Tennis.com's "50 Greatest Players of Open Era" - who are your top 25?

[Moxie]

I think that's quite a good counter-argument with Laver. The global reach of tennis was a lot smaller and he was playing on fragmented tours.

Thanks. Here's my problem with Tignor: he chickened out and went politic on his last choices. No one knows where to put Laver. But to me, either you go all in with the 2 CYGS's, or you don't. Sandwiching him in between Roger and Rafa was safe to the point of cowardly. And I don't think it makes complete sense.

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, I'm not clear that Laver surpassed Rafa either! For all-time greats I do give him the edge, but think it is debatable.

To address your points, as far as dominance goes, we're not talking about the Two Andys, who rank in the 15-25 range in the Open Era; we're talking about GOAT candidates. So yeah, dominance is very, very important. This is also why Ken Rosewall is a step below the true inner circle; he had an incredible 20-year Slam-winning span and was a top 5 player for two whole decades - a level of consistent greatness unlike anyone except for Bill Tilden - but he was almost always the 2nd or 3rd best player on tour, never really the best.

As for the international/pool argument, I addressed this with the Babe Ruth comment. We either consider players relative to their context or we try to compare accomplishments across eras. The latter is impossible and, I think, unfair to older players. The former is also problematic, but less so.

Finally, the pro tour. I actually don't play the "what if" game with Laver (and others); instead, I look at what they actually did accomplishment - and that includes pro tournaments. Remember that most of the very best players were on the pro tour; Roy Emerson dominated the amateur circuit in the 60s, and he was a far lesser player than Laver or Rosewall, not to mention Hoad or Gonzales.

EDIT: And while I know pro Slams don't compare to Open Era Slams, and were only 3-4 rounds vs. the 7 rounds of even the amateur Slams, I do think they act well as placeholders for Slams, and are majors in their own right. Rosewall won 23 majors in all, Laver 19, and Gonzales 14. Those are better indicators than their amateur/Open only (8, 11, and 2, respectively).

 

[britbox]

Thanks. Here's my problem with Tignor: he chickened out and went politic on his last choices. No one knows where to put Laver. But to me, either you go all in with the 2 CYGS's, or you don't. Sandwiching him in between Roger and Rafa was safe to the point of cowardly. And I don't think it makes complete sense.

Can you go all in with 2 CYGS though? We talk about Laver's 11 slams and 2 CGYS with an almost certainty that he would have won more if he hadn't turned pro.

People add a bunch of slams and come up with figures of 18 to 20+... what they also forget is that Laver's first few slams and his first CYGS must come under the same scrutiny. Laver got spanked when he first joined the pro tour, so there is an argument that some of those original amateur slams and the first CYGS would not have been secured if the other pros were playing the same tour at the time.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks. Here's my problem with Tignor: he chickened out and went politic on his last choices. No one knows where to put Laver. But to me, either you go all in with the 2 CYGS's, or you don't. Sandwiching him in between Roger and Rafa was safe to the point of cowardly. And I don't think it makes complete sense.

So if Tignor went political, you seem to be going personal...not sure that is better! But again, none of this makes "complete sense."

Can you go all in with 2 CYGS though? We talk about Laver's 11 slams and 2 CGYS with an almost certainty that he would have won more if he hadn't turned pro.

People add a bunch of slams and come up with figures of 18 to 20+... what they also forget is that Laver's first few slams and his first CYGS must come under the same scrutiny. Laver got spanked when he first joined the pro tour, so there is an argument that some of those original amateur slams and the first CYGS would not have been secured if the other pros were playing the same tour at the time.

But you could use that same argument to support his Pro Slams as valid majors because of the higher level of the pro tour. And the fact is that Laver did adjust to the pro tour, and he did dominate it.

 

[Moxie]

But didn't he "dominate" a reduced field?

 

[El Dude]

In other words, @Moxie, I don't like the idea of assuming Tignor is copping out due to political reasons. He may simply believe that Laver deserves to be considered above Rafa, as others do. It doesn't have to be about separating Fedal or being biased towards Roger. Laver was an amazing player, the best of the 1960s, and with one of the most important accomplishments in sports history - and the only player to do it twice - and seven years apart, no less.

 

[Moxie]

Also, I get that Tignor's choice could be called "personal," and that you could go with either. But the point of this thread is to debate it, right?

 

[britbox]

So if Tignor went political, you seem to be going personal...not sure that is better! But again, none of this makes "complete sense."

But you could use that same argument to support his Pro Slams as valid majors because of the higher level of the pro tour. And the fact is that Laver did adjust to the pro tour, and he did dominate it.

