Who's more talented? Hewitt vs. Courier [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who's more talented? Hewitt vs. Courier

Xavier7
01-21-2011, 12:57 PM
Anyone think these 2 had a similar career.
Both seemed to be the best in their generation and won slams when very young and were world number one for a couple of years.

They both got overtaken by Sampras and Federer respectively however and did nowhere near as well as people would've predcited in their late 20s.

n8
01-21-2011, 01:34 PM
I definitely see your point. Nice one :).

Voo de Mar
01-21-2011, 01:48 PM
Yes, there's a parallel between them :)

tommyg6
12-26-2011, 02:57 PM
http://www.tennisserver.com/images/Mercantile2005/Mercantile-2005-388.jpg
Jim Courier
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_W-fzSy0viCk/THZGQJwI4sI/AAAAAAAAAFs/MK8h7li00bg/s1600/Lleyton+Hewitt.jpg
Lleyton Hewitt

Both guys play a pretty similar baseline game. Both guys are former no.1's. Both guys won a few slams. Both guy's reign at the top were overturned by better no.1's (Feds, Sampras). Overall these guys are pretty similar.

If you take a prime Courier vs. a prime Hewitt, who would win? And who would win on grass? on clay? on carpet? and on hard?

Shinoj
12-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Courier is way way more talented than Hewitt.

Had a massive Forehand which was well discussed in the forum. Had a Solid Backhand. Great First serve. And a really Strong Strong game.

Hewitt on the other hand feeds on the strength of the ball from the opponents. Has a feeble game really as compared to Courier
and the Results show. 2 more Grand Slams for Courier.

samanosuke
12-26-2011, 03:15 PM
Hewitt

tommyg6
12-26-2011, 03:17 PM
Courier is way way more talented than Hewitt.

Had a massive Forehand which was well discussed in the forum. Had a Solid Backhand. Great First serve. And a really Strong Strong game.

Hewitt on the other hand feeds on the strength of the ball from the opponents. Has a feeble game really as compared to Courier
and the Results show. 2 more Grand Slams for Courier.

How would the two do against each other on 4 different surfaces? carpet? hard? grass? clay?

HKz
12-26-2011, 03:20 PM
Totally different players. Hewitt was a counter-puncher much more suited on faster surfaces while Courier was a rather prototypical baseliner suited for slower surfaces. Yes he had success on the faster surfaces, but he was a different player.

Courier would easily handle Hewitt in Australia and Roland Garros, however, I think Hewitt would beat Courier at Wimbledon/US Open, however, those matches would be a lot closer.

Shinoj
12-26-2011, 03:21 PM
How would the two do against each other on 4 different surfaces? carpet? hard? grass? clay?


All of them for Courier. Perhaps grass would be tight. But Courier had done good at Wimbeldon too and Hewitt dominated Grass at a time when nobody was there really.

But Clay,hard Court,Indoors without a Doubt Courier.

HKz
12-26-2011, 03:28 PM
All of them for Courier. Perhaps grass would be tight. But Courier had done good at Wimbeldon too and Hewitt dominated Grass at a time when nobody was there really.

But Clay,hard Court,Indoors without a Doubt Courier.

Courier's record at Wimbledon is still notably worse than Hewitt's even if you don't give Lleyton's win as much value. Courier made like one 4th round (which was his last Wimbledon), a QF and a final while Hewitt had four 4th rounds, three QFs, one SF and obviously the win. Lleyton also had the better record in New York as well by quite a stretch.

tommyg6
12-26-2011, 03:32 PM
My picks as what the scoreline would be in the 4 slams,

Australian Open - peak Jim Courier def. peak Lleyton Hewitt 6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3
Roland Garros - peak Jim Courier def. peak Lleyton Hewitt 6-3, 6-4, 6-2
Wimbledon - peak Lleyton Hewitt def. peak Jim Courier 7-5, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6
US Open - peak Jim Courier def. peak Lleyton Hewitt 6-4, 3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-4

Dougie
12-26-2011, 03:40 PM
Totally different players. Hewitt was a counter-puncher much more suited on faster surfaces while Courier was a rather prototypical baseliner suited for slower surfaces. Yes he had success on the faster surfaces, but he was a different player.

Courier would easily handle Hewitt in Australia and Roland Garros, however, I think Hewitt would beat Courier at Wimbledon/US Open, however, those matches would be a lot closer.

I wouldnt say Couriers game was that suited for slower surfaces. Itīs easy to say that because of the two RGīs titles, but he definitely wasnīt like the clay court grinders of that era. He hit relatively flat, and he was much more succesful on hard courts. Excluding the two RG-titles, he only won three other titles on clay.

Courier's record at Wimbledon is still notably worse than Hewitt's even if you don't give Lleyton's win as much value. Courier made like one 4th round (which was his last Wimbledon), a QF and a final while Hewitt had four 4th rounds, three QFs, one SF and obviously the win. Lleyton also had the better record in New York as well by quite a stretch.

You have to remember that Courier made it to the WImbledon final in an era where he had to play against serve/volley-players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Edberg etc, when they were at their prime, and grass was actually fast. Thatīs quite an accomplishment. Hewