The Greatest Non-Slam Champion of the Open Era

[Moxie]

Oh only half my message went. That seems very fair to both the players and us! And we have learned a lot from each other by this discussion. Perfect solution

I do think it has been informative. Personally, I don't believe in one 'best' or "GOAT." But it's fun to explore across eras and remind ourselves of great players. You brought the Flying Dutchman back for most of us.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sorry folks, I missed to notice the F for Okker in 1968 column. I am scheduled for an eye exam next week.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Oh only half my message went. That seems very fair to both the players and us! And we have learned a lot from each other by this discussion. Perfect solution

I do think it has been informative. Personally, I don't believe in one 'best' or "GOAT." But it's fun to explore across eras and remind ourselves of great players. You brought the Flying Dutchman back for most of us.

There can only be one GOAT. But, there can be many SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player)
and so I am ok with this solution.

 

[Moxie]

Oh only half my message went. That seems very fair to both the players and us! And we have learned a lot from each other by this discussion. Perfect solution

I do think it has been informative. Personally, I don't believe in one 'best' or "GOAT." But it's fun to explore across eras and remind ourselves of great players. You brought the Flying Dutchman back for most of us.

There can only be one GOAT. But, there can be many SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player)
and so I am ok with this solution.

There is no GOAT, in any category. I think this thread has proved it. A lot of people such as yourself want the definitive answer, but the cross eras thing does make it too hard. The most interesting position will have a few people in each category, if you ask me, and that will be era-specific.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh only half my message went. That seems very fair to both the players and us! And we have learned a lot from each other by this discussion. Perfect solution

I do think it has been informative. Personally, I don't believe in one 'best' or "GOAT." But it's fun to explore across eras and remind ourselves of great players. You brought the Flying Dutchman back for most of us.

There can only be one GOAT. But, there can be many SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player)
and so I am ok with this solution.

OTTH, we've gone from Tilden > Laver > Sampras (san FO final) > Federer (before his FO win) with little if ANY deviation! Some try to get BORG in there with his 11 majors (5 Wimbledons and 6 FO's), Connors with his 109 titles and longevity, Rosewall for being Rosewall, Gonzales for being Gonzales, Agassi for the first career Grand Slam in decades, and Rafa for his 14 majors, 9 FO's, and ownership of Federer, "The TRUE GOAT!" - (Just throwing red meat out there to get something going; I'm bored watching "Dance Moms" repeats) :ras: :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

Oh only half my message went. That seems very fair to both the players and us! And we have learned a lot from each other by this discussion. Perfect solution

I do think it has been informative. Personally, I don't believe in one 'best' or "GOAT." But it's fun to explore across eras and remind ourselves of great players. You brought the Flying Dutchman back for most of us.

There can only be one GOAT. But, there can be many SHEEP (Slamless Heroic Everlasting Excellent Player)
and so I am ok with this solution.

Now you done it. There are going to be Goat and Sheep threads all over the place here now. Who's going to clean up the mess it leaves behind? :snicker

 

[Moxie]

Now you done it. There are going to be Goat and Sheep threads all over the place here now. Who's going to clean up the mess it leaves behind? :snicker

 

[Newtownbarry]

Impossible ever to have a GOAT. For instance if Rod Laver was born only 25 years ago I am sure with nutrition today and as we are getting taller year by year, I am sure he would be much taller and stronger than he was playing. He would have had s coach and trainer and gym sessions so impossible to compare him with Federer today. Even Borg was before fitness trainers, personal physios and gym sessions, and nutrition expertise. So impossible to compare.

 

[Kirijax]

You're right about the whole GOAT discussion being impossible. There are so many players from so many different era playing in so many different circumstance. Still, it's always fun to compare the players and their accomplishments. And no matter who you choose, there will be good arguments for someone else.

 

[Great Hands]

I see some dissing of Rios's number one stint...It is not easy to get there man. Only 25 made it there in the open era. That's a lot less than the number of people that won slams, so...

But to get to number 1 without ever having won even one major, and having only reached 1 major final, and to never even have reached another major semi-final, for heaven's sake, is unbelievably lucky, you have to admit.

In a 12 month period, Andy Murray won not one but two of the four majors, and reached the final of a third major, and won Olympic Gold, and won the Miami Masters, not to mention winning Queens Club, and winning Brisbane, and reaching the final of the Shanghai Masters etc, and still was nowhere near number 1. So it may usually be difficult to get to number 1, but in Rios' case it was not. Rios must have had the easiest path ever to be no. 1.

 

[mrzz]

I see some dissing of Rios's number one stint...It is not easy to get there man. Only 25 made it there in the open era. That's a lot less than the number of people that won slams, so...

But to get to number 1 without ever having won even one major, and having only reached 1 major final, and to never even have reached another major semi-final, for heaven's sake, is unbelievably lucky, you have to admit.

In a 12 month period, Andy Murray won not one but two of the four majors, and reached the final of a third major, and won Olympic Gold, and won the Miami Masters, not to mention winning Queens Club, and winning Brisbane, and reaching the final of the Shanghai Masters etc, and still was nowhere near number 1. So it may usually be difficult to get to number 1, but in Rios' case it was not. Rios must have had the easiest path ever to be no. 1.

The difference is that Murray lives on era of one player dominance, while Rios lived on an era where the field was much more balanced. We tend to associate this with "weakness", forgetting that these are always relative relations. If we had 4 Djokovics sharing the titles today, would they be "weaker"?

One way or another, Rios was the guy with more points. As any other #1, he has beaten the entire field, for that matter, for a given period of time.

 

[Great Hands]

I see some dissing of Rios's number one stint...It is not easy to get there man. Only 25 made it there in the open era. That's a lot less than the number of people that won slams, so...

But to get to number 1 without ever having won even one major, and having only reached 1 major final, and to never even have reached another major semi-final, for heaven's sake, is unbelievably lucky, you have to admit.

In a 12 month period, Andy Murray won not one but two of the four majors, and reached the final of a third major, and won Olympic Gold, and won the Miami Masters, not to mention winning Queens Club, and winning Brisbane, and reaching the final of the Shanghai Masters etc, and still was nowhere near number 1. So it may usually be difficult to get to number 1, but in Rios' case it was not. Rios must have had the easiest path ever to be no. 1.

The difference is that Murray lives on era of one player dominance, while Rios lived on an era where the field was much more balanced. We tend to associate this with "weakness", forgetting that these are always relative relations. If we had 4 Djokovics sharing the titles today, would they be "weaker"?

One way or another, Rios was the guy with more points. As any other #1, he has beaten the entire field, for that matter, for a given period of time.

Well, it wasn't really 'one player dominance' if Murray could achieve all that and still be second to Novak. It wasn't even 2 player dominance, because Nadal also won the French Open during that period (as well as Indian Wells, Madrid and Rome). And Federer had won WD just before that 12 month period started, and Murray had to beat him to win the Olympic final and to get to the AO final, and Federer won Cinci as well, beating Novak in the final. And during that same period, even Ferrer won a Masters in Paris.

I do take your point though, about dominance not necessarily implying strength. However, in my opinion, to be considered the true best player in the world, you need to be able to produce your best, and beat the field, when it matters most - i.e. in Grand Slams, specifically in a Grand Slam final. Rios never did that.

And apart from on one occasion, he never even made it past the last 8 at a slam. Players such as Nalbandian and Ferrer have done far better than this at majors (i.e. they've also made the final two on one occasion, but they've also reached the final four plenty of times - Nalbandian made 5 Grand Slam semis, Ferrer has made 6 to date). Rios is not only the only non-Slam winner to be no.1 in the open era, his Grand Slam record is significantly inferior not only to Slam-winning no.1 players, and to Slam-winning players who were never no.1, but also to other non-Slam winning players who were never no.1. This makes him a very weak no.1 for me.

 

[Great Hands]

This thread is very interesting, not least in the different definitions of greatness people have. Some people emphasise achievement, others talent. I have to say I value achievement more highly personally.

"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented from the successful is a lot of hard work." - Stephen King

 

[tented]

There's no need to bring the GOAT debate into this thread, since that would involve GS champions, as well as the argument of comparing eras, whereas the OP clearly states non-GS champions in the Open Era.

For those interested in discussing the GOAT, there's a separate thread for that topic.

 

[Great Hands]

There's no need to bring the concept of GOAT into this thread, since that would involve GS champions, as well as the argument of comparing eras, whereas the OP clearly states non-GS champions in the Open Era.

I hope you are not referring to me or mrzz, as we were discussing Rios' status among the non-grand slam winners of the open era, which is entirely on topic, and nothing to do with GOAT discussions.

 

[Kirijax]

Ferrer has added another title. He has now played in 50 ATP finals and won 25 of them. Thirty titles in not impossible for him now.

 

[Kirijax]

Add title No. 26! He was the top seed in Valencia but wanted to rest his arm for Paris and the WTF I suppose. He has now passed Brian Gottfried for most title by a non-Slam winner in the Open era. He's 34, but he's not done yet! Four more titles to 30.