Does anyone believe Jim Courier was a greater claycourter than Federer/Djokovic? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does anyone believe Jim Courier was a greater claycourter than Federer/Djokovic?

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 04:32 PM
In the same spirit as my thread comparing Djokovic and Wilander when Djoko had won only 2 slams, I would like to ask the numerologists in MTF if they think Courier is a greater claycourter than Federer and Djokovic because 2>1>0?

I always find Courier high up in lists comparing greats on clay because of his 2 titles in RG, but besides those what has he really acomplished on clay? I look at 5 clay titles in his whole career, I look at those draws and wonder what was going on with clay when his main rival on the surface was a very young Andre Agassi, one year I see he beats Todd Martin in R4, Edberg in QF and Stich in SF and finaly barely teenager Agassi in the 5 sets final. 3 serve and volleyers and one american who barely ever played on red clay and doesnt know how to move on the surface, really?

I watched the whole match against Agassi and I really wondered these 2 americans who cant properly move on clay and didnt grow up on the surface would match up against Djokovic who grew up on the surface and has beyond incredible movement, how come they are both consider greater claycourters than Djokovic?

Further more I would like to ask you if Courier would have a chanse to win RG in this era, not only that but would he win RG in Borg's era? You see, I am not trying to say players are better today than before, I am just saying Courier's era sucks, not Kuerten's or Borg's eras. Please dont bring up the raquet technology BS, Nadal would beat Courier with 90s raquet had he been born 15 years earlier and you know it.

Anyway, I will move on and give MTF numerologists some numbers aswell on clay:

Courier vs Federer vs Djokovic on clay:

Number of RG titles: 2/1/0

Number of RG finals: 3/5/0

Number of clay master series: 2/5/3

Number of clay master series finals: 2/12/5

Clay titles: 5/9/7

Clay W/L: 68.5%/76.5%/76.2%


Keep in mind that taking into consideration without playing Nadal Federer got 80.9% and Djokovic impressive 81.6% on clay, Courier's 68.5% is truly mediocre in comparassion. Also look at Federer beeing in 17 big clay finals (master series+RG) compared to Courier's 5 big clay finals, Federer losing 10 times to Nadal in big clay finals, Djokovic losing 8 times in SF or F of big clay tournaments.

As you see Courier only got the lead in one cathegory which is most RG titles, against Djokovic he leads in 2 cathegories (both RG and RG finals), keep in mind that Djokovic in his peak lost to Nadal and Federer before the final 4 times.

So, I would love to hear some counter arguments from all those who put Courier as nr6 or 7 as in the greatest claycourters of all time, will be interesting to hear what you have in mind.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 04:36 PM
Even clay courts were pretty different back then.
Federer has had to face the best clay courter in history, same for Djokovic.
But Courier had much tougher draws at the Garros, considering how many great clay courter played that time.
I would say Federer is the best out of the 3, and until Djokovic does not have an RG title, I would say Courier is the 2nd one.

Action Jackson
01-30-2012, 04:38 PM
OP starting another one of these threads.

Why waste time. Modern players are better than the older ones, faster, fitter, stronger, more technique and skills, the conditions are different. That's the best way to sum it up.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 04:44 PM
Even clay courts were pretty different back then.
Federer has had to face the best clay courter in history, same for Djokovic.
But Courier had much tougher draws at the Garros, considering how many great clay courter played that time.
I would say Federer is the best out of the 3, and until Djokovic does not have an RG title, I would say Courier is the 2nd one.

What though draws are you talking about, this one?

RG 91:

R128 Derrick Rostagno (USA) 24 W 6-3, 6-3, 6-0
R64 Wayne Ferreira (RSA) 79 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-4
R32 Magnus Larsson (SWE) 46 W 6-3, 4-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-2
R16 Todd Martin (USA) 243 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
Q Stefan Edberg (SWE) 1 W 6-4, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4
S Michael Stich (GER) 12 W 6-2, 6-7(8), 6-2, 6-4
W Andre Agassi (USA) 4 W 3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4

Or this one:

R128 Nicklas Kroon (SWE) 216 W 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-2
R64 Thomas Muster (AUT) 22 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
R32 Alberto Mancini (ARG) 18 W 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
R16 Andrei Medvedev (UKR) 175 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Q Goran Ivanisevic (CRO) 9 W 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
S Andre Agassi (USA) 12 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
W Petr Korda (CZE) 8 W 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

(keep in mind that Medvedev was 17 years old and Muster was not great on clay at that year). Doesnt look all that impressive to me, even Feds 2009 draw was probably more difficult than both years.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 04:45 PM
OP starting another one of these threads.

