Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Ricardo]

What do you mean by "superstar?" If you mean "great player," which is what the term means in other sports, then Lendl most definitely was a superstar. If you mean "mega-celebrity" or some such, then maybe not.

Anyhow, I think we've got three general areas to consider, as far as all-time greatness. 1) Career resume - just the stats, m'am. 2) Peak greatness - this is a mixture of stats, but also perceptions about how good a player was at his best. 3) Celebrity, mystique, and basically "sex appeal."

If we rate all 1-10, we might come up with:
Borg: 8/9.5/10 = 27.5
Lendl: 9/9/7 = 25

Borg comes out ahead. But if we take out the last part, which is wholy subjective, it is Borg 17.5 to Lendl 18 (and no, I didn't plan that).

(I'm just using these numbers to illustrate a point)

oh boy can you just put away these ridiculous feel-good about yourself ranking and stats? i know you do these things A LOT to seek some kind of credibility but honestly, it's getting meaningless.....

and you had Pioline as 'underachiever' from hear-say? what the hell? i know you really don't know about tennis but try and spend some time 'watching' it before you spill out something insane....please.....Pioline was an over-achiever as he simply didn't have it, at best he was a James Blake, athletic and generally good player but without James's firepower.

anyway you have put Lendl above Borg, then you retract, then you go back to say its debatable.....and you put in 'mystique' to try and argue a 'no' case, just cut it and stop with the mystique bull crap. Borg was top echelon because he won many RG/Wimbledon in the same year which was something considered as incredibly difficult (and it is indeed), as nobody has done that. you kept trying to justify yourself by saying he quit early, well just think about the context. In comparison to Lendl (who i thought was under-appreciated by idiot Americans), he played a shorter period yet still won more events that mattered.

 

[britbox]

What's your Top 10 Ric?

 

[El Dude]

Ricardo, you're hard to take seriously because you always resort to ad hominems, which is an obvious and easy way to lose any debate. I have no interest in debating this further, because you clearly lack in the capacity to engage in civil discourse, to comprehend what others are saying, or even analyze basic statistical information. But keep on pontificating - you make us all look better for it.

Britbox, as I've said several times now, I'm not saying Lendl was greater, just that it is a lot closer than conventional wisdom says, as I think the numbers show if you look beyond the surface. There is nuance here that lesser minds will miss...as you can see above



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Haelfix]

I used to think there was a big three (Laver, Federer, Sampras) with Borg just on the outside looking in.

Now I think it's safe to say Rafa has entered that conversation and indeed displaced Borg and yes Federer has recently distanced himself from Laver.

So in my subjective rankings Fed is the best open era champ followed by Laver, Nadal and Sampras and Borg peaking in. Novak is getting very close to joining that elite group and leapfrogging Borg.

After that, it's very difficult, especially in rating Pancho (since i am dealing with open era champs). I'd say Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Agassi.

 

[Ricardo]

What's your Top 10 Ric?

For obvious reasons I would not include players earlier than Connors, so for me the list goes like

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Djokovic
5. Sampras
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Mac
9. Agassi
10. Edberg

 

[Federberg]

For obvious reasons I would not include players earlier than Connors, so for me the list goes like

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Djokovic
5. Sampras
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Mac
9. Agassi
10. Edberg

Hard to argue with that list. I would probably have Lendl above Connors, and maybe Sampras and Novak equal. But I wouldn't die in a ditch to argue against yours

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, you're hard to take seriously because you always resort to ad hominems, which is an obvious and easy way to lose any debate. I have no interest in debating this further, because you clearly lack in the capacity to engage in civil discourse, to comprehend what others are saying, or even analyze basic statistical information. But keep on pontificating - you make us all look better for it.

Britbox, as I've said several times now, I'm not saying Lendl was greater, just that it is a lot closer than conventional wisdom says, as I think the numbers show if you look beyond the surface. There is nuance here that lesser minds will miss...as you can see above



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't debate, nobody in right mind would have put Lendl above Borg.....nothing is wrong with conventional wisdom here, you just try and get smart. If you are capable of looking beyond surface, you would not have stated Pioline as an underachiever; clear you are mostly clueless on what you talk about. I am stating this as fact, that you have no idea...it's not personal attack so don't take it the wrong way (again). It's ok to be lesser mind, better than trying hard to wow us with something ridiculous.

 

[Ricardo]

Hard to argue with that list. I would probably have Lendl above Connors, and maybe Sampras and Novak equal. But I wouldn't die in a ditch to argue against yours

Both pairs are close but for me their potential in winning GS sort of determined the order for me.

 

[Federberg]

Y, I can understand that. Connors was more versatile. But what tips it for me is that Lendl was able to transfer his dominance from one group of greats to the next

 

[El Dude]

@Ricardo, I wrote a reply but decided to delete it because you're just not capable of rational discourse.

I honestly don't know what you add to this message board.

 

[Ricardo]

@Ricardo, I wrote a reply but decided to delete it because you're just not capable of rational discourse.

I honestly don't know what you add to this message board.

Oh please save your self proclaimed 'rational' talk. The ridiculous degree of lack of it is beyond amazing as shown by some of your statements.

You don't know what I add here? Well who pointed that Pioline wasn't some kind of underachiever you made out to be? Somebody needs to tell it like it is. Your selective stats to support your delusional statement should be pointed out, just up your game and stop whining.

 

[El Dude]

Your fixation on Pioline is beyond ridiculous. I don't even remember the context of the conversation. The real joke is that you haven't even explained why he wasn't an underachiever, you just that said that was false and I'm an idiot for even suggesting it.

It doesn't seem outrageous to think that a player who reached four big title finals, including two Slams, was possibly an underachiever. Even if he wasn't, it isn't crazy or stupid to think that he was based upon just that.

 

[Ricardo]

Your fixation on Pioline is beyond ridiculous. I don't even remember the context of the conversation. The real joke is that you haven't even explained why he wasn't an underachiever, you just that said that was false and I'm an idiot for even suggesting it.

It doesn't seem outrageous to think that a player who reached four big title finals, including two Slams, was possibly an underachiever. Even if he wasn't, it isn't crazy or stupid to think that he was based upon just that.

If that's all you base on, sorry to say but it is stupid. How is it a joke I haven't 'explained'? It's too basic really...even casual fans know better. Anyway I have explained, you just haven't paid attention. Bottom line, it was a 'surprise' for him to get into a slam final...he was not expected to. Like Mal Wash wasn't expected to, and thus have in fact 'overachieved' by reaching it.

According to your logic Mal and Ferrer are all underachievers...

 

[El Dude]

No, Ferrer is not an underachiever. I've often spoken of him as a good example of a player who maximized his talent.

So let's say Pioline isn't an underachiever. I'm fine with that and was never arguing that he was, just that he was a possibility. What does that mean, that I'm a "lesser mind" because I mentioned him in passing as a possible candidate? Or that I simply didn't know either way because I was only a very casual fan in the 90s and saw him mentioned by a couple others as an underachiever?

Clearly any reasonable person would realize it is the former, which just illustrates how ridiculous you are: not only did you make a mountain out of a molehill (because I wasn't at all fixated on Pioline and only mentioned him once in a list of other players), and also because you confuse ignorance for stupidity.

Or is this too subtle for you? Am I talking over your head? Let me know if I need to simplify for your lesser mind .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

I used to think there was a big three (Laver, Federer, Sampras) with Borg just on the outside looking in.

Now I think it's safe to say Rafa has entered that conversation and indeed displaced Borg and yes Federer has recently distanced himself from Laver.

So in my subjective rankings Fed is the best open era champ followed by Laver, Nadal and Sampras and Borg peaking in. Novak is getting very close to joining that elite group and leapfrogging Borg.

After that, it's very difficult, especially in rating Pancho (since i am dealing with open era champs). I'd say Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Agassi.

What would it take for Novak to leapfrog Borg, for you? He's passed him in Majors, and he has the career slam. Just asking, and as a Borg fan.

 

[Ricardo]

No, Ferrer is not an underachiever. I've often spoken of him as a good example of a player who maximized his talent.

So let's say Pioline isn't an underachiever. I'm fine with that and was never arguing that he was, just that he was a possibility. What does that mean, that I'm a "lesser mind" because I mentioned him in passing as a possible candidate? Or that I simply didn't know either way because I was only a very casual fan in the 90s and saw him mentioned by a couple others as an underachiever?

Clearly any reasonable person would realize it is the former, which just illustrates how ridiculous you are: not only did you make a mountain out of a molehill (because I wasn't at all fixated on Pioline and only mentioned him once in a list of other players), and also because you confuse ignorance for stupidity.

Or is this too subtle for you? Am I talking over your head? Let me know if I need to simplify for your lesser mind .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's right clearly I am going the former and that 'reasonable' person would indeed tell you that you are in fact a 'lesser mind'.....nailed it yourself there

Don't make it any more subtle all-dud as you clearly confuse stupidity for ignorance

 

[Haelfix]

What would it take for Novak to leapfrog Borg, for you? He's passed him in Majors, and he has the career slam. Just asking, and as a Borg fan.

Honestly thats a very good question. In most ways Djokovic has surpassed him. It's just that Borg was so impossibly good in his short career that he remains Tennis' ultimate what if story. There is a romanticism about him thats hard to deny. It would have been like if Federer had never been bad from 18-20, if he had just came on tour at 20 and then retired in 2007, basically unblemished by age or rivals that got better, or declining interest/performance etc. Of course that makes no sense logically speaking, but its a human reaction to patterns that leads us to assume
.
I think the big knock on Djokovic in my book at least remains the fact that he didn't become dominate until quite late in his career (which is unusual), at a point when his older rivals were beginning to fade. And then there was like the one year on, one year off quality about his peak. So there are moments where I say, wow he's like Borg. And then moments where I wonder if i'm crazy.

Borg stays for now.. Novak needs to give me another great year and then we talk (he might even vault Pete)

 

[Moxie]

Honestly thats a very good question. In most ways Djokovic has surpassed him. It's just that Borg was so impossibly good in his short career that he remains Tennis' ultimate what if story. There is a romanticism about him thats hard to deny. It would have been like if Federer had never been bad from 18-20, if he had just came on tour at 20 and then retired in 2007, basically unblemished by age or rivals that got better, or declining interest/performance etc. Of course that makes no sense logically speaking, but its a human reaction to patterns that leads us to assume
.
I think the big knock on Djokovic in my book at least remains the fact that he didn't become dominate until quite late in his career (which is unusual), at a point when his older rivals were beginning to fade. And then there was like the one year on, one year off quality about his peak. So there are moments where I say, wow he's like Borg. And then moments where I wonder if i'm crazy.

Borg stays for now.. Novak needs to give me another great year and then we talk (he might even vault Pete)

We've debated Borg some over the last couple of pages. And I get going a bit heart-over-head, sometimes. Borg has some things that make his record stand-out on stats, too. He's the 2nd most successful on clay, now surpassed by Nadal. Those 3 Channel Slams. He's still in the top 10 of weeks at #1, just behind Rafa, though Novak has more than double the number. But he only played the AO once, for example. This is where it starts to get hard to compare. And if we're still willing to venerate, rightly, Rod Laver, it's not wrong to keep Borg high up on the list. There's a what-if to had he not quit, but there's also, "what-if" credit given to Laver, had he not been prevented from playing Majors for 5 years. So, fair enough. Some historical perspective has got to be factored in. And I think Borg may have been the player who nearly single-handedly ushered in an era of tennis players making more in endorsements. He was tennis's first rock star.

 

[El Dude]

I think the big knock on Djokovic in my book at least remains the fact that he didn't become dominate until quite late in his career (which is unusual), at a point when his older rivals were beginning to fade.

I don't think this is quite fair, or at least has to be balanced by the fact that Novak rose to his best and dominated Rafa when Rafa was also at his best, in 2011. I've put forth the idea before that Rafa in 2011 as exactly as good as he was in 2010 when he had his best overall year, except against Novak.

there's also, "what-if" credit given to Laver, had he not been prevented from playing Majors for 5 years. So, fair enough. Some historical perspective has got to be factored in. And I think Borg may have been the player who nearly single-handedly ushered in an era of tennis players making more in endorsements. He was tennis's first rock star.

First of all, I think Connors was a bit of a rock star as well, and he came up earlier, although they rose to peak level around the same time.

Secondly, I don't agree with your assessment of Laver, because it isn't about "what if" with him - it is about what he did on the pro tour. He won 8 Pro Slams, which were probably just as as hard if not harder to win than amateur Slams in the 60s. Pro Slams were much shorter, either three or four rounds, but against the best of the best - kind of similar to the WTF today. This is also why Ken Rosewall is generally underrated - he won "only" 8 Grand Slams, but 15 Pro Slams - thus a tennis history record 23 majors.

Laver won his first Grand Slam in 1962 when he dominated the amateur tour, defeating Roy Emerson in three finals and Marty Mulligan in the fourth. The next year he went pro and played three Pro Slams, losing two in the final to Rosewall and one in the QF to Earl Buchholz. The view is that he had a hard time adjusting to the higher talent level. Once he adjusted he surpassed Rosewall (who had surpassed Gonzales) as the top pro player. But the point being, after utterly dominating the amateur tour, he struggled against the higher level of pro players before adjusting - not unlike a minor league player in baseball struggling at first to adjust to the major leagues.

Even though Pro Slams don't have the historical credibility of amateur Slams, and even if we think they were easier because of their short length, I still think they can act as "place-holders" for Slams - representing just how good a given player was - and should be accounted for in total majors won. So the list would actually be:

23 Rosewall
19 Laver
18 Federer
15 Nadal
14 Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras
12 Emerson, Djokovic
11 Borg
10 Perry, Budge

Or here's a hand little chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics#Most_major_singles_titles

 

[Moxie]

I don't dispute at all that Rafa was top drawer and healthy in 2011, and Novak bested him.

Not sure what to say about Connors, though, as a "rock star." He was one of the first to break out and make headlines, but was too much of a hot-head to be massively marketable, I think. It was Borg, and Chrissy and Martina that really brought tennis to the wider world, and Borg that stepped out of tennis and into Studio 54 and the realm of celebrity. Like it or not, he really was the first one.