Who is better....Jim Courier or Hewitt?

[prosealster]

Courier was the guy who took Edberg down. Sampras wasn't able to
beat Edberg in prime at majors.

I think it's because Courier was better equiped at playing against S&Vers because he clearly had the better return on the backhand side. Also although Edberg was still in his volley prime in 92, his dodgy back was making his 2nd serve a liability aginst Jimbo's two hander.... I think Hewitt would have done the same!!

 

[drakulie]

I think Hewitt.
The only reason hewitt has less slam titles is because of Roger Federer, he's been knocked out of a grand slam 5 times by Fed!
Had fed been around in the early 90's he'd have had a similar effect on Courier, and Hewitt would have twice as many slam titles.

Actually,a guy like Fed was around in the 90's. His name is Sampras.

With your logic, if Sampras wasn't around in the 90's, then Courier would have won more than 4 slams---so he would still have more than Hewitt.

 

[drakulie]

I can guarntee you this though. He beat you 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.

NO. Hewitt and I have never played, so he has never beaten me. This is getting worse and worse for you. LOL

 

[lambielspins]

I put him in the same tier as Becker, Wilander and Edberg. Exactly who is greater among those 3 is very debatable.

1st Tier: Sampras, Borg, Laver, Mac
2nd Tier: Lendl, Connors, Agassi
3rd Tier: Becker, Wilander, Edberg

He's an all time great in my book. The most textbook/beautiful volleys I've ever seen... you couldn't write a complete book on the history of pro tennis without Edberg in it.

The problem is you are missing all of Federer, Perry, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Tilden, Newcombe, and Kramer who are all greater then all 3 players you have in your 3rd tier; and except for Newcombe possably over the players you have in your 2nd tier as well.

Becker and Edberg are below Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Lendl, and Wilander in terms of greatness which means they are not even in the top 5 of the last 15 years. Players not even in the top 5 of the last 15 years are not all-time greats for me.

 

[FiveO]

...Becker and Edberg are below Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Lendl, and Wilander in terms of greatness which means they are not even in the top 5 of the last 15 years. Players not even in the top 5 of the last 15 years are not all-time greats for me.

I still don't understand how you are arriving at the 15 year figure.

Edberg has been retired for 10 years

...he won his last major 14 years ago...

...and his first almost 22 years ago...

...he turned pro and played his first professional match 23 years ago.

He played everyone of the guys over him on slam count that won their majors entirely within the Open era aside from Borg and Federer and from 1984 to 1993, played them all to a standstill, 41-41. That's Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, and Connors combined for 10 years.

Why the 15 year parameter?

 

[cuddles26]

I also dont consider Edberg an all time great, or close to it. He is below all of Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Laver, Federer, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Wilander, Connors, Borg, Lendl, in the open era alone. I dont know that much about all the real old timers before the open era, but if that many guys(atleast 11) are better then him in the open era he probably would be out of the top 20 when counting the people before that too. Probably there would be atleast as many, atleast 11 more, before the open era better too.

 

[lambielspins]

I still don't understand how you are arriving at the 15 year figure.

Edberg has been retired for 10 years

...he won his last major 14 years ago...

...and his first almost 22 years ago...

...he turned pro and played his first professional match 23 years ago.

He played everyone of the guys over him on slam count that won their majors entirely within the Open era aside from Borg and Federer and from 1984 to 1993, played them all to a standstill, 41-41. That's Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, and Connors combined for 10 years.

Why the 15 year parameter?

If you now add in Tilden you're talking about 87 years of tennis history.

I said the last 15 years because all of Wilander, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Lendl, all of whom are greater then Edberg all time, were playing multiple years within the last 15 years. I dont believe any of that group retired before the end of 1994.

 

[FiveO]

I said the last 15 years because all of Wilander, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Lendl, all of whom are greater then Edberg all time, were playing multiple years within the last 15 years. I dont believe any of that group retired before the end of 1994.

The history of tennis majors begins 130 years ago.

Budge won his first 70 years ago.

If you now add in Tilden you're talking about 87 years of tennis history.

Two of the names tied with Becker and Edberg with 6 majors each, Tony Wilding and Lawrence Doherty won their first major titles 101 and 105 years ago respectively.

Taken to it's fullest extreme, 7 time winners, Willie Renshaw and Richard Sears won their first majors 126 years ago.

So in that 130 year history of the majors only 26 men have been able to win six major singles titles or more.

26 men in 130 years. 130 years, in terms of tennis, is literally forever.

Even if you then add in Vines, Kramer, Gonzales and Hoad your still talking about 30 names distinguishing themselves over 130 years of history.

 

[lambielspins]

So is what you are saying is the top 30 of all time should all be considered all-time greats? To me that is way too high a number and if I were to say I thought Edberg and Becker were all time greats I would be saying top 30 were deserving and I dont believe that many should be counted. I would say Sampras, Federer, and Agassi are all-time greats but they are top 15 minimum, probably top 10 all time; not just top 30, maximum top 25 all time like Becker and Edberg.

 

[capriatifanatic]

For me the greatest 10 players of the 90s and 2000s in order would be:

1)Sampras
2)Federer
3)Lendl
4)Agassi
5)Wilander
6)Edberg
7)Becker
8)Courier
9)Hewitt
10)Safin or Rafter

I am not sure which ones are all-time greats. Actualy come to think definitely Sampras, Federer, Lendl, and Agassi are. Wilander is borderline. Definitely Edberg and Becker and Courier would not be all time greats for me either though. Once you start adding all the names in history they would be buried way too deep to be all time greats.

 

[FiveO]

So is what you are saying is the top 30 of all time should all be considered all-time greats? To me that is way too high a number and if I were to say I thought Edberg and Becker were all time greats I would be saying top 30 were deserving and I dont believe that many should be counted. I would say Sampras, Federer, and Agassi are all-time greats but they are top 15 minimum, probably top 10 all time; not just top 30, maximum top 25 all time like Becker and Edberg.

To each his own, but I sense that if I agreed to your limit of 10 for All-Time great status and the list was:

Tilden
Budge
Kramer
Gonzales
Hoad
Laver
Borg
Lendl
Sampras
Federer

you would feel one of your guys got overlooked. To me though a list like this is what it would be titled, the Top Ten through the eras. G.O.A.T. is a label for something else. All-Time great is another larger pool to me. It's all subjective anyway, but 30 guys spread over 130 years is a pretty elite number considering the number of competitors vying for titles and winning majors over that time frame. How many all-time great outfielders are in baseball's hall of fame where the standards seem to be higher for induction that in tennis's version? Good conversation though.

5

 

[Lleytian3]

NO. Hewitt and I have never played, so he has never beaten me. This is getting worse and worse for you. LOL

LOL i actully meant fed. haha. I know man, you probably fly round and use your jedi skills to beat fed anyhow.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

I put him in the same tier as Becker, Wilander and Edberg. Exactly who is greater among those 3 is very debatable.

1st Tier: Sampras, Borg, Laver, Mac
2nd Tier: Lendl, Connors, Agassi
3rd Tier: Becker, Wilander, Edberg

He's an all time great in my book. The most textbook/beautiful volleys I've ever seen... you couldn't write a complete book on the history of pro tennis without Edberg in it.

Mine would be:

1st Tier: Sampras, Borg, Laver, Gonzalez
2nd Tier: Rosewall, Budge, Federer, Tilden, McEnroe
3rd Tier: Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Kramer, Perry
4th Tier: Hoad, Wilander, Cochet, Lacoste, Newcombe, Crawford, Emerson
5th Tier: Becker, Edberg, Trabert

There are probably some I am forgetting but of the top of my head.

 

[newnuse]

Why do people put Wilander above Becker and Edberg like it's not even close. Wilander won 3 AO's in an era when many players skipped the AO. He had one great year and went away after that. He was not as good over an extended period of time like Edberg or Becker. It's a wash between those 3 for me.

 

[newnuse]

Makes no sense to limit your all time great list to 10 players. As time go by, more great players come along. What do you do with those guys?

 

[superman1]

Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg.

That's my 10. According to McEnroe, Becker had the third best serve ever, and Edberg is known to have some of the best volleys ever, so they deserve to be up there. I've never seen Pancho or Tilden or Rosewall so I can't rate them.

 

[Zimbo]

Why do people put Wilander above Becker and Edberg like it's not even close. Wilander won 3 AO's in an era when many players skipped the AO. He had one great year and went away after that. He was not as good over an extended period of time like Edberg or Becker. It's a wash between those 3 for me.

'88 AO: Wilandr beat Edberg in Semi and Cash in finals
'83 AO: Wilander beat McEnroe in Semi and Lendl in finals (on grass mind you)
It appears to me that he did have pretty stiff competition. And yeah he had one fantastic year but he also had pretty good years prior. '82-'85 he won a slam each year. '86 he was in a slump. '87 adjusted his game to the power and fitness of Lendl and used it as a spring board for '88.

But I do agree with you. Those three are really close. But I would also add in Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, and Lendl in the same group. Depending on the surface and who's hot any of the foremention names could beat one another. I find it funny how some people on this board uses terms like "own," and "dominate." Come on guys, it's not that easy. For example, fine, Lendl had a better H2H vs Wilander, but look at their H2H at slams finals. Wilander leads 3-2.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

Why do people put Wilander above Becker and Edberg like it's not even close. Wilander won 3 AO's in an era when many players skipped the AO. He had one great year and went away after that. He was not as good over an extended period of time like Edberg or Becker. It's a wash between those 3 for me.

Wilander became the then youngest ever winner of a Grand Slam when he won the 82 French. He remained one of the Worlds top players for 7 straight years form 1982-1988, with 88 being his best year of course.

I rate him clearly over Becker and Edberg because of his 3-slam year, and his being in that group of 7-8 slam winners which includes many of the greats which Edberg and Becker both just missed making.

I think most of the top players started playing the Aussie Open in the early 80s. In 1983 Wilander beat McEnroe in the semis, and Lendl in the final to win it. In 1984 Wilander won it with Curren, Becker, Cash, and Edberg in the field. In 1988 Wilander beat Edberg in the semis, and Cash in the final, with Lendl also in the semis that year.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Why do people put Wilander above Becker and Edberg like it's not even close. Wilander won 3 AO's in an era when many players skipped the AO. He had one great year and went away after that. He was not as good over an extended period of time like Edberg or Becker. It's a wash between those 3 for me.

I am not sure if I am one of the people you are referring to or not but if I am my list for the 90s and 2000s decade was in this order:

1)Sampras
2)Federer
3)Lendl
4)Agassi
5)Wilander
6)Edberg
7)Becker
8)Courier
9)Hewitt
10)Safin or Rafter

I had Wilander, Edberg, and Becker all in a row, nobody in between them at all. So it is quite possable I felt they were almost tied, and extremely close to choose from. I was able to choose but it does not mean I did not find them almost equal.

 

[superman1]

Lendl above Agassi in the 1990s and 2000s? Nah....otherwise Lendl would have been the one to have the rivalry with Sampras. And I didn't see him beating Baghdatis last month.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Of course Lendl did not have a rivalry with Sampras, their primes did not intersect at all. How does that make Agassi better? Federer also did not have a rivalry with Sampras for the same reason, does that make Agassi better then him automaticaly too.

 

[Rhino]

Actually,a guy like Fed was around in the 90's. His name is Sampras.

With your logic, if Sampras wasn't around in the 90's, then Courier would have won more than 4 slams---so he would still have more than Hewitt.

No, you are assuming I rate Sampras as highly as Federer, which I don't - nowhere near in fact. Federer would have had the same effect on Sampras too.

 

[Rob_C]

Hmm...I don't think I ever said that Hewitt couldn't play on grass. It's obvious that he can. My point is that Courier was more versatile on all three surfaces, including grass (reached a final at Wimbly). Where Hewitt's success has not been as good on Clay (highest round at the French was the Quarters). As for who would beat who, that's not the question (and we'll never know for that matter). The question is who was the better and I think the evidence points to Courier.

I could have misinterpreted your intentions, but I thought you were saying Courier was better than Hewitt on grass.

And, as far who was better, I think sometimes winning a slam may count for too much. Don't mean to hijack the thread, but, is Gaudio, or Thomas Johansson better than Rios because they have won slams and he didnt ?

 

[35ft6]

Where's !Tym?

 

[FiveO]

Food for thought:

In his 1979 autobiography Jack Kramer, the long-time tennis promoter and great player himself, included Borg in his list of the 21 greatest players of all time. Writing in 1979, Kramer considered the best player ever to have been either Don Budge (for consistent play) or Ellsworth Vines (at the height of his game). The next four best were, chronologically, Bill Tilden, Fred Perry, Bobby Riggs, and Pancho Gonzales. After these six came the "second echelon" of Rod Laver, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Gottfried von Cramm, Ted Schroeder, Jack Crawford, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert, John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith, Björn Borg, and Jimmy Connors. He felt unable to rank Henri Cochet and René Lacoste accurately but felt they were among the very best.

