Who do you rank number one (all-time) grasscourter, claycourter, hardcourter? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who do you rank number one (all-time) grasscourter, claycourter, hardcourter?

vamosinator
05-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Sampras :p
Nadal :mad:
Sampras :p

DartMarcus
05-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Pete
Borg
Agassi

jonathancrane
05-09-2009, 03:10 PM
Nadull
Nadull
Nadull

And carpetcourter: Nadull

sawan66278
05-09-2009, 04:38 PM
Sampras
Nadal
Lendl

Xavier7
05-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Grass - Sampras with Federer second
Clay - Nadal
Hard - pass. Sampras, Federer and Agassi top 3 I guess

casabe
05-09-2009, 05:55 PM
fed
nadal/borg
fed

superslam77
05-09-2009, 06:04 PM
grass: sampras 7
clay: borg 6
hard: federer 8

now like someone said, please take a break :P
get yourself a douchebag bf with long hair,big ass and pig like nose. :wavey:

Burrow
05-09-2009, 06:06 PM
why do you keep making thread upon thread about nadal?

grass - sampras
hard - federer
clay - borg

Bazooka
05-09-2009, 06:09 PM
Clay - Becker
Grass - Bruguera
Hard - Hernandez

chowdahead25
05-09-2009, 06:16 PM
Grass- Pete
Clay- Borg
Hard- Roger

MacTheKnife
05-09-2009, 06:17 PM
Sampras
Borg
Sampras

Laver is right there on grass, but he played the majority of his slams on grass. Shudder to think what Pete would have done if 3 of 4 slams were on grass during his days.

Renaud
05-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Thread as useless as the poster who created it

rafa_maniac
05-09-2009, 07:44 PM
Grass - Sampras
Clay - Borg/Nadal
Hard - Federer

Sapeod
05-09-2009, 07:52 PM
Grass -Sampras
Clay - Borg,
Hard - Murray in 5 years time, since he'll have all the hard court Grand slams since now.

oliverbwfc
05-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Sampras
Borg
Federer

marcRD
05-10-2009, 01:07 PM
grass-Sampras, Federer
clay-Nadal
hardcourt-Federer

jordan810915
05-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Nadal
Nadal
Nadal

brunocitron
05-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Sampras
Nadal
Federer

gjr
05-10-2009, 03:40 PM
Grass - Borg
Clay - Borg but not for much longer
Hard - Federer

Corey Feldman
05-10-2009, 03:43 PM
Sampras
Muster
Federer

Sunset of Age
05-10-2009, 03:43 PM
Sampras
Nadal
Federer

kingfederer
05-10-2009, 03:49 PM
grass-federer
clay-nadal
hard-federer

Cresswekk
05-10-2009, 03:51 PM
How can people choose Borg over Nadal?

gjr
05-10-2009, 03:54 PM
How can people choose Borg over Nadal?

Well he has 6 FO's to Nadal 4. When he makes it 5 in a few weeks then yes it's proably time to conceed.

Sunset of Age
05-10-2009, 03:55 PM
Well he has 6 FO's to Nadal 4. When he makes it 5 in a few weeks then yes it's proably time to conceed.

I think it's actually a toss-up right now, but I have no doubts that's about to change.

gjr
05-10-2009, 03:58 PM
I think it's actually a toss-up right now, but I have no doubts that's about to change.

Indeed but lets not give pre-judge history until he's made it. If Nadal makes it 5 straight then there is no doubt. But until then there is just a little.

ORGASMATRON
05-10-2009, 04:00 PM
grass-federer
clay-nadal
hard-federer

Great minds think alike :)

ORGASMATRON
05-10-2009, 04:02 PM
Sampras
Nadal
Federer

Federer is betterer then one dimensional GOAT Sampy on grass. He beat him after all.

gjr
05-10-2009, 04:06 PM
Federer is betterer then one dimensional GOAT Sampy on grass. He beat him after all.

Give them both a a wooden racket and Borg would beat Pete for sure. And I think he would do the mighty Fed too. Give borg a modern racket and who knows :)

Sunset of Age
05-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Indeed but lets not give pre-judge history until he's made it. If Nadal makes it 5 straight then there is no doubt. But until then there is just a little.

Okay, in that case: clay courts: Borg/Nadal.

federernadalfan
05-10-2009, 04:15 PM
grass- soderling
clay- karlovic
hardcourter- roddick

ORGASMATRON
05-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Give them both a a wooden racket and Borg would beat Pete for sure. And I think he would do the mighty Fed too. Give borg a modern racket and who knows :)

Fed with a wooden raquet would school everyone cos he has real talent. Sampy would struggle cos he used power mostly. MAkes my point even stronger that Fed is the best. No ways Borg could have beaten Fed with a wooden racquet on grass, and definitely no way with a modern raqcquet.

MacTheKnife
05-10-2009, 05:44 PM
Interesting many are picking Borg's 6 FOs, but ignoring Pete's 7 Wimbledons. Not to mention Pete was one Kraichek away from 8 straight.

star
05-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Fed with a wooden raquet would school everyone cos he has real talent. Sampy would struggle cos he used power mostly. MAkes my point even stronger that Fed is the best. No ways Borg could have beaten Fed with a wooden racquet on grass, and definitely no way with a modern raqcquet.

You state those opinions as if they are facts and then claim that it supports your opinion. Kind of circular.

There's no way of knowing what kind of game Federer would have played with wooden racquets.

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 09:54 PM
Too bad people are ignoring the fact that 3 out of the 4 slams were played on grass until the 70s.

grass- Laver
clay- Borg
hard- Federer

zerocool_
05-10-2009, 10:15 PM
Interesting many are picking Borg's 6 FOs, but ignoring Pete's 7 Wimbledons. Not to mention Pete was one Kraichek away from 8 straight.

Good point, just imagine that someone was so close to have 8 straight Wimbledons, insane.. And that thing about 3/4 slams on grass, Pete would easy have 20+ slams now :)

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 10:17 PM
Good point, just imagine that someone was so close to have 8 straight Wimbledons, insane.. And that thing about 3/4 slams on grass, Pete would easy have 20+ slams now :)

:o

zerocool_
05-10-2009, 10:24 PM
Hehe :) Well, he would have 3-4 more for sure, right ? :)

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 10:44 PM
Hehe :) Well, he would have 3-4 more for sure, right ? :)

see? you did it again! :)

now seriously, come to it, what if Sampras had been banned from competing in the slams since he was 24 until he was 31 like Laver was (and many others like him)?

ORGASMATRON
05-10-2009, 10:49 PM
You state those opinions as if they are facts and then claim that it supports your opinion. Kind of circular.

There's no way of knowing what kind of game Federer would have played with wooden racquets.

Of course there is a way o knowing. Youre just being silly now. Fed would have outplayed anyone with a wooden bat, he has more finesse and touch then anyone of those old players. Stop taking the piss please.

BEBE91
05-10-2009, 10:54 PM
Grass: Sampras
Clay: Borg/Nadal
Hard: Sampras/Federer/Agassi

zerocool_
05-10-2009, 11:00 PM
see? you did it again! :)

now seriously, come to it, what if Sampras had been banned from competing in the slams since he was 24 until he was 31 like Laver was (and many others like him)?

Hehe, i know what you mean, same as you know what i do :) True, there is alot of if, but we are just talking here, nothing of that happend, so :)

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:00 PM
Of course there is a way o knowing. Youre just being silly now. Fed would have outplayed anyone with a wooden bat, he has more finesse and touch then anyone of those old players. Stop taking the piss please.

:rolleyes:

Macbrother
05-10-2009, 11:03 PM
Interesting many are picking Borg's 6 FOs, but ignoring Pete's 7 Wimbledons. Not to mention Pete was one Kraichek away from 8 straight.

Not many.. most have Sampras as #1 on grass. Krajicek beat him relatively soundly though, in a match where Sampras simply admitted he was outplayed. It's too bad his career was injury plagued, he was one of the few who wouldn't just bend over in the 5th set to ol' Pistol Pete, specifically on grass.

On hardcourt it's Sampras/Federer; no question, don't really see how this can be debated.

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:04 PM
Hehe, i know what you mean, same as you know what i do :) True, there is alot of if, but we are just talking here, nothing of that happend, so :)

so leaving out the "woulds", Laver on grass > Sampras on grass. :)

zerocool_
05-10-2009, 11:06 PM
so leaving out the "woulds", Laver on grass > Sampras on grass. :)

Hehe, we wont find out that, never :)

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:13 PM
Hehe, we wont find out that, ever :)

well, as it is it's a matter of opinions, like most of this stuff. obviously, I believe Laver's magic totally tops Pete "I'll serve my way through Wimbledon" Sampras. and I'm not even talking about his nine grass slams or the innumerable professional titles the Australian had.

Macbrother
05-10-2009, 11:15 PM
well, as it is it's a matter of opinions, like most of this stuff. obviously, I believe Laver's magic totally tops Pete "I'll serve my way through Wimbledon" Sampras. and I'm not even talking about his nine grass slams or the innumerable professional titles the Australian had.

but does it top Federer's magic...

zerocool_
05-10-2009, 11:16 PM
well, as it is it's a matter of opinions, like most of this stuff. obviously, I believe Laver's magic totally tops Pete "I'll serve my way through Wimbledon" Sampras. and I'm not even talking about his nine grass slams or the innumerable professional titles the Australian had.

Well, i think that Laver is GOAT, but still thinking that Sampras was grass GOAT :) Tho that would be close matches, something like 60%/40% for Sampras, in my eyes :)

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:28 PM
but does it top Federer's magic...

Santoro's magic tops everyone else's.

Macbrother
05-10-2009, 11:31 PM
Santoro's magic tops everyone else's.

Let's stick with something that's debatable. Santoro is simply an obvious legend that outclasses everyone.

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:33 PM
Well, i think that Laver is GOAT, but still thinking that Sampras was grass GOAT :) Tho that would be close matches, something like 60%/40% for Sampras, in my eyes :)

I'm not thinking of a virtual Laver-Sampras match-up here. That's another "would". In any case, in 1960s tennis Sampras wouldn't have gone past ballboy, while Laver with his 172cm would have stood no chance in the 1990s power tennis.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have Sampras as the grass GOAT?

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:35 PM
Let's stick with something that's debatable. Santoro is simply an obvious legend that outclasses everyone.

:yeah:

If you really want a serious answer, I don't think Federer is in grass GOAT contention. Hard? The best ever, me thinks.

Macbrother
05-10-2009, 11:43 PM
:yeah:

If you really want a serious answer, I don't think Federer is in grass GOAT contention. Hard? The best ever, me thinks.

What about Laver's game do you think is going to outclass Federer? It's true, Laver had zero technical weaknesses and was arguably a better volleyer; but certainly Federer has the better serve and his backhand, most certainly in his prime, was virtually unassailable on even slow grass, much less the version of Laver's day. How are you going to compare their groundstrokes, movement, and defense?

meihaditalab
05-10-2009, 11:45 PM
Grass: Roger
Clay: Nadal
Hard: Pete

Har-Tru
05-10-2009, 11:51 PM
What about Laver's game do you think is going to outclass Federer? It's true, Laver had zero technical weaknesses and was arguably a better volleyer; but certainly Federer has the better serve and his backhand, most certainly in his prime, was virtually unassailable on even slow grass, much less the version of Laver's day. How are you going to compare their groundstrokes, movement, and defense?

You can't. You can't compare the game and style of players from different eras in a hypothetical match-up. A player must be compared with his contemporaries, otherwise we're being unfair, and entering a world of endless assumptions that can't lead to anything good.

Macbrother
05-10-2009, 11:54 PM
You can't. You can't compare the game and style of players from different eras in a hypothetical match-up. A player must be compared with his contemporaries, otherwise we're being unfair, and entering a world of endless assumptions that can't lead to anything good.

I agree.. which is why I couldn't say he's not in contention. I've seen the man's game. I won't say he's the best ever, but whoever is on the other side of the net, they are in a heap of trouble.

Har-Tru
05-11-2009, 12:05 AM
I agree.. which is why I couldn't say he's not in contention. I've seen the man's game. I won't say he's the best ever, but whoever is on the other side of the net, they are in a heap of trouble.

By "not in contention" I meant that I don't rate him as the best ever on grass, not that he's not one of the best, which he obviously is. But he's been challenged and beaten by another player (a clay-court mug to make matters worse) when he was at the top of his game. Rod Laver dominated the main tournaments played on grass for years, both on the amateur and professional circuits. Björn Borg won the same number of Wimbledons as he did, and Sampras won two more, as much as I'd take Federer's style over his any day of the week. I would also rate Bill Tilden over Federer (and all others except Laver).

Macbrother
05-11-2009, 12:13 AM
By "not in contention" I meant that I don't rate him as the best ever on grass, not that he's not one of the best, which he obviously is. But he's been challenged and beaten by another player (a clay-court mug to make matters worse) when he was at the top of his game. Rod Laver dominated the main tournaments played on grass for years, both on the amateur and professional circuits. Björn Borg won the same number of Wimbledons as he did, and Sampras won two more, as much as I'd take Federer's style over his any day of the week. I would also rate Bill Tilden over Federer (and all others except Laver).

Well yeah, if his career were over today.

Har-Tru
05-11-2009, 12:25 AM
Well yeah, if his career were over today.

oh yeah, I forgot it isn't... or is it? ;) anyway, I'm judging facts. More on this when Fed retires. :)

luie
05-11-2009, 02:34 AM
Grass-Future Murray (will dominate his home slam like no one before him)
Clay- Future Murray because he trained in spain & made a MC semi's
Hard -Current Murray because he has the best record on Hards recently & will continue to dominate on the surface.

TennisViewer531
05-11-2009, 04:15 AM
I'd still stick with Federer as the number one all time player in all courts...

Updated report: http://www.tennisguru.net/2009/05/10/french-tennis-star-tested-positive-for-cocaine-report/

vamosinator
05-11-2009, 05:05 AM
Murray has all the "tools" to dominate tennis in the coming years.Nadal is just keeping the seat "warm for him.:D
Murray has what federer doesn't have a good ROS on the BH side he will cause massive problems for nadal in the future with that shot.Mark my words well I will bump this thread when it begins to happen. Nadal's weakness is his serve, fed can't take advantage of it because of his style of play but Murray can.

Murray can't even win a match (or set) in the wind on his favorite surface :rolleyes:

johnny_dhk
05-11-2009, 07:02 AM
Grass- Nadal
Clay- Nadal
Hard- Sampras

BlueSwan
05-11-2009, 08:00 AM
Grass:
1. Sampras
2. Federer

Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Borg

Hard:
1. Federer
2. Sampras

Machiavelli
05-16-2009, 12:01 PM
Nadal,Nadal,Nadal
Nadal,Nadal,Nadal
Nadal,Nadal,Nadal

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 05:30 AM
Open era only:

Grass - Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer
Clay - Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, Nadal
Hard/Carpet - Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer

Rating these guys is too hard, so I listed them.

Mimi
05-19-2009, 05:32 AM
Grass: Sampras, Roger, Borg
Clay: Borg, Rafa
Hardcourt: Sampras, Roger :cool:

Arkulari
05-19-2009, 02:01 PM
Grass: Roger/Pete
Clay: Rafa/Borg
Hard: Roger

NyGeL
05-19-2009, 04:43 PM
Federer
Nadal/Borg
Federer

ossie
05-19-2009, 04:47 PM
grass: nadal/federer depends on the next couple years at wimdledon
clay: nadal
hard: dont know really, i think murray has a good chance to dominate hardcourts

habibko
05-19-2009, 05:01 PM
Grass: Federer/Sampras
Clay: Nadal
Hard: Federer

Clay Death
05-19-2009, 05:10 PM
Grass: Federer/Sampras
Clay: Nadal
Hard: Federer

i think that is spot on except for one thing. i think Fed has surpassed Pete on grass.

Fed at the very height of his powers was a more complete grass court player than Sampras.

habibko
05-19-2009, 05:12 PM
i think that is spot on except for one thing. i think Fed has surpassed Pete on grass.

Fed at the very height of his powers was a more complete grass court player than Sampras.

I believe so as well and that's why I put Fed's name before Pete, but I can't leave the one who holds the most Wimbledon titles out as well.

Okonsky
05-19-2009, 05:13 PM
Grass: Federer/Sampras
Clay: Borg/Lendl/Nadal
Hard: Federer

rocketassist
05-19-2009, 05:35 PM
Grass: Hernandez/Berlocq/Dabul
Clay: Ginepri/Isner/Srichaphan/Carlsen
Hard: Di Mauro/Starace/Brzezicki

BIGMARAT
05-19-2009, 06:12 PM
all time greats as of now:

Clay courter: Borg
Hard courter: Lendl
Grass Court: Sampras

All court surface: Federer

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 07:23 PM
I believe so as well and that's why I put Fed's name before Pete, but I can't leave the one who holds the most Wimbledon titles out as well.

Sorry, with all due respect to Roger, Pete was a Krajicek away from 8 straight.

Arkulari
05-19-2009, 07:25 PM
8 straight Wimbledon? I think Pete only got like 4 straight or so, right? :scratch:

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 07:27 PM
8 straight Wimbledon? I think Pete only got like 4 straight or so, right? :scratch:

I wrote a Krajicek away from 8 straight. He won 3 straight, then lost to Krajicek, then won the next four for his total of 7.

FedFan
05-19-2009, 07:39 PM
Grass:Sampras, Federer
Clay: Borg, Nadal
Hard: Federer, Sampras

Macbrother
05-19-2009, 07:52 PM
I wrote a Krajicek away from 8 straight. He won 5 straight, then lost to Krajicek, then won the next two for his total of 7.

Three straight, then the next four. Only Borg and Federer have won 5 straight in the open era.

jonas
05-19-2009, 07:54 PM
I wrote a Krajicek away from 8 straight. He won 5 straight, then lost to Krajicek, then won the next two for his total of 7.

Wrong.
Sampras won 3 straight, lost 0-3 to Krajicek, then won 4 straight.
Only Borg and Federer has won 5 straight Wimbys.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 07:56 PM
Three straight, then the next four. Only Borg and Federer have won 5 straight in the open era.

DA, correct. my mistake. brain fart time.. Still put him ahead of Fed on grass. Still almost got 8 straight. Let's see if Fed pulls that off.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 07:59 PM
Wrong.
Sampras won 3 straight, lost 0-3 to Krajicek, then won 4 straight.
Only Borg and Federer has won 5 straight Wimbys.

Already corrected.

Macbrother
05-19-2009, 08:00 PM
DA, correct. my mistake. brain fart time.. Still put him ahead of Fed on grass. Still almost got 8 straight. Let's see if Fed pulls that off.

Seven is definitely better than five; but Federer still has plenty of time to improve that record. Skillset, both players are so amazing on the surface for both similar and different reasons it's hard to argue. I give a slight, slight edge to Federer in this regard but that's not enough to make up for two Wimbledon championships.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 08:04 PM
Seven is definitely better than five; but Federer still has plenty of time to improve that record. Skillset, both players are so amazing on the surface for both similar and different reasons it's hard to argue. I give a slight, slight edge to Federer in this regard but that's not enough to make up for two Wimbledon championships.

I will have a hard time putting Fed ahead of Pete on grass due to the changes in Wimby surface. I still think Pete's style is the best grass court style I've ever seen. Now in this day and age, he'd be good, but not dominate like he did on the quicker grass.

On another note, is your screen name from McEnroe?? Are you a Mactard like me??

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 08:07 PM
Not trying to be a jerk, but you guys are posting like it says "of the last 30 years" instead of "all-time" in the title.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 08:10 PM
Not trying to be a jerk, but you guys are posting like it says "of the last 30 years" instead of "all-time" in the title.

Well I still took Pete on grass and HC (I could buy Laver too, it's damn close to me), Borg on clay. I still have Laver/Pete as my GOATs. These guys still playing may make it for me, we'll see.

