as a GOAT contender now. . At least when it comes to Federer. He didn't let two guys overtake him. No one really lost... Except Fed in the end. He goes from hands down GOAT next to Laver, to 3rd greatest of the last 20 years.

Agassi's legacy will always be secured because he achieve the Career Slam, Olympic Gold, YEC under the most polarizing conditions in history. Only player to do it. Nadal's/Djokovic double career slam (to me at least) is less impressive than Agassi's career slam in the 90s because of the condition. . The other guys played so long ago, they don't get dinged for anything
Agassi winning the YEC against indoor ATGs like Pete, Becker, and Edberg on lightning fast carpet… then Wimbledon on 90s grass against Grass ATGs like Becker and Goran, Roland Garros, and both HC majors, and doing it all as a baseliner with KEVLAR is an unmatched achievement. Seriously it’s a once in a lifetime thing that he did it in such an unfavorable era for him.

Nadal would have a nervous breakdown when the rally ball doesn’t bounce above his shoulders or magically hit 4000 RPMs from his poly strings lol. He’d be so confused seeing a serve bounce at his knees and players taking 8 seconds between points that he’d probably become a fisherman or something.

Djokovic could try to play like Agassi but would get laughed off the tour for his awful volleying. And LOL at winning Wimbledon 6 times in the 90s when he can’t even beat big servers like Querrey, Kyrgios or Vesely.

those guys are still talented and athletic enough to adapt and win a ton still.. I mean a GOAT is a GOAT in any era… but since even they would have it tough, imagine if Zverev and Tsitsipas tried to play their little game in the 90s. Man I’m cracking up just thinking about it.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
How can anyone use the adjective "loser" when mentioning legends of the game? Everyone on the list are titans of tennis, with no exceptions. "Loser" is the last thing to call any of them.
But they told me that Federer will be remembered by history as a loser and a career failure because of 40-15!
 
Agassi winning the YEC against indoor ATGs like Pete, Becker, and Edberg on lightning fast carpet… then Wimbledon on 90s grass against Grass ATGs like Becker and Goran, Roland Garros, and both HC majors, and doing it all as a baseliner with KEVLAR is an unmatched achievement. Seriously it’s a once in a lifetime thing that he did it in such an unfavorable era for him.

Nadal would have a nervous breakdown when the rally ball doesn’t bounce above his shoulders or magically hit 4000 RPMs from his poly strings lol. He’d be so confused seeing a serve bounce at his knees and players taking 8 seconds between points that he’d probably become a fisherman or something.

Djokovic could try to play like Agassi but would get laughed off the tour for his awful volleying. And LOL at winning Wimbledon 6 times in the 90s when he can’t even beat big servers like Querrey, Kyrgios or Vesely.

those guys are still talented and athletic enough to adapt and win a ton still.. I mean a GOAT is a GOAT in any era… but since even they would have it tough, imagine if Zverev and Tsitsipas tried to play their little game in the 90s. Man I’m cracking up just thinking about it.

Yea I can't see Djokovic doing what Agassi did on Carpet, if he couldn't even beat 31 year old Fed on indoor grass. in 2012. Nadal forget it.. would be lucky to win a more than 3 games. LOL
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
Yea I can't see Djokovic doing what Agassi did on Carpet, if he couldn't even beat 31 year old Fed on indoor grass. in 2012. Nadal forget it.. would be lucky to win a more than 3 games. LOL
LOL I mean guys like Rosol and Brown existed in the 90s. They were ranked in the 100s, and played in things called “qualifiers”.

Speaking of Fed I don’t buy that he’d be some 90s court savant either. Sure his game was more built for low bounce but if he couldn’t even return Nadal’s lefty powder puff spinny serve then how is he gonna deal with Goran’s lefty laser? Forget about it. And yeah he looked like He-man next to a mental midget like that clown Roddick, but put him up next to a real Alpha who can execute in the clutch like Pete? Yeah I think there would be choking.. except it wouldn’t be the American this time. And don’t get me started on HCs. If 35 year old Agassi who rolled around in a wheelchair could come within an inch of beating him at the USO imagine prime Agassi.. wouldn’t be pretty. He wouldn’t have a Rolex sponsorship. Maybe he might get lucky and Fossil would take a chance on him or something LOL
 
LOL I mean guys like Rosol and Brown existed in the 90s. They were ranked in the 100s, and played in things called “qualifiers”.

Speaking of Fed I don’t buy that he’d be some 90s court savant either. Sure his game was more built for low bounce but if he couldn’t even return Nadal’s lefty powder puff spinny serve then how is he gonna deal with Goran’s lefty laser? Forget about it. And yeah he looked like He-man next to a mental midget like that clown Roddick, but put him up next to a real Alpha who can execute in the clutch like Pete? Yeah I think there would be choking.. except it wouldn’t be the American this time. And don’t get me started on HCs. If 35 year old Agassi who rolled around in a wheelchair could come within an inch of beating him at the USO imagine prime Agassi.. wouldn’t be pretty. He wouldn’t have a Rolex sponsorship. Maybe he might get lucky and Fossil would take a chance on him or something LOL


I always looked at Fed as a more of a strictly medium speed surface player. If he had to play in Pete/Andre's time he would have to go for broke alot more and improve his net game which would then destroy his consistency that he was so notorious for. Hell, just speed up those 2000s surfaces just a little more to 90's conditions and Roddick may have gotten the best of him at Wimbledon/US Open. More aces for Roddick and FH winners. Who knows. Alot of those matches were close
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
If you think these guys legacies have been “hurt” by the Big 3 inflating their resumes on the back of medical advancements, poly string, homogenized playing conditions, and unprecedented legions of MUGs from 2017-2022 then your opinion isn’t worth the keyboard it’s written on.

i view each older ATG’s achievements in higher and higher esteem as we see more Ruud’s and Berrettini’s in Slam finals. They did it the hard way.

Actually, the opinions that tout big 3 supremacy are more credible than the one's that inflate some of the oldies.

Player's can only play in the conditions around them and who's in front of them . Big 3 utilized them better than the oldies.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
i view each older ATG’s achievements in higher and higher esteem as we see more Ruud’s and Berrettini’s in Slam finals. They did it the hard way.

There were some easy Major finals in the 90s too breh.

Sampras beat Cedric Pioline twice, once each in W and USO. He also beat Todd Martin in the AO finals. Moya in the 97 AO finals wasn't exactly a world-beater, and Chang in the 96 USO finals was always an overrated player imo.

Agassi beat Medvedev at RG, Martin at the USO and Clement and Schüttler at the AO. He also lost the 90 RG final to Gomez.
 
D

Deleted member 762343

Guest
Sampras is a valid answer but we can make a case for Agassi too. He was the only one in the Open Era who achieved the CGS, he had that over Sampras so at least it made up a little for the difference in the number of slams they won. It also made his 8 slam titles more unique than Connors' and Lendl's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Sampras is a valid answer but we can make a case for Agassi too. He was the only one in the Open Era who achieved the CGS, he had that over Sampras so at least it made up a little for the difference in the number of slams they won. It also made his 8 slams titles more unique than Connors' and Lendl's.

It's hard to make the case for Agassi because the CGS gives him a real leg up over his contemporaries.
 
D

Deleted member 762343

Guest
It's hard to make the case for Agassi because the CGS gives him a real leg up over his contemporaries.

Yes but his achievement feels less unique now that 3 more players that won 20+ slams achieved it too.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Yes but his achievement feels less unique now that 3 more players that won 20+ slams achieved it too.

I hear you, however, I suppose I look at it the other way where the CGS is now more of a "gating item" for ATG status. For the ATGs who don't have the CGS, it now seems like a huge gaping hole in their resume since now 5 players (Laver, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) have it.
 
D

Deleted member 780630

Guest
None. Players should be evaluated according to the standards of when they played. There are no transhistorical standards that apply across eras, and it's completely anachronistic and inappropriate to retroactively penalize players for things that weren't valued in their time.
 
Top