Yes, but in Laver's case, people are generally assuming he gets the benefit of the doubt on both counts... i.e. He would have won his amateur slams anyway and his pro slams count too... I'm saying that's having your cake and eating it twice.

 

[El Dude]

But didn't he "dominate" a reduced field?

Of course, and that's why I tend to privilege more recent players. But I see "greatness" as being relative to context - it is the only way we can judge it. I mean, how can it be otherwise?

To put it another way, let me use a baseball analogy (a sport I know more about than tennis). A .350 batting average isn't the same year to year; it depends upon the league average, and thus how pitching and batting relate in a given year or era. But the batting champion is the batting champion. Today it is more impressive because there is a fully international pool of talent and each league has 15 teams, while say 70 years ago it was all-white and there were 8 teams in a league. But a player can only be compared against the context he played within.

Now we could play it safe and stick to Open Era only, but even then the problem is still there. It is easier to compare Jimmy Connors to Roger Federer than it is Bill Tilden to Roger, but still not perfect.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, but in Laver's case, people are generally assuming he gets the benefit of the doubt on both counts... i.e. He would have won his amateur slams anyway and his pro slams count too... I'm saying that's having your cake and eating it twice.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't do that because I just look at what he did accomplish, and that speaks for itself.

The other side, though, is ignoring what he might have done if he had stayed amateur AND ignoring his pro accomplishments...which is, I think, what you are implying we should do. That's not eating your cake at all .

 

[britbox]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't do that because I just look at what he did accomplish, and that speaks for itself.

The other side, though, is ignoring what he might have done if he had stayed amateur AND ignoring his pro accomplishments...which is, I think, what you are implying we should do. That's not eating your cake at all .

I'm not disputing his "greatness"... but I think sometimes over-inflated numbers get bandied around...

Laver has eleven slams... if we're going to add some pro slams to that number then we should take away some of the amateur slams too, because he may well have lost some of the early ones. He'll still end up with net increase, just not as big as some people seem to think.

 

[Moxie]

Of course, and that's why I tend to privilege more recent players. But I see "greatness" as being relative to context - it is the only way we can judge it. I mean, how can it be otherwise?

To put it another way, let me use a baseball analogy (a sport I know more about than tennis). A .350 batting average isn't the same year to year; it depends upon the league average, and thus how pitching and batting relate in a given year or era. But the batting champion is the batting champion. Today it is more impressive because there is a fully international pool of talent and each league has 15 teams, while say 70 years ago it was all-white and there were 8 teams in a league. But a player can only be compared against the context he played within.

Now we could play it safe and stick to Open Era only, but even then the problem is still there. It is easier to compare Jimmy Connors to Roger Federer than it is Bill Tilden to Roger, but still not perfect.

Bill Tilden didn't play in the open era. I think you're muddying the waters. I'm not attacking you, only questioning Tignor's choices and wondering what we do with Laver. It IS difficult. But here's my argument for Nadal: he actually DOES have 16 Majors. First to hold Majors on 3 surfaces simultaneously. Youngest to have the career Slam, except for Rod's CYGS, in the pre-Open Era. Played a vastly larger and more diverse field. Has dominated the choice for #1. Has actually dominated most players he's played for all of his career. He's on the short list of weeks at #1. And he's the greatest of all time on clay. I'm just saying that there's a solid argument for him as #2 on the list, and Laver's is full of conjecture. And you don't have to defend Tignor's choices. You brought them here so we could debate them, which I appreciate.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not disputing his "greatness"... but I think sometimes over-inflated numbers get bandied around...

Laver has eleven slams... if we're going to add some pro slams to that number then we should take away some of the amateur slams too, because he may well have lost some of the early ones. He'll still end up with net increase, just not as big as some people seem to think.

Again, I don't agree with this - that if we add the pro Slams we have to subtract amateur ones. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[El Dude]

Bill Tilden didn't play in the open era. I think you're muddying the waters. I'm not attacking you, only questioning Tignor's choices and wondering what we do with Laver. It IS difficult. But here's my argument for Nadal: he actually DOES have 16 Majors. First to hold Majors on 3 surfaces simultaneously. Youngest to have the career Slam, except for Rod's CYGS, in the pre-Open Era. Played a vastly larger and more diverse field. Has dominated the choice for #1. Has actually dominated most players he's played for all of his career. He's on the short list of weeks at #1. And he's the greatest of all time on clay. I'm just saying that there's a solid argument for him as #2 on the list, and Laver's is full of conjecture. And you don't have to defend Tignor's choices. You brought them here so we could debate them, which I appreciate.

