Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Front242]

That's fair. And it's why I hated carpet.

It was a bit too fast alright at times. They need to get the balance right 'cos it'd be horrific viewing if Isner was the GOAT!

 

[Moxie]

It was a bit too fast alright at times. They need to get the balance right 'cos it'd be horrific viewing if Isner was the GOAT!

We agree. It is a funny thing about our sport that players have to adapt to so many surfaces, so many changes in balls, climate, indoor and outdoors. Maybe adaptability is a feature of greatness.

 

[Obsi]

This kind of rubbish post always annoys me as it makes no sense. Here's another for you, except this one is likely true.

Bullshit.

Would Djokovic have won Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015 and the USO 2015 if Federer wasn't over the hill?
Would Djokovic have won the 2016 French Open if Nadal didn't withdraw with a wrist injury in the 3rd round? Nadal was back playing very well on clay at the time. That's 4 slams right there already and I'm not in the mood for typing any more. All the above contributed to Djokovic holding all 4 slams at once btw and there's zero chance anyone would have managed this in the era Sampras played in when they had proper fast grass, slow clay, medium/slow AO and fast USO the way everything should have been kept for the sake of diversity.
Would Djokovic have won 12 slams if they weren't all nearly the same speed these days? We all know the answer to that.

Sampras wouldn’t have won Career Grand Slam in this era of homogenised surfaces. He was relatively speaking a bad clay courter. He wouldn’t win French Open in any era. Pete would’ve won less than 12 slams in the last ten years. Djokovic would’ve had a greater career in the 1990’s than Pete did. Novak is a better version of Agassi and Andre managed to win Career Grand Slam. At Wimbledon, Djokovic would’ve significantly less success than Sampras, but Novak would’ve compensated that at FO. Djokovic would’ve won less US Open titles than Sampras but more Australian Open.

The top 20 players at the time Sampras was playing were way better than right now btw.

Bullshit.

 

[Fiero425]

Not sure players from 20 years ago could hang with these stars of today! The one thing we can say is there were more winners of majors and Masters events! At any given time, Wimbledon or the USO could have 10-12 players who owned at least 1 major! Today we're lucky if we can manage half that; more of a chance with the ladies which is a complete flip when Martina and Chris owned it all! :whistle:

 

[Front242]

Not sure players from 20 years ago could hang with these stars of today! The one thing we can say is there were more winners of majors and Masters events! At any given time, Wimbledon or the USO could have 10-12 players who owned at least 1 major! Today we're lucky if we can manage half that; more of a chance with the ladies which is a complete flip when Martina and Chris owned it all! :whistle:

Yup, most people understood what I meant except OTM.

 

[Obsi]

Yup, most people understood what I meant except OTM.

This isn’t the first time you make an appeal to other posters and it shows you’re a deeply insecure individual. I don’t feel sorry for you really and actually I’m enjoying in your suffering. You’re a jerk so you deserve it.

I understood what you said. Your logic is idiotic. No need to explain why but I will do it: if Novak, Nadal, Federer and Murray didn’t exist, we would have now more players who own at least 1 major.

 

[Jelenafan]

The other thing is that it really was only in the Sampras era onward, when Pete made a conscious effort to surpass Roy Emerson's 12 Major total that winning X number of Majors became THE measuring stick. Borg never had a burning desire to add more Majors by going to the AO once he lost the USO every year.

The Current surface alignment of 1 grass, 1 red clay, and 2 Hardcourt Majors has been around since 1988. again pretty much the Sampras Era. To add just another of the "what if" scenarios, If Pete had played the AO on grass, who knows how many Majors he would have ended up winning. (Federer has played in the "homogenized" Major surfaces era, I don't think it's good or bad, just that he adapted to what was needed.)

Laver and Borg had the most extreme surfaces to win on (Wimbledon and the FO) at the same time.

More than his 14 Majors I think Sampras biggest scalp is the 6 years of YE #1.
If Nadal ends this year #1 then he's relatively close enough to Sampras on that stat (4 to 6) where the Major totals (16 to 14).would trump, but only just IMO....

I dunno, GOAT seems more a resume thing, different for me to "betting money" on who you would want to stake your life on to win a match for you on any given day.

On clay, it's hands down Rafa, whether he's the GOAT or not.
Grass, it's a tossup to me on Sampras or Federer.
Hardcourts I would give the nod to Djokovic.
Indoor Carpet Pancho Gonzales.

 

[Federberg]

The other thing is that it really was only in the Sampras era onward, when Pete made a conscious effort to surpass Roy Emerson's 12 Major total that winning X number of Majors became THE measuring stick. Borg never had a burning desire to add more Majors by going to the AO once he lost the USO every year.

The Current surface alignment of 1 grass, 1 red clay, and 2 Hardcourt Majors has been around since 1988. again pretty much the Sampras Era. To add just another of the "what if" scenarios, If Pete had played the AO on grass, who knows how many Majors he would have ended up winning. (Federer has played in the "homogenized" Major surfaces era, I don't think it's good or bad, just that he adapted to what was needed.)

Laver and Borg had the most extreme surfaces to win on (Wimbledon and the FO) at the same time.

More than his 14 Majors I think Sampras biggest scalp is the 6 years of YE #1.
If Nadal ends this year #1 then he's relatively close enough to Sampras on that stat (4 to 6) where the Major totals (16 to 14).would trump, but only just IMO....

I dunno, GOAT seems more a resume thing, different for me to "betting money" on who you would want to stake your life on to win a match for you on any given day.

On clay, it's hands down Rafa, whether he's the GOAT or not.
Grass, it's a tossup to me on Sampras or Federer.
Hardcourts I would give the nod to Djokovic.
Indoor Carpet Pancho Gonzales.

I agree with a lot of this. In fact I've said the same myself. Slam totals are a relatively new construct. It's unfair to judge players who didn't care much about acquiring large numbers of them against this new modern standard. Not sure I would give the nod to Novak on hardcourt. Slow hard courts maybe, but even then one could argue a bit. The most prolific winner of hard court slams is Federer. It's not close. And winning at Flushing 5 years in a row is a feat that may not be matched for a long time. It's hard to give anyone else the nod over that

 

[atttomole]

I get why you say this, and I agree that Roger would have done well in both eras. But it doesn't account for how Nadal and Djokovic, as 2 all-time greats, would have developed their games in a different era. Remember only Roger, of the 3, really straddled a more S&V era.

Its true that it does not account for how Nadal or Djokovic would have developed their games, but I still doubt if Nadal's serve would have been that much better than it is. Nadal would have dominated the FO regardless. Djokovic most likely would have had an Agassi-like career, but with more slams.

 

[Federberg]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/18/roger-federer-suggests-hes-not-actually-the-goat-after-all-7010791/

Seems Roger agrees that it's unfair to compare with some of the earlier Open era guys who weren't slam chasing. Smart man!

 

[El Dude]

That's why I think all GOAT lists have to offer clear parameters as to what they're based on. They can be nebulous, with "greatness" being more a gut feeling, but they should state so.

The only thing I dislike is when GOAT lists are almost entirely based on Slam counts. This is problematic and just plain ignorant for a number of reasons, perhaps most clearly explained on comparing Roy Emerson (12 GS) to Rod Laver (11 GS). A modern comparison of how much better Laver was than Emerson would be something like Federer vs. Hewitt or maybe, if we're kind, Djokovic vs. Murray. In other words, an entirely different level of player. If Laver hadn't gone pro he'd probably have 20+ GS titles, and Emerson less than five.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a list of players who are most underrated by GOAT list makers, mainly because they are so biased towards GS titles:

1. Pancho Gonzales - 2 Slams but 12 Pro Slams - played pro for 18 years; beat a 19-year old Jimmy Connors at age 43!
2. Ken Rosewall - "only" 8 GS, but 15 Pro Slams - so the highest "major" count in tennis history at 23. Longest span-winning range of 20 years!
3. Lew Hoad - Super high peak but marred by injuries. Was comparable to Laver and Rosewall in talent level; the Marat Safin of his era
4. Tony Wilding - Died at age 31 after being the best player in the sport for a decade. Pretty much forgotten, but the best player of the pre-Tilden era
5. Ilie Nastase - Not quite a true great, but closer to Becker/Edberg than he is to other 2-Slam winners

Or something like that - those are the guys that came to mind.

 

[Fiero425]

That's why I think all GOAT lists have to offer clear parameters as to what they're based on. They can be nebulous, with "greatness" being more a gut feeling, but they should state so.

The only thing I dislike is when GOAT lists are almost entirely based on Slam counts. This is problematic and just plain ignorant for a number of reasons, perhaps most clearly explained on comparing Roy Emerson (12 GS) to Rod Laver (11 GS). A modern comparison of how much better Laver was than Emerson would be something like Federer vs. Hewitt or maybe, if we're kind, Djokovic vs. Murray. In other words, an entirely different level of player. If Laver hadn't gone pro he'd probably have 20+ GS titles, and Emerson less than five.

But Laver did go pro and that's that! Winning majors has always been the standard and in my day it was all about Wimbledon & The USO! If not for Sampras and his late run to break men's record held by Emerson with 12, we would have had to wait until Fedalovic to come along! Pete separated himself from Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, & Lendl which brought back the men's record to mean something since it was an OPEN record unlike Emerson's Pre-Open! All the majors are still tiered, but they're the most equal as they've ever been in the history of the game!

 

[britbox]

Here's a list of players who are most underrated by GOAT list makers, mainly because they are so biased towards GS titles:

1. Pancho Gonzales - 2 Slams but 12 Pro Slams - played pro for 18 years; beat a 19-year old Jimmy Connors at age 43!
2. Ken Rosewall - "only" 8 GS, but 15 Pro Slams - so the highest "major" count in tennis history at 23. Longest span-winning range of 20 years!
3. Lew Hoad - Super high peak but marred by injuries. Was comparable to Laver and Rosewall in talent level; the Marat Safin of his era
4. Tony Wilding - Died at age 31 after being the best player in the sport for a decade. Pretty much forgotten, but the best player of the pre-Tilden era
5. Ilie Nastase - Not quite a true great, but closer to Becker/Edberg than he is to other 2-Slam winners

Or something like that - those are the guys that came to mind.

I still can't count a pro major on the same level as a modern day major... sometimes there were only 12 players in the tournament... so I don't buy Rosewall's count as being that high for comparative measurement.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, we've done this dance before. I agree that a pro major isn't on the same level as a modern day major, but neither was an amateur major. It is virtually impossible to compare Slams before the Open Era with Open Era Slams. So we either don't do it at all, or we do the best we can. What I don't see as a valid approach, but is the default mode, is counting amateur and Open Slams, but ignoring Pro. So history--and the uninformed tennis fan--thinks that Roy Emerson was a much greater player with his 12 amateur Slams than Pancho Gonzales with his 2.

 

[El Dude]

But Laver did go pro and that's that! Winning majors has always been the standard and in my day it was all about Wimbledon & The USO! If not for Sampras and his late run to break men's record held by Emerson with 12, we would have had to wait until Fedalovic to come along! Pete separated himself from Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, & Lendl which brought back the men's record to mean something since it was an OPEN record unlike Emerson's Pre-Open! All the majors are still tiered, but they're the most equal as they've ever been in the history of the game!

Fiero, did any reasonably informed tennis fan in the 1960s not consider Rod Laver the best player in the world? And, for most of that decade, Ken Rosewall the second best?

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, did any reasonably informed tennis fan in the 1960s not consider Rod Laver the best player in the world? And, for most of that decade, Ken Rosewall the second best?

...and? What about it? Does that relate to argument about Fedalovic & Sampras being the best of all time since they're holders of the most majors? :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[El Dude]

...and? What about it? Does that relate to argument about Fedalovic & Sampras being the best of all time since they're holders of the most majors? :whistle: :cuckoo:

Because being the "holders of the most majors" does not automatically equate with being the best of all time - unless we take a very simplistic approach to it.

Now i'm not saying they aren't the best, just that holding the most majors doesn't automatically equate to that, especially when the majors as they are now--all players playing all four of them--has only been stable for the last 30ish years.

Actually, if we want to put a date to it I'd say 1995 - which is only 22 years ago. Why 1995? Because it was the first time Andre Agassi played the AO, after being on tour for almost a decade. Why is that important? Because he is the last great player, as far as I can tell off-hand, who completely opted out of a major for an extended period of time. Alternately we can look at 1987, when the AO switched to January, which is also when the level of competition jumped. Either way, we're talking 30 years at most.

 

[britbox]

Yeah, we've done this dance before. I agree that a pro major isn't on the same level as a modern day major, but neither was an amateur major. It is virtually impossible to compare Slams before the Open Era with Open Era Slams. So we either don't do it at all, or we do the best we can. What I don't see as a valid approach, but is the default mode, is counting amateur and Open Slams, but ignoring Pro. So history--and the uninformed tennis fan--thinks that Roy Emerson was a much greater player with his 12 amateur Slams than Pancho Gonzales with his 2.

Well, we're both agreed that neither an Amateur Major or a Pro Major are comparable to a modern day major. So, I don't really use either to compare.

I do roll my eyes at Rosewall's count to be honest. He won his amateur majors in a field without most of the really top players and won his pro majors in a field that was so small that you could probably cram them into a family sized car. None of his majors are comparable to a 128 man field + qualifiers. I know they can only play what's in front of them, but in a full field, Rosewall wouldn't have won 23 majors.

 

[El Dude]

Probably not, no, but that doesn't take away from some of his remarkable accomplishments. to me the most impressive is his Slam-winning span of 20 years: his first at 18, last at 37. Pancho, Hoad, Laver, and Connors were all better in their primes, but Muscles was right there for all of them.

Overall I think Rosewall is historically underrated, because of the "Slam Title Fallacy" (which I would define as "the reduction of a player's greatness to their Slam title count"). He's definitely top ten in my book. In fact, the only three players I'm comfortable saying were greater are the "Three Rs": Rod, Roger, and Rafa. Ken's in the mix for #4 along with Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras, and Novak.