Tennis Channel's "100 Greatest of All Time"

[britbox]

Look at this Tennis Channel's list. The top guys put Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales. None with high level knowledge of tennis history considers Roy greater than Pancho.

Yep. No way Emerson should be above Pancho. Connors had Pancho down as the best ever... at least prior to the recent era.

 

[Moxie]

Still disagree with Billie Jean King, who doesn't belong anywhere near the Top 10 IMO - her narrative about equality should see the women play the men.

That's bosh. She played Riggs to prove a point. Do you discount her for her tennis, or for her fight for equality in tennis? In any case, TC made its own list, as they said, and I think her influence on the game, on and off the courts, accounts for her listing at #10. Not for nothing, the tennis center where the USO is played is name for her. And she was a great player.

 

[El Dude]

Billie Jean King is probably top 10 among women; the only players I can think of off the top of my head who were clearly greater are Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court, and Moody. I'm sure I'm missing someone. After that it gets dicey - Venus? Seles? Henin? Hingis? Women's tennis seems to have clearly tiers than men's, in terms of all-time greats.

 

[El Dude]

Yep. No way Emerson should be above Pancho. Connors had Pancho down as the best ever... at least prior to the recent era.

Pancho and Jimmy played three times, the first when Pancho was 43 and Jimmy 18 or 19. Pancho won, although Jimmy won the next two. But yeah, Pancho was the greatest tennis player in the era between Tilden (20s and 30s) and Laver/Rosewall (60s). He was by far the greatest player of the 50s.

 

[Moxie]

First, the women's players should never be grouped with the men in any list. It has nothing to do with being sexist or equality. They play and compete in two different leagues, period. There should simply be separate llists of greatest women, and greatest men. Otherwise, I could make a great case for Esther Vergeer as being the greatest tennis player by far. It's difficult enough comparing men from different generations, or women from different generations, much less putting each together and not fair to either.

So despite the way TC does it and any agenda they might have, and there are others that do the same, I just prefer to separate them in my own mind.

Second, this is at least 6 years out-of-date and perhaps if and when they do another version things will be different.


Respectfully,
masterclass

Respectfully, MC, it's still tennis, and anyone has a right to organize their list as they prefer. And there are women who have had clearly better careers than plenty of men. Don't like comparing apples to oranges? Then we shouldn't compare across eras, either. It's just a laugh, and designed to make the likes of us argue on and on.

 

[britbox]

That's bosh. She played Riggs to prove a point. Do you discount her for her tennis, or for her fight for equality in tennis? In any case, TC made its own list, as they said, and I think her influence on the game, on and off the courts, accounts for her listing at #10. Not for nothing, the tennis center where the USO is played is name for her. And she was a great player.

If you're mixing the greatest women and men together King is a never a Top 10 contender.

 

[El Dude]

I dislike the mixing of men and women, but I think you can kind of do it if you do what i advocate in ranking across generations: look at relative dominance. That said, the top few players would all be women as women have dominated the sport in a way men rarely have. Serena, Steffi, Martina, Court, maybe Evert and Moody, were all as or more dominant of their field than any man. It is just a bad idea, I think.

 

[Moxie]

If you're mixing the greatest women and men together King is a never a Top 10 contender.

According to TC she is. They're using different criteria than you would. You can make your own list. But even Gretzky said they were wading into controversial territory.

 

[britbox]

According to TC she is. They're using different criteria than you would. You can make your own list. But even Gretzky said they were wading into controversial territory.

I'd put her in a Top 10 of Women's Rights advocates. Like Dude and Masterclass mentioned, I don't like them mixing the men and the women together either.

 

[Moxie]

I'd put her in a Top 10 of Women's Rights advocates. Like Dude and Masterclass mentioned, I don't like them mixing the men and the women together either.

More than any other reason, I would hope, because it just complicates things, exponentially, on an otherwise already complicated topic. But a site like TC will do it because it's compelling, not because it's specifically accurate, as these things never are, anyway. And I think there's another valid reason: to keep from ghettoizing women's tennis. To point out that some of the greatest players in the game have been women.

 

[Ricardo]

That's bosh. She played Riggs to prove a point. Do you discount her for her tennis, or for her fight for equality in tennis? In any case, TC made its own list, as they said, and I think her influence on the game, on and off the courts, accounts for her listing at #10. Not for nothing, the tennis center where the USO is played is name for her. And she was a great player.

it proves nothing, first Riggs was 60 yo so playing a grandpa doesn't show you actually beat a 'guy'. Also, Riggs was known for betting. After he beat Court who was obvious superior player than King, he would profit hugely by betting against himself. Did he lose to King? yes, but is there huge motivation for him to profit by losing? i think its stating the obvious.

Her tennis alone, is not worthy of the ranking.....that's Brit's point. it is also plain obvious that they 'upgraded' her ranking as it fits the PC narrative (under the guise called 'equality'). She didn't fight for 'equality', no women ever did, they only pushed for their own interest......to even talk about 'equality' you need to be in a level playing field, so don't bullshit us about it.

 

[Ricardo]

More than any other reason, I would hope, because it just complicates things, exponentially, on an otherwise already complicated topic. But a site like TC will do it because it's compelling, not because it's specifically accurate, as these things never are, anyway. And I think there's another valid reason: to keep from ghettoizing women's tennis. To point out that some of the greatest players in the game have been women.

again its inaccurate, it is actually "some of the greatest in the 'womens' game have been 'women'." It's like saying the best players in minor league get the same recognition for 'greatness' as the best in major league, sorry to tell you but this logic is just 'Moxian'

 

[Ricardo]

Respectfully, MC, it's still tennis, and anyone has a right to organize their list as they prefer. And there are women who have had clearly better careers than plenty of men. Don't like comparing apples to oranges? Then we shouldn't compare across eras, either. It's just a laugh, and designed to make the likes of us argue on and on.

it's still valid comparing eras as the best of each era is the best in the world......against the best players of their time. But comparing women to men? you are comparing club level players to pro's, it's just different level....now tell me that's debatable.

now go compare go kart to F1 drivers.