Macbrother
05-19-2009, 08:16 PM
Not trying to be a jerk, but you guys are posting like it says "of the last 30 years" instead of "all-time" in the title.

Or one might simply think Sampras is better. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that; but that's the nature of utterly subjective and unprovable arguments.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 08:36 PM
Or one might simply think Sampras is better. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that; but that's the nature of utterly subjective and unprovable arguments.

I think that's a perfectly valid argument, even if I don't agree with it. I just find it rather incredible that the vast majority of people in this thread don't mention anyone older than Borg.

Macbrother
05-19-2009, 08:41 PM
I think that's a perfectly valid argument, even if I don't agree with it. I just find it rather incredible that the vast majority of people in this thread don't mention anyone older than Borg.

You should rather find it very much expected given most people post like they just started watching tennis this year, much less knowing anything about anyone that played in black and white.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 08:44 PM
You should rather find it very much expected given most people post like they just started watching tennis this year, much less knowing anything about anyone that played in black and white.

That is sadly true. :sad:

Arkulari
05-19-2009, 08:45 PM
many of the oldies didn't play in HC, so that takes them out of the question
on grass and clay, I think we follow on the # of Slams won ;)
people like Laver or Rosewall were incredibly players, all around courters, but weren't really surface specialists ;)

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 08:50 PM
many of the oldies didn't play in HC, so that takes them out of the question
on grass and clay, I think we follow on the # of Slams won ;)


Grass Grand Slams, all-time:

Tilden 10
Emerson 10
Laver 9
Sampras 7

people like Laver or Rosewall were incredibly players, all around courters, but weren't really surface specialists ;)

Was Sampras a surface specialist? Are we talking about specialists, or all-time best players on the different surfaces?

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
That is sadly true. :sad:

Well Laver was my idol growing up. Caught the tale end of Emerson. I never really was a Rosewall fan and was always pissed when he did take out the rocket. That's why it's hard for me to move Pete above him, even though on grass I have a hard time seeing Laver win the majority of those matches. Pete was really the first guy I saw play that when he got on a roll with that serve, I thought, this guys is just not beatable.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 08:58 PM
Grass Grand Slams, all-time:

Tilden 10
Emerson 10
Laver 9
Sampras 7

Believe me, this has been on my mind for years. But the truth is, how many more grass opportunities did the first three have over Pete. All but 1 slam was grass in their days.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:00 PM
Well Laver was my idol growing up. Caught the tale end of Emerson. I never really was a Rosewall fan and was always pissed when he did take out the rocket. That's why it's hard for me to move Pete above him, even though on grass I have a hard time seeing Laver win the majority of those matches. Pete was really the first guy I saw play that when he got on a roll with that serve, I thought, this guys is just not beatable.

ah the old thing about comparing players from different eras... pointless, in my opinion. would Sampras be using his graphite racquet or a wooden one? and Laver?

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 09:01 PM
ah the old thing about comparing players from different eras... pointless, in my opinion. would Sampras be using his graphite racquet or a wooden one? and Laver?

I know it's pointless, and if you've ever read any of my other posts on these threads, you know I agree. But how do you not do that when you've been watching tennis for almost 50 years.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 09:03 PM
Grass Grand Slams, all-time:

Tilden 10
Emerson 10
Laver 9
Sampras 7



Was Sampras a surface specialist? Are we talking about specialists, or all-time best players on the different surfaces?

See, you just did the same thing. Comparing players from different eras. So how do you not do it at times.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:04 PM
Believe me, this has been on my mind for years. But the truth is, how many more grass opportunities did the first three have over Pete. All but 1 slam was grass in their days.

Of course. I do have that in mind. As I have in mind that Laver couldn't play in the slams from age 24 to age 31, and that Tilden missed most Aus Championships and some Wimbies, and also turned professional.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:05 PM
See, you just did the same thing. Comparing players from different eras. So how do you not do it at times.

I wasn't comparing them, I was just listing their GS achievements as an answer to a statement by another poster.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 09:06 PM
Of course. I do have that in mind. As I have in mind that Laver couldn't play in the slams from age 24 to age 31, and that Tilden missed most Aus Championships and some Wimbies, and also turned professional.

Alright, so if pinned down, who would be your GOAT. I still have it even with Sampras-Laver and it depends on what day it is how I think about it.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:13 PM
Alright, so if pinned down, who would be your GOAT. I still have it even with Sampras-Laver and it depends on what day it is how I think about it.

That's what happens with me and Sampras-Tilden. Tilden won three Wimbledons and seven USO. That's impressive. But Sampras's Wimby run is equally stunning, even if I was never a fan of his game. Laver is always first in my book though.

1-Laver
2-Sampras
3-Tilden

EDIT: Just noticed you wrote GOAT and not Grass GOAT. It's still Laver.

Benny_Maths
05-19-2009, 09:14 PM
To certain people: Remember that just because you think something is a GS, it doesn't automatically make that tournament a GS. Now stop making nonsensical references which are not relevant.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:14 PM
Remember that just because you think something is a GS, it doesn't make that tournament a GS. Now stop making nonsensical references which are not relevant.

what?

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 09:19 PM
That's what happens with me and Sampras-Tilden. Tilden won three Wimbledons and seven USO. That's impressive. But Sampras's Wimby run is equally stunning, even if I was never a fan of his game. Laver is always first in my book though.

1-Laver
2-Sampras
3-Tilden

Thanks, I'm not one of those clowns that thinks I have to be right and everybody else wrong, I just like to know what you think. I just can't remember seeing a lot of Bills matches. I really started getting heavy into it in the mid 60s and Emerson and Stolle were pretty much dominating.

dusk
05-19-2009, 09:23 PM
That is sadly true. :sad:
I don't think it's sad. If anything, it's good for the sport. They'll learn eventually. Once you get hooked up by tennis, it's hard to let it go (at least from my experiance)and you just naturally expand the knowledge, by following the sport.
Same as kids who started watching football because of Ronaldo (for example) and then discovered there were actually players before him lol
ah the old thing about comparing players from different eras... pointless, in my opinion. would Sampras be using his graphite racquet or a wooden one? and Laver?
Pointless, indeed.

As for my number one, I am very biased. My favourite players are my number ones, no matter what they achieved. Many factors are involved (draws, conditions, personal issues, choking factor, doubles factor, etc.), so it would be dificult to say "this one was simply the best, just because he/she won that many slams/tournaments".

dusk
05-19-2009, 09:24 PM
Laver is always first in my book though.



Laver is always above Tilden and Sampras in my book.

FedFan_2007
05-19-2009, 09:28 PM
I don't like to get hung up on all "who's best on surface" crap. I just know that Federer is the greatest player I've ever seen on all surfaces. Nadal is the doomsday stroking machine, but his style is not visually appealing to me - I acknowledge his victories.

Benny_Maths
05-19-2009, 09:30 PM
what?

I was having a go at people who always bring up irrelevant facts in any discussion regarding the relative merits of players' achievements in the category of interest. It's like saying Federer would've won the FO multiple times if Nadal wasn't around. Fact is, he hasn't won the FO once. Similarly, the fact is that certain players haven't won as many majors as Sampras and Federer. That's my general beef with many of the participants in discussions of the sort which are taking place in this thread. Performance in the majors is what ultimately defines the best players. I find it ludicrous that someone who hasn't even won a HC major is mentioned as a contender for the title of HC goat. It's fair enough if you find my post unclear and confusing. My purpose is not to directly attack or offend anyone which is why I am being vague.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 09:34 PM
I was having a go at people who always bring up irrelevant facts in any discussion regarding the relative merits of players' achievements in the category of interest. It's like saying Federer would've won the FO multiple times if Nadal wasn't around. Fact is, he hasn't won the FO once. Similarly, the fact is that certain players haven't won as many majors as Sampras and Federer. That's my general beef with many of the participants in discussions of the sort which are taking place in this thread. Performance in the majors is what ultimately defines the best players. I find it ludicrous that someone who hasn't even won a HC major is mentioned as a contender for the title of HC goat. It's fair enough if you find my post unclear and confusing. My purpose is not to directly attack or offend anyone which is why I am being vague.

OK, you've peaked MY interest. What player in here was mentioned as HC GOAT that hasn't won a GS HC title. I missed it and I'm basically to lazy to reread the whole thread.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:34 PM
Thanks, I'm not one of those clowns that thinks I have to be right and everybody else wrong, I just like to know what you think. I just can't remember seeing a lot of Bills matches. I really started getting heavy into it in the mid 60s and Emerson and Stolle were pretty much dominating.

Well I'm younger than you, and I haven't seen a whole Tilden match either. But I'm a huge tennis history buff and his achievements are there, he did win all that even if we (sadly) weren't there to see it. It's not like we're comparing their second serves or sth like that where you'd need to actually watch some matches to make a good judgement.

Ah the 60s... the first Golden Age of tennis over here, butting into Davis Cup finals, with Santana winning Grand Slams in the amateur circuit and Gimeno challenging Laver, Rosewall and co in the pro circuit. At a time when Spain was hardly part of the first world, those were national heroes. Get my dad started and he'll never stop. Sorry I'm rambling...

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 09:38 PM
Well I'm younger than you, and I haven't seen a whole Tilden match either. But I'm a huge tennis history buff and his achievements are there, he did win all that even if we (sadly) weren't there to see it. It's not like we're comparing their second serves or sth like that where you'd need to actually watch some matches to make a good judgement.

Ah the 60s... the first Golden Age of tennis over here, butting into Davis Cup finals, with Santana winning Grand Slams in the amateur circuit and Gimeno challenging Laver, Rosewall and co in the pro circuit. At a time when Spain was hardly part of the first world, those were national heroes. Get my dad started and he'll never stop. Sorry I'm rambling...

It's hard not to ramble for me too when reminiscing. My pro used to beat us to death with 8mm movies of Rosewalls back hand. He wanted us to learn that slice big time. I'm surprised he didn't have movies of Tilden.

Har-Tru
05-19-2009, 09:39 PM
I was having a go at people who always bring up irrelevant facts in any discussion regarding the relative merits of players' achievements in the category of interest. It's like saying Federer would've won the FO multiple times if Nadal wasn't around. Fact is, he hasn't won the FO once. Similarly, the fact is that certain players haven't won as many majors as Sampras and Federer. That's my general beef with many of the participants in discussions of the sort which are taking place in this thread. Performance in the majors is what ultimately defines the best players. I find it ludicrous that someone who hasn't even won a HC major is mentioned as a contender for the title of HC goat. It's fair enough if you find my post unclear and confusing. My purpose is not to directly attack or offend anyone which is why I am being vague.

But Federer did reach three FO finals, that is an achievement in itself. And he lost to Nadal, who is a clay all-time great (probable soon-to-be clay GOAT).

Ilovetheblues_86
05-19-2009, 11:58 PM
1- all time grasscourter
2- all time hardcourter
3- all time claycourter

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 12:21 AM
1- all time grasscourter
2- all time hardcourter
3- all time claycourter

:confused:

Benny_Maths
05-20-2009, 10:19 AM
But Federer did reach three FO finals, that is an achievement in itself. And he lost to Nadal, who is a clay all-time great (probable soon-to-be clay GOAT).

That's exactly right and I completely agree with you here. I simply brought up the Federer-RG situation because so many of the people who erroneously think Federer doesn't compare to the older generation, are more blind than a myopic earthworm when it comes to recognising his incredible achievements. They say 'oh Federer doesn't compare to X because he hasn't even won an FO' but then defy all the extreme limits of previously observed fallacious logic in human history to conclude that Y is a HC goat contender (or would've adapted to HC well enough to be a contender - pure speculation) even though they haven't even won a HC GS before.

I don't have the time to go through the thread to dig up the relevant post/s. But examples are not needed anyway because quite often, you see people discrediting Federer's achievements by using facts such as those about his FO record. Then they speculate about how such and such a player would've adapted to HCs so that they would've done just as well on the varied surface circuit we have today as they did during the predominantly grass court period.