I know Tilden didn't play in the Open Era...I'm confused why you feel you need to say that. I was using him as a reference point for a different era.

And yeah, I agree that there's a solid argument for Rafa at #2. I also think there's a solid argument for Laver, and a slightly better one. But I couldn't be convinced otherwise, and might feel different in another year or two. But right now my choice is Laver.

Here's another reason why: As of this writing, I don't think there's a good argument to rank Rafa above Roger. But I do think there's a vaguely decent argument to rank Laver above Roger. I'm not saying I would do it - I wouldn't - just that you can make an argument for it, or at least a better one than Rafa.

To put that another way, I'm about 90% confident in ranking Roger over Rafa (right now), but maybe only 70% confident in Roger over Laver. Laver over Rafa? Maybe 60%.

 

[Moxie]

I haven't tried to make an argument for Rafa over Roger. And I've made my argument for Rafa over Laver, which I think is reasonably argued. Here's a question: since Laver is such an ephemeral target, what would Rafa have to do, in your estimation, to surpass him?

 

[britbox]

Again, I don't agree with this - that if we add the pro Slams we have to subtract amateur ones. That doesn't make sense to me.

The principle is simple...

You're (I think) saying that as the pro players were generally of a better standard then they would have captured the majors on a combined tour. Yeah? So the amateur slams have less value during the split tour as they weren't generally the best players at any given time.

So why doesn't that same theory apply to Laver when he was an amateur? He won the CYGS, turned pro and got trounced by Rosewall initially. Doesn't that make the first CGYS less valid than his second one?

 

[El Dude]

I haven't tried to make an argument for Rafa over Roger. And I've made my argument for Rafa over Laver, which I think is reasonably argued. Here's a question: since Laver is such an ephemeral target, what would Rafa have to do, in your estimation, to surpass him?

The problem with Rafa's record is that it is...asymmetrical, if that makes sense. I can't quite think of another word. As some, including myself, have said before, he's the greatest specialist in tennis history, but as a generalist he's got some holes or limitations to his resume: significantly fewer weeks at #1 than several others, no World Tour Finals (or equivalent), and a lopsided Slam resume.

Nothing wrong with that - he's still incredibly great - but I think it would be hard for him to get that well-roundedness that a true GOAT needs, in my opinion.

My point being, to be the GOAT -- or even just to surpass the "other GOAT" -- he would have to do one of two things:

1) Be so ridiculously accomplished in his specialization (e.g. win 2-3+ more French Opens, more clay titles)...and/or

2) Round out his overall record (e.g. win another couple Slams off clay, a WTF, more weeks at #1)

I don't know exactly what would be the tipping point for him to surpass Laver in my mind. He's close but not quite there. Again, in my mind.

 

[El Dude]

The principle is simple...

You're (I think) saying that as the pro players were generally of a better standard then they would have captured the majors on a combined tour. Yeah? So the amateur slams have less value during the split tour as they weren't generally the best players at any given time.

I'm actually not quite saying that, although not disagreeing with it. Rather, I am fine using pro Slams as part of his major total, as stand-ins for what he might have won.

So why doesn't that same theory apply to Laver when he was an amateur? He won the CYGS, turned pro and got trounced by Rosewall initially. Doesn't that make the first CGYS less valid than his second one?

Less impressive, certainly - and less valid in that the second one was Open Era and included amateur and pro players, while the first was amateur only.

But again, while it isn't perfect I'm OK counting Slam titles from all eras.

Also consider this: Laver mastered all three tours: the amateur, pro, and Open Era. No one else did that. He won 6 amateur Slams, 8 Pro Slams, and 5 Open Era Slams. I suppose Rosewall pretty much did the same, but didn't dominate to the same level - at least past the 50s and his early pro years. He was still great in the early Open Era years, but had been second fiddle to Laver since 1962.

In other words, Laver proved himself in every context.

 

[britbox]

Becker weighs in:

 

[Federberg]

The principle is simple...

You're (I think) saying that as the pro players were generally of a better standard then they would have captured the majors on a combined tour. Yeah? So the amateur slams have less value during the split tour as they weren't generally the best players at any given time.

So why doesn't that same theory apply to Laver when he was an amateur? He won the CYGS, turned pro and got trounced by Rosewall initially. Doesn't that make the first CGYS less valid than his second one?

I would go further and say that if he was winning amateur slams when there was a pro tour how can we know if he would have been able to win them if the pros were also playing. It seems that we want to let Laver have his cake and eat it. Quite apart from the fact that we're basically talking club house tennis here. The fact that he can be put above Rafa in any Open era comparison is beyond a joke