Why waste time. Modern players are better than the older ones, faster, fitter, stronger, more technique and skills, the conditions are different. That's the best way to sum it up.

You think Courier would win RG titles in Borg's era then?

I really dont think so.

Sophocles
01-30-2012, 04:45 PM
It's far enough to say Fed's a greater clay-courter. Djokovic, no - not yet.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 04:48 PM
It's far enough to say Fed's a greater clay-courter. Djokovic, no - not yet.

Why, not yet? Achievmentwise I understand, but now I am not talking about achievments. Just a simple question, is Djokovic a greater claycourter than Courier? Was Nadal a greater claycourter than Courier 2005 before he won RG? Was Federer better than Courier in 2009?

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 04:56 PM
Lets look at Courier's final opponents in his 5 big clay finals:

Won against:

Agassi 1991 RG final, Korda in 1992 RG final, Carlos Costa in Rome final 1992, Goran Ivanisevic in Rome final 1993.

Lost against: Sergi Bruguera in 1993 RG final.

So, his only though claycourter in a big clay tournament final was the one he lost to?

Compare with Federer:

Won against: Safin in Hamburg 2002 final, Coria in Hamburg 2004 final, Gasquet in Hamburg 2005 final, Nadal in Hamburg 2007 final, Nadal in Madrid 2009, Soderling in RG 2009.

Lost to: Nadal x 10 between 2006-2011 RG and master series finals and Mantilla 2003 Rome.

Djokovic won against: Nadal in ROme and Madrid 2011, Wawrinka in Rome 2008

Lost to: Nadal x2 (and Nadal x6 in SFs of RG and master series)

I dont know what though opponents Courier was playing on clay, but Ivanisevic, Korda and Agassi in big clay finals doesnt compare to what Djokovic and Federer is facing.

buzz
01-30-2012, 05:19 PM
You think Courier would win RG titles in Borg's era then?

I really dont think so.

Borg was probably more ahead of his generation than Courier, so that will make it closer. But Couriers forehand would be a hell of a lot bigger than any forehand in that era. So I would put my money on courier.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 05:21 PM
Borg was probably more ahead of his generation than Courier, so that will make it closer. But Couriers forehand would be a hell of a lot bigger than any forehand in that era. So I would put my money on courier.

You think Courier with a wooden raquet would have a forehand which could hurt Borg?

Nadal with 90s raquets wouldnt lose a set against Courier, Courier with 70s raquet wouldnt win a set against Borg and Nadal with 70s raquet would play endless 8 hour epics against Borg.....

buzz
01-30-2012, 05:21 PM
But when you look at clay achievements my rank by most impressive. For me it would be Federer>Courier>Djokovic

But djokovic is only 24, He might win 4rg (not that I'm putting money on that!)

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 05:25 PM
But when you look at clay achievements my rank by most impressive. For me it would be Federer>Courier>Djokovic

But djokovic is only 24, He might win 4rg (not that I'm putting money on that!)

You, are right. Federer wins against Courier not only because subjectively I think he is greater on clay but he has actually achieved alot more than Courier on this surface. Djokovic only wins because I think he is alot better than Courier, but with objective reasoning you cant say he has achieved more than Courier on clay.

However, I was asking for subjective analysis of their greatness on clay and not counting numbers.

buzz
01-30-2012, 05:26 PM
You think Courier with a wooden raquet would have a forehand which could hurt Borg?

I don't know:) would Borg have such a forehand with modern equipment? I thiink you can only say whose achievements are better/more impressive. Who would beat who is just too hard because of big changes every generation(hence I quoted AJ in that post).

buzz
01-30-2012, 05:32 PM
However, I was asking for subjective analysis of their greatness on clay and not counting numbers.

Djokovic could end with 0 RGs. For me his greatness would be effected in a big way. it's not a given that will win RG(s). greatness is gathered with achievements for me.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 05:32 PM
I don't know:) would Borg have such a forehand with modern equipment? I thiink you can only say whose achievements are better/more impressive. Who would beat who is just too hard because of big changes every generation(hence I quoted AJ in that post).

AJ also says all greats would find a way in any era, I dont fully agree with that statement (Rosewall and Mcenroe would not find a way in the modern era, even Sampras doubtfully would achieve much, that is what I think atleast). However, I see absolutely no reason to question Borg's ability to learn a great forehand with 90s raquets or modern raquets, ofcourse it would be great and he would love to play in the modern grinding era of the 2000s, even if Djokovic and Nadal probably would give him a hell of a fight.

Anyway, Borg would beat Courier in any era on clay, that much I can say without any doubt.

Sophocles
01-30-2012, 05:37 PM
Why, not yet? Achievmentwise I understand, but now I am not talking about achievments. Just a simple question, is Djokovic a greater claycourter than Courier? Was Nadal a greater claycourter than Courier 2005 before he won RG? Was Federer better than Courier in 2009?

If you mean is Djokovic better, then yes, he probably is.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 05:45 PM
R128 Derrick Rostagno (USA) 24 W 6-3, 6-3, 6-0
R64 Wayne Ferreira (RSA) 79 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-4
R32 Magnus Larsson (SWE) 46 W 6-3, 4-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-2
R16 Todd Martin (USA) 243 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
Q Stefan Edberg (SWE) 1 W 6-4, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4
S Michael Stich (GER) 12 W 6-2, 6-7(8), 6-2, 6-4
W Andre Agassi (USA) 4 W 3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4

Courier had to beat great players en route to the final. I was not referring to the FO only, but about the era's clay specialists.

Federer's 09 FO then: Martin, Acacuso, Mathieu, Haas, Monfils, Del Potro, Soderling

buzz
01-30-2012, 05:46 PM
AJ also says all greats would find a way in any era, I dont fully agree with that statement (Rosewall and Mcenroe would not find a way in the modern era, even Sampras doubtfully would achieve much, that is what I think atleast). However, I see absolutely no reason to question Borg's ability to learn a great forehand with 90s raquets or modern raquets, ofcourse it would be great and he would love to play in the modern grinding era of the 2000s, even if Djokovic and Nadal probably would give him a hell of a fight.

Anyway, Borg would beat Courier in any era on clay, that much I can say without any doubt.

What I meant was that if Borg time traveled and was given a modern raquet, he would probably not beat Courier on clay and be clueless against Rafa and Djokovic.

If Borg grew up in another era so many things would have been different! One thing the raquets, another there would X times more people trying for a professional tennis career.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 05:49 PM
R128 Derrick Rostagno (USA) 24 W 6-3, 6-3, 6-0
R64 Wayne Ferreira (RSA) 79 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-4
R32 Magnus Larsson (SWE) 46 W 6-3, 4-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-2
R16 Todd Martin (USA) 243 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
Q Stefan Edberg (SWE) 1 W 6-4, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4
S Michael Stich (GER) 12 W 6-2, 6-7(8), 6-2, 6-4
W Andre Agassi (USA) 4 W 3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4

Courier had to beat great players en route to the final. I was not referring to the FO only, but about the era's clay specialists.

Federer's 09 FO then: Martin, Acacuso, Mathieu, Haas, Monfils, Del Potro, Soderling

I dont see any clay specialists at all on that route, I only see hardcourters and serve and volleyers. Not a single clay court specialist.

Federer's 2009 is more impressive.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 05:49 PM
Nadal with 90s raquets wouldnt lose a set against Courier

Are you sure?

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 05:52 PM
Federer's 2009 is more impressive.

No, it's not. If we look at the opponents in their final (91' and 09') we see Agassi and Soderling. Big difference. I'm not saying that Agassi is a better clay courter than Soderling but he was already a multiple slam finalist unlike the unexperienced Soderling. It was a bigger achievement to beat that Agassi.

alter ego
01-30-2012, 05:53 PM
Is Courier coming out of retirement? if not who cares?

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 05:59 PM
No, it's not. If we look at the opponents in their final (91' and 09') we see Agassi and Soderling. Big difference. I'm not saying that Agassi is a better clay courter than Soderling but he was already a multiple slam finalist unlike the unexperienced Soderling. It was a bigger achievement to beat that Agassi.

In fact lets look at Courier's incredible route to win 91 RG, look at the clay season his opponents had besides French Open that year:

Todd Martin 0-1 on clay in 1991
Stefan Edberg 2-2
Andre Agassi 2-3
Michael Stich 4-3
Wayne Fereira 3-3
Rostango 0-3
Larsson 3-4

Incredible, only Stich had a positive W/L on clay that year of all players Courier encountered and no one won more than 4 matches on the surface....

What about Courier himself in 1991?

He won a grand total of 2 matches on clay outside RG and lost 2 matches aswell!

Imagine someone like Djokovic having such a clay season, would he still be able to win Roland Garros against Nadal and Federer back to back in SF and F?

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 06:02 PM
In fact lets look at Courier's incredible route to win 91 RG, look at the clay season his opponents had besides French Open that year:

Todd Martin 0-1 on clay in 1991
Stefan Edberg 2-2
Andre Agassi 2-3
Michael Stich 4-3
Wayne Fereira 3-3
Rostango 0-3
Larsson 3-4

Incredible, only Stich had a positive W/L on clay that year of all players Courier encountered and no one won more than 4 matches on the surface....

What about Courier himself in 1991?

He won a grand total of 2 matches on clay outside RG and lost 2 matches aswell!

Imagine someone like Djokovic having such a clay season, would he still be able to win Roland Garros against Nadal and Federer back to back in SF and F?

I stated I consider Federer a greater clay courter than Courier.
But I consider Courier's FO win a bigger achievement because of the reasons above. What do you think about Agassi/Soderling difficulty wise?

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 06:11 PM
I stated I consider Federer a greater clay courter than Courier.
But I consider Courier's FO win a bigger achievement because of the reasons above. What do you think about Agassi/Soderling difficulty wise?

I think Soderling was playing much alot better claycourt tennis in 2009 than Agassi ever played in his whole career, in fact it was one of the most impressive runs in any slam I have ever seen in my life. What did Agassi do in 1991 on clay?

He defeated Pat Mcenroe, Mancini, Hlasek and Becker in SF to get to RG final. He had a horrible year on clay, he didnt even care about clay, didnt even practice on red clay and came totaly unprepared to the tournament. His route was as easy as Courier's, where were all the great claycourters in that era?

Soderling in 2009 RG defeated Ferrer, Davydenko, Nadal and Gonzalez on his way to RG final. He was alot better prepared, was 18-6 on clay that year.

Dont forget Del Potro aswell, he was amazing in 2009 and gave one hell of a fight in the SF. Del Potro is also fully capable of winning RG one day.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-30-2012, 06:25 PM
Del Potro is also fully capable of winning RG one day.

Agreed. I think RG is his only chance to win another slam.

petar_pan
01-30-2012, 09:07 PM
Are you nut? He is AWAY better.

Fedfanforever
01-30-2012, 09:08 PM
Djokovic not yet, but I think he can win 2 French Opens.

latso
01-30-2012, 09:15 PM
Borg, Lendl, Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Nadal

Those are the ultimate clay monsters from the 70s up.

Djokovic and Federer are like the McEnroe, Agassi, Stich, Coretja or Ferrero of their time, not even Bruguera.

So no comparison is even possible. Even if Federer wins one more RG he'd be a Bruguera.

rocketassist
01-30-2012, 09:18 PM
Courier has two RGs, Djokovic has 0

/thread

FairWeatherFan
01-30-2012, 09:22 PM
Yes, and Courier is also a greater claycourter than Nadal.

Jimnik
01-30-2012, 09:22 PM
Only 1 RG title for Fedbot but he was also runner-up 4 times. Plus he has more clay masters.

Federer > Courier > Djokovic

Until proven otherwise.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 11:14 PM
Borg, Lendl, Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Nadal

Those are the ultimate clay monsters from the 70s up.

Djokovic and Federer are like the McEnroe, Agassi, Stich, Coretja or Ferrero of their time, not even Bruguera.

So no comparison is even possible. Even if Federer wins one more RG he'd be a Bruguera.

:lol:

So, Courier is a "clay monster" and on another cathegory than Bruguera? Up there with Nadal, Borg and Muster. You know they all won +30 clay titles and that Courier won only 5 titles, right?

From the 70s up you also have Nastasse and Vilas who were way superior to Courier on clay and won 70 clay titles between them, so I really dont know where you got in your mind that Courier is one of the 5 giants of this surface? Wouldnt have him in my top 15 list.

You rank Agassi in another cathegory, but they were not far from equals on clay during Courier's prime. Courier just had a slight edge against Agassi when they were young but arguably you could say Agassi in the long run catched up with Courier and achieved almost as much as Courier on clay.

Also, if Federer won another RG I would put him somewhere close to Lendl on clay.

SetSampras
01-30-2012, 11:15 PM
Courier at his peak in the early 90s? Yes he was a better clay courter then Nole and Fed. But he went downhill fast.

sexybeast
01-30-2012, 11:25 PM
Courier at his peak in the early 90s? Yes he was a better clay courter then Nole and Fed. But he went downhill fast.

Well, I cant expect you to say anything else about anyone playing in Sampras' era. I would love to hear some reasoning and not only statements.

latso
01-31-2012, 08:48 PM
:lol:

So, Courier is a "clay monster" and on another cathegory than Bruguera? Up there with Nadal, Borg and Muster. You know they all won +30 clay titles and that Courier won only 5 titles, right?

From the 70s up you also have Nastasse and Vilas who were way superior to Courier on clay and won 70 clay titles between them, so I really dont know where you got in your mind that Courier is one of the 5 giants of this surface? Wouldnt have him in my top 15 list.

You rank Agassi in another cathegory, but they were not far from equals on clay during Courier's prime. Courier just had a slight edge against Agassi when they were young but arguably you could say Agassi in the long run catched up with Courier and achieved almost as much as Courier on clay.

Also, if Federer won another RG I would put him somewhere close to Lendl on clay.
Ask the Mods to make your opinions sticky.

Clearly you consider your opinion as the very truth and others opinions are laughable, so why even having other opinions :confused:

Courier was rulling RG for some years and he was as dominant as the guys i mention.

That's my impression and that's what i know for myself.

Your stats are just stats.

Federer winning RG was a fluke and this comes from a fan of the guy. Everybody knows this.
If Rafa doesn't participate Roger might snatch another one somewhere in case he pulls some magic inside outs again against mediocre competition to save his life...and he'd still be near Bruguera category, coz the ruller of this time, on clay is Nadal and that's it.

Just as Courier was absolutely dominant in his time. Agassi never was. He's like Federer a player who adjusted his huge talent for all other kinds of courts to be competitive enough on clay, but that's not a great clay courter.

He's a Milky Way distance better player, but not a greater clay courter.

IMO

bouncer7
01-31-2012, 10:49 PM
It's far enough to say Fed's a greater clay-courter. Djokovic, no - not yet.

not yet LOL who else did won back to back Rome and Madrid over the greatest claycourter ever in only 14 days LOL

LawrenceOfTennis
01-31-2012, 10:52 PM
not yet LOL who else did won back to back Rome and Madrid over the greatest claycourter ever in only 14 days LOL

2 RG > Madrid,Rome

bouncer7
01-31-2012, 10:59 PM
2 RG > Madrid,Rome

no matter that, he said djoker is not great claycourter. And probably will finish career with 4x or more clay titles than Courier

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 11:54 PM
Just as Courier was absolutely dominant in his time. Agassi never was. He's like Federer a player who adjusted his huge talent for all other kinds of courts to be competitive enough on clay, but that's not a great clay courter.

He's a Milky Way distance better player, but not a greater clay courter.

IMO

Courier was dominant like Nadal but won only 5 titles on clay?

So, Federer "just adjusted" to clay but the american Courier was born on red claycourts like Nadal in Mallorca?

How is Federer like Agassi? Agassi never played a full clay season, he prepared for RG relaxing on the Miami beaches just hoping he could go in with his flat shots and taking the ball on the rise like on hardcourt.

HKz
02-01-2012, 12:01 AM
no matter that, he said djoker is not great claycourter. And probably will finish career with 4x or more clay titles than Courier

Gee, another Djokotard trying to jump any comment that doesn't say "Novak is #1"

Sophocles didn't say Djokovic wasn't great on clay, clearly it was just a comparison to Courier. Either way, in truth, Djokovic doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence, he has yet to even reach one RG final, who cares about those MS events right now.

Sure, Nadal has prevented Novak from reaching the final of RG several times, but to even make the final was not guaranteed those years he made the SFs against Nadal. Even if he made the final those two years, he would of played against Federer and I doubt Federer would have lost if they met in 2007. 2008 could have gone either way, but I would still give the edge to Federer. Then of course we all know Djokovic hasn't met Nadal since 2008 at RG.

BigJohn
02-03-2012, 03:50 AM
Courier at his peak in the early 90s? Yes he was a better clay courter then Nole and Fed.

I have to agree with SSS here.

Peak Courier would cream both Nole and Fed on clay, he would not even lose a set if the played doubles against him.

But of course, Courier, Fed and Nole would lose against Sampras in his fabled Rome 94 form, the pinnacle of clay court tennis. Sampras would make it competitive playing against the 3 on the other side of the net at the same time.

Nole and Fed benefit from a weak era. If they played in Sampras era, they would both be slamless, and they would both be Sampras's turkeys.

Roddickominator
02-03-2012, 03:58 AM
I have to agree with SSS here.

Peak Courier would cream both Nole and Fed on clay, he would not even lose a set if the played doubles against him.

Nole and Fed benefit from a weak era. If they played in Sampras era, they would both be slamless, and they would both be Sampras's turkeys.

You are absolutely right. Peak Courier, which unfortunately lasted not very long at all, was an elite clay courter. Better than Roger and Novak for sure. If you're looking at sustained excellence then he obviously isn't your guy, but peak form you will find few better.

TennisGrandSlam
02-03-2012, 03:59 AM
Courier is strong forehand,

and also play well in baseline,

but he is not clay expert (like Chang).

fast_clay
02-03-2012, 04:21 AM
Lets look at Courier's final opponents in his 5 big clay finals:

Won against:

Agassi 1991 RG final, Korda in 1992 RG final, Carlos Costa in Rome final 1992, Goran Ivanisevic in Rome final 1993.

Lost against: Sergi Bruguera in 1993 RG final.

So, his only though claycourter in a big clay tournament final was the one he lost to?

Compare with Federer:

Won against: Safin in Hamburg 2002 final, Coria in Hamburg 2004 final, Gasquet in Hamburg 2005 final, Nadal in Hamburg 2007 final, Nadal in Madrid 2009, Soderling in RG 2009.

Lost to: Nadal x 10 between 2006-2011 RG and master series finals and Mantilla 2003 Rome.

Djokovic won against: Nadal in ROme and Madrid 2011, Wawrinka in Rome 2008

Lost to: Nadal x2 (and Nadal x6 in SFs of RG and master series)

I dont know what though opponents Courier was playing on clay, but Ivanisevic, Korda and Agassi in big clay finals doesnt compare to what Djokovic and Federer is facing.

i'm sorry but carlos costa is a high quality finalist at the age... solid top tenner built on clay results

Mystique
02-03-2012, 04:43 AM
For now, Federer>Courier>Novak. Federer is a much better clay courter than Courier, he has actually had great success on clay in spite of Nadal being around. He has been the 2nd best clay courter in the last 6-7 years in the world. Nadal alone stopped him from being a clay court giant. As for Novak, I am sure he will win RG soon, he has the game. But I dont think we can say Novak was stopped by Rafa basically. At RG in particular, I believe he lost thrice in a row to Nadal from 06-08. Had he won them all too, I just dont believe he would have navigated past a "desperate for the FO" Federer.

This order may, and I expect WILL change soon however

Shinoj
02-03-2012, 05:40 AM
Honestly who gives so much F**K to just being a Clay Courter. Jim Courier without having a Clay Back ground won the two Roland Garos dominating the tournament for a good 3 years. Its more than good enough for the History records. He is one of the RG legends.Take That.

Mae
02-03-2012, 10:38 AM
For some reason he's a forgotten player in my mind. I know at one time he was #1 in the World, but I can't even remember seeing Courier play :shrug:

Jimnik
02-11-2012, 04:28 PM
Jim Courier not even playing and still defeating Federer on clay. :worship:

romismak
02-11-2012, 04:46 PM
Courier got 2 RG, but his record on clay was nothing special, those 2 RG are i would say, because he was so good that time, ha also has 2 AO, simply he prefers to play on slower surfaces, clay back than played more like clay, not like nowadays, but still with Courier style, clay courts suited him, but besides RG he didnīt care to play much clay matches, hard to tell how good of a clay-courter he was because of this things, but Roger is for sure best of this, so many RG finals, being defeated only by best clay-courter plus Soderling unplayable that QF, so really Rogerīs clay record is much more impressive, Nole on other hand needs to win RG to proove himself, but he is very good on clay, his record, number of clay Masters 1000 finals-titles is really good, much better than guys like Ferrer for example, but at this moment i would pick Jimīs 2 RG over Noleīs clay achievemets, but in moment Nole will hold RG trophy in my mind he is greater clay-courter

EddieNero
02-11-2012, 04:48 PM
Jim speaks the best english amongst them so yes.

SapELee
02-11-2012, 04:53 PM
Jim Courier not even playing and still defeating Federer on clay. :worship:

I think some of the players actually improve on clay since he took over :worship: I noticed that Ryan, for one, has greatly improved his movement since he started practicing with the Davis cup team last year.

LawrenceOfTennis
02-11-2012, 05:46 PM
I don't know but he is a great clay court expert for sure. He taught Isner how to play on clay.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-11-2012, 06:57 PM
courier and agassi would win calender grand slams if they played on these joke surfaces that all play the same

its a disgrace to see how low tennis has sunk just to get viewing figures

its used to be

AO- medium pace high bounce
RG- slow high bounce
WIM- fast no bounce
US OPEN- fast high bounce

now its

AO- medium high bounce
RG- medium high bounce
WIM- medium high bounce
US OPEN- medium high bounce

and people wonder why suddenly everyone has a career slam in their pockets

Marc23
02-11-2012, 08:33 PM
I do...

thrust
02-12-2012, 01:09 AM
AJ also says all greats would find a way in any era, I dont fully agree with that statement (Rosewall and Mcenroe would not find a way in the modern era, even Sampras doubtfully would achieve much, that is what I think atleast). However, I see absolutely no reason to question Borg's ability to learn a great forehand with 90s raquets or modern raquets, ofcourse it would be great and he would love to play in the modern grinding era of the 2000s, even if Djokovic and Nadal probably would give him a hell of a fight.

Anyway, Borg would beat Courier in any era on clay, that much I can say without any doubt.

Players can only be judged by their achievements in the era they played in. It is all that simple. True some eras are stronger than others, but one can only play those who are available at that time. Rosewall played in very tough eras as an amateur, pro and the open era. He was a top 20 player for at least 20 years. At 5-7, he acknkowledges that he would have a very tough time in todays game. Still, he as an all-time great for what he achieved in eras he competed. Sampras at 6-2, would have been very successful in today's game using today's equipment. The same is true of Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander and a few others.

Sunset of Age
02-12-2012, 01:11 AM
No. Next!
Fed and Djoko have had to deal with the greatest clay courter ever bar Borg in the past 5, 6 years of time, and Nadal catching up with Borg might well just be a matter of time. :wavey:

thrust
02-12-2012, 01:18 AM
Jim Courier not even playing and still defeating Federer on clay. :worship:

LOL! Still, overall, I would rate Roger above Jim on clay.

BigJohn
02-12-2012, 01:24 AM
LOL! Still, overall, I would rate Roger above Jim on clay.

But below Sampras Rome 94.

leng jai
02-12-2012, 01:35 AM
DC just proved it. Courier's mere presence on clay = Federer insta-lose.

Mountaindewslave
02-12-2012, 05:35 AM
Borg was probably more ahead of his generation than Courier, so that will make it closer. But Couriers forehand would be a hell of a lot bigger than any forehand in that era. So I would put my money on courier.

rofl the day i hear someone on this forum say they think that Courier would EVER beat Borg on clay..... :o truly embrassing that you would say such a thing...

Courier would have no way to beat Borg, Borg is way too fast and if they played in the same era with the same racket technology his power would not be much of an advantage...

put money on COurier absolutely ridiculous