 

[Obsi]

I'm not defending the list in anyway. I generally don't place much utility in those lists. I merely make the point that it's absurd (to me) to disregard what top players think. The idea they don't have a passion for the sports history isn't backed up by my experience.

If they claim Emerson is greater than Gonzales, then their opinion needs to be disregarded.

While I'm ready to accept the consensus that Gonzales is a better player, it's clear that they are basing their list on slam counts

You won't find real tennis historians who use such criteria. Emerson won all his 12 slams before the Open era when the best players in the world (Laver and Rosewall) were professionals. When the Open era started, Emerson couldn't reach a semifinal at slams, let alone win it.

 

[Federberg]

If they claim Emerson is greater than Gonzales, then their opinion needs to be disregarded.



You won't find real tennis historians who use such criteria. Emerson won all his 12 slams before the Open era when the best players in the world (Laver and Rosewall) were professionals. When the Open era started, Emerson couldn't reach a semifinal at slams, let alone win it.

You keep talking like I'm defending the list. I think more than anyone on this thread I've discussed exactly why I think it's all nonsense. But the idea that former tennis players don't appreciate tennis history is a joke mate.

 

[mrzz]

You keep talking like I'm defending the list. I think more than anyone on this thread I've discussed exactly why I think it's all nonsense. But the idea that former tennis players don't appreciate tennis history is a joke mate.

Yes, @Obsi, if you pay attention, most, not to say all, posters here simply give zero value for the actual order of the list. @Federberg was indeed the leading voice criticizing it. I think it was @Moxie who put rightly that ultimately this lists are good only as conversation inducers. We had endless debates in the past about how subjective "greatest" is, so it is pointless to go back to it.

You make a valid point, though, to judge the list by some particular ordering. We would, after all, completely disregard it if it would put Fognini ahead of Federer... One way or another, most posters simply won´t give too much attention to the particular order it has, even if it is of course nice to see your favorite player as #1 (which is my case, take that you damn´d Nadal fans).

@Federberg again has a point that a lot of former tennis players do appreciate tennis history, and I am pretty sure some of them must have a great knowledge about it. On the other hand, yes, being and old pro does not make you an historian, and in fact you could even have a good knowledge of certain facts, but be completely biased -- that is the problem of "amateur" historians, and is quite likely that old players could well fall in this category. But this is tennis, not Middle Ages, you won´t find university departments specialized on this, so we better accept what we get. There may be some journalists out there pretty good at it, sure, but it is not the same.

But, you know what? I still prefer the the experts here in our boards.

P.S. Obviously my countryman (cityman? is there a word to describe someone from the same city?) Kuerten should be #1.

 

[Obsi]

You keep talking like I'm defending the list. I think more than anyone on this thread I've discussed exactly why I think it's all nonsense. But the idea that former tennis players don't appreciate tennis history is a joke mate.

You said earlier that most of the former pros are historians and that is a joke mate.

 

[El Dude]

Here's another way of putting it: Being an athlete, even a great athlete, does not make you a scholar - even of your own sport. I bet most of us here know more about tennis history than most players.

As for the notion of the futility of making a list, what if we thought more in terms of tiers or groups of players? Maybe if we were more vague we could, at the same time, be a bit more accurate and firm?

So for example, we could group players as follows:

First Tier - Inner Circle, or GOAT candidates: Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Second Tier - True Greats: Wilding, L Doherty, Budge, Riggs, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi
Third Tier - Lesser Greats: Vines, Perry, Crawford, Parker, Cochet, Borotra, Kramer, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Drobny, Hoad, Emerson, Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker
Fourth Tier - Borderline, or Near-Greats: Fraser, Patty, Santana, Cooper, Ashe, Nastase, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Murray
Fifth Tier - Very Good, but not quite Greats: Stolle, Gimeno, Roche, Smith, Orantes, Gerulaitis, Muster, Ivanesivic, Chang, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Wawrinka, etc

(This is list is not meant to be exhaustive - just what I could put together in a few minutes)

This opens up questions about which group a player truly belongs in . For instance, does Sampras (and Rafa and Novak) belong with the true inner circle greats? If Rafa and Novak don't, what do they need to accomplish to get there? Is Murray still a near-great or is he now in the "lesser great" group? Etc.

 

[Federberg]

You said earlier that most of the former pros are historians and that is a joke mate.

If you say so. I find it funny that you find some stuff on the internet and you dismiss the views of people who've actually played. Fair enough, that's your call. I sense you just want to be argumentative now. As I said before the pros I've spoken to have an exceptional grasp of tennis history. That's my personal experience

 

[Obsi]

If you say so. I find it funny that you find some stuff on the internet and you dismiss the views of people who've actually played. Fair enough, that's your call. I sense you just want to be argumentative now. As I said before the pros I've spoken to have an exceptional grasp of tennis history. That's my personal experience

Speak to Steve Flink and Joel Drucker (real historians) and ask them the following question:

"Would you say that guys who claim Roy Emerson is greater than Pancho Gonzales, to have a high level knowledge of tennis history?"

I'm pretty confident you'd get a negative answer.