Kramer "recruited", Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert and Laver, (among others) and watched them play on a nightly basis on the pro tour against each other as well as players like Segura and of course Gonzales, who he viewed as best of that bunch. Keep in mind too that as a player Kramer owned Gonzales and that he himself is viewed by tennis historians as one of the best ever to walk on a tennis court.

 

[Lleytian3]

No, you are assuming I rate Sampras as highly as Federer, which I don't - nowhere near in fact. Federer would have had the same effect on Sampras too.

Be very careful when you are arguing this point. they are still a lot of debae surrounding this federer-sampras ordeal. remember it did take 5 sets for federer to beat sampras, of course neither of them playing in their prime we wouldn't know for sure, who would really come out on top.

I would generally say it would be about even, neither of them could completely dominate the other, but i would lean to federer if their was a sampras fed matchup.

 

[fastdunn]

I think it's because Courier was better equiped at playing against S&Vers because he clearly had the better return on the backhand side. Also although Edberg was still in his volley prime in 92, his dodgy back was making his 2nd serve a liability aginst Jimbo's two hander.... I think Hewitt would have done the same!!

Not that Sampras in prime would not be able to beat Edberg.
By the time Sampras became a top dog, Edberg's decline already started
and never had chance to play Edberg in majors.

 

[newnuse]

Wilander became the then youngest ever winner of a Grand Slam when he won the 82 French. He remained one of the Worlds top players for 7 straight years form 1982-1988, with 88 being his best year of course.

I rate him clearly over Becker and Edberg because of his 3-slam year, and his being in that group of 7-8 slam winners which includes many of the greats which Edberg and Becker both just missed making.

I think most of the top players started playing the Aussie Open in the early 80s. In 1983 Wilander beat McEnroe in the semis, and Lendl in the final to win it. In 1984 Wilander won it with Curren, Becker, Cash, and Edberg in the field. In 1988 Wilander beat Edberg in the semis, and Cash in the final, with Lendl also in the semis that year.

I grew up during the 80's watching much tennis. The AO was a major in name only. It wasn't even shown on TV here in the USA. You barely heard news about the tournament. You can argue it wasn't even the 4th most important tournament during the 80's.

The 3 slam year by Wilander just was not all that important during the 80's. The AO started to come back after the schedule change and during the Sampras, Chang, Courier, Agassi generation... when those guys started playing in it.

If Mac had won the 84 FO, he would have played in the AO to complete the grand slam. He would have probably won the AO rather easily, but did not even bother to play it. He would have had a 3 slam year as well. It just wasn't that important in the 80's.

I discount the importance of the AO because I was there... following tennis closely during the 80's. It was a major in name only.

Wilander, Edberg, Becker... all great... all a notch below Lendl. Rate them how you want, but it's close between the 3.

 

[prosealster]

Not that Sampras in prime would not be able to beat Edberg.
By the time Sampras became a top dog, Edberg's decline already started
and never had chance to play Edberg in majors.

I'm not saying sampras cant beat Edberg.... I'm just saying that Jimbo was better equiped against players like Edberg.... even in 94/95 they were still having close matches...

When you said COurier was the man that was able to took down Edberg, I thought you were using that as a point in discussing courier vs hewitt.. what I was trying to say was that i think Hewitt would have similar success against Edberg

 

[anointedone]

This is how I would rate the 7 you all are speaking of:

1. Sampras
2. Wilander
3. Agassi
4. Lendl
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Federer

In that order.

 

[prosealster]

This is how I would rate the 7 you all are speaking of:

1. Sampras
2. Wilander
3. Agassi
4. Lendl
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Federer

In that order.

I thought you had Fed outside your top 100 of all time... and since the 90s you rate these following players higher than Fed
"Stefan Edberg, Michael Chang, Andre Agassi, Thomas Muster, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Stitch, Pete Sampras, Petr Korda, Richard Krajicek, Sergei Bruguera, Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin, Yevgeny Kaflenikov, Thomas Enqvist, Jim Courier, Patrick Rafter, Carlos Moya, Marcelo Rios, Alex Corretja, Tim Henman, Gustavo Kuerten, Nicholas Kiefer, Tommy Haas, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Sebastien Grosjean, Andy Roddick, Llleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Mark Phillipousis"

Seems Fed is moving up fast on your list :mrgreen:

 

[35ft6]

As far as I'm concerned, the farther back in time a player competed, the better he was at tennis. So Tilden is GOAT for now, but if scientists ever find the skeleton of a human-like primate somewhere in Mongolia and if that primate is lying near anything remotely resembling a tennis racket, or even a fishing net, I'm going to say he's the best. Better than Sampras, better than Federer, better than Ezra.

 

[Zimbo]

I grew up during the 80's watching much tennis. The AO was a major in name only. It wasn't even shown on TV here in the USA. You barely heard news about the tournament. You can argue it wasn't even the 4th most important tournament during the 80's.

The 3 slam year by Wilander just was not all that important during the 80's. The AO started to come back after the schedule change and during the Sampras, Chang, Courier, Agassi generation... when those guys started playing in it.

If Mac had won the 84 FO, he would have played in the AO to complete the grand slam. He would have probably won the AO rather easily, but did not even bother to play it. He would have had a 3 slam year as well. It just wasn't that important in the 80's.

I discount the importance of the AO because I was there... following tennis closely during the 80's. It was a major in name only.

Wilander, Edberg, Becker... all great... all a notch below Lendl. Rate them how you want, but it's close between the 3.

American bias. Just because it wasn't shown in the US doesn't mean it wasn't important. Fine, I'll give to you. It was the least important slam, but that doesn't take away the competition Wilander had to deal with to win 3 times. Also, you can't assume Mac would have won in '84. He was playing great that year and would have been the favourite but that's a pretty big assumption. He couldn't win it a yer prior.

 

[ctbmar]

This is how I would rate the 7 you all are speaking of:

1. Sampras
2. Wilander
3. Agassi
4. Lendl
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Federer

In that order.

Federer ranked 7?
Lendl below Wilander? Have you checked Lendl's head to head with Wilander?

 

[newnuse]

American bias. Just because it wasn't shown in the US doesn't mean it wasn't important. Fine, I'll give to you. It was the least important slam, but that doesn't take away the competition Wilander had to deal with to win 3 times. Also, you can't assume Mac would have won in '84. He was playing great that year and would have been the favourite but that's a pretty big assumption. He couldn't win it a yer prior.

The main point was Mac didn't even bother to show up for the AO. That's how important it was to him. Mac would have been the heavy favorite that year, but the possibility of winning 3 out of 4 slams that year was not even enough incentive for him to hop on the plane to Austrailia.

Wilanders 3 slam year in 1988 was just not that impressive because the AO was not all that. People look back now and talk about like it was a huge deal. If you grew up watching tennis in the 80's, you would know what I'm talking about.

All those years Borg won Wimbledon and the French, you don't think he was have won the AO a few times if he played??? He would have won 3 majors a few times, but he didn't even bother to play in the AO. Look it up, the only AO he played in was 73..... American bias...yeah... is Borg American???

People talk about shooting for the Grand Slam... they don't talk about shooting for 3 out of 4 majors.

People talk about how Lendl never won Wimble, how Borg never won the USO, how Mac never won the FO. I never hear people mention how Mac, Borg never won the AO.

 

[anointedone]

I thought you had Fed outside your top 100 of all time... and since the 90s you rate these following players higher than Fed
"Stefan Edberg, Michael Chang, Andre Agassi, Thomas Muster, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Stitch, Pete Sampras, Petr Korda, Richard Krajicek, Sergei Bruguera, Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin, Yevgeny Kaflenikov, Thomas Enqvist, Jim Courier, Patrick Rafter, Carlos Moya, Marcelo Rios, Alex Corretja, Tim Henman, Gustavo Kuerten, Nicholas Kiefer, Tommy Haas, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Sebastien Grosjean, Andy Roddick, Llleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Mark Phillipousis"

Seems Fed is moving up fast on your list :mrgreen:

I said of the 7 people were making lists for Federer was 7th best of the 7. That does not mean I dont have him below other people who were not on the lists people were making.

Anyway who rates Federer over any of Agassi, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, or Edberg are fools though. Yet almost everyone had him #2 of all players in the last 20 years or something, what garbage!

 

[drakulie]

This is how I would rate the 7 you all are speaking of:

1. Sampras
2. Wilander
3. Agassi
4. Lendl
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Federer

In that order.

Absolutely horrible.

 

[anointedone]

Absolutely horrible.

Ok tell me what is wrong with my list then.

 

[drakulie]

Ok tell me what is wrong with my list then.

No, I won't.

But know this.........your rankings are horrible!

 

[ragnaROK]

Courier by far.

 

[Zimbo]

The main point was Mac didn't even bother to show up for the AO. That's how important it was to him. Mac would have been the heavy favorite that year, but the possibility of winning 3 out of 4 slams that year was not even enough incentive for him to hop on the plane to Austrailia.

Wilanders 3 slam year in 1988 was just not that impressive because the AO was not all that. People look back now and talk about like it was a huge deal. If you grew up watching tennis in the 80's, you would know what I'm talking about.

All those years Borg won Wimbledon and the French, you don't think he was have won the AO a few times if he played??? He would have won 3 majors a few times, but he didn't even bother to play in the AO. Look it up, the only AO he played in was 73..... American bias...yeah... is Borg American???

People talk about shooting for the Grand Slam... they don't talk about shooting for 3 out of 4 majors.

People talk about how Lendl never won Wimble, how Borg never won the USO, how Mac never won the FO. I never hear people mention how Mac, Borg never won the AO.

I agreed with you already. The AO was not and is still not considered as BIG as the other three slams. However, Wilander did have stiff competition. Do you agreed? He had to beat out a lot of great players. McEnroe included ('83). When Wilander won the AO in '88 almost every top player was there. I can't remember but Becker was the only one that did not play. So Wilander winning 3 slams in '88 was impressive. If it's that easy how come Becker, Edberg, and Lendl did not do it? Come on give Wilandar his due. Remember Wilander also won the Lipton (considered the 5th slam) that year. Yes when Borg was playing may top players did not go down under but when Wilander was playing many did so.......

 

[Zimbo]

This is how I would rate the 7 you all are speaking of:

1. Sampras
2. Wilander
3. Agassi
4. Lendl
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Federer

In that order.

Come on now. I'm a huge Wilander fan. He's probably my favourite player of all time but I find it hard to justify him being place number 2 on your list. He might be a better big match player then Lendl (leads in H2H with Lendl in slam finals), but Lendl has to be consider higher then Wilander when considering greatest of all time. What's your justification? I really need to know.

 

[OnceWas]

Jim Courier was better. And I like Lleyton.

 

[superman1]

I remember when I was a little kid I had an argument with some relatives as to who was #1 in the world. I was adamant that it was Courier (even though I was too young to really follow tennis), and they said it was Sampras. I think that was about the time that Sampras overtook him. I can't remember why exactly I liked Courier, but I think it was because he looked like an action figure I had.

Anyway...so yeah, Courier is definitely higher in the list than Hewitt.

 

[anointedone]

Look I wont accept those of you who are putting Federer above guys like Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. It just is not right. Only a very biased Fed fan would put Federer above Becker, Edberg, and Wilander at this point.

 

[anointedone]

1st Tier: Sampras, Borg, Laver, Mac
2nd Tier: Lendl, Connors, Agassi
3rd Tier: Becker, Wilander, Edberg

Everyone take a look at newnuse for an example how a truly knowledgable poster rates greatness of players. He/she does not even put Federer on the level of Becker, Wilander, and Edberg. He/she, like me, recognizes Federer in career greatness is not as high as even Becker, Wilander, and Edberg right now, let alone above Agassi and Lendl like some of you insinuate.

Take a look at this excellent categorization from newnuse, and learn how an intelligent poster rates people.

 

[35ft6]

Jim Courier, Todd Martin, and Thomas Muster on Tennis Insiders on TTC. Todd Martin said every five years, the tour becomes better, "the top players get better." So today is better than five years ago, and so on. I know Todd was always considered one of the dumber players on tour, somebody who relied on raw athletic ability to win and not so much on playing intelligently, making the most of solid fundamentals, but he may be onto something. But he may want to consult with the 3.5 level players who have been following the tour for years before he rushes to judgment. The danger is that because was actually playing on the tour, he was too close to it to really get a good look at what was happening on the ATP. Sitting on your couch, watching tennis on TV, is undoubtedly the best way of gaining true understanding of the evolution of tennis.

 

[superman1]

Alright 35ft6, we get the sarcasm already!

I agree with you, though. The sport gets tougher and tougher, the players keep getting better. But that doesn't apply to the 90's, necessarily. Sampras would do just fine in this era or any era. If you watch Courier on the senior's tour, he hits the ball as hard as ever off the forehand side, so he'd do just fine. Would he win 4 Slams? Probably not.

 

[35ft6]

^ It's not only about hitting hard, unfortunately.

 

[superman1]

Tell that to Gonzo, Tursunov, Blake, etc. Courier always had great placement as well and his fitness was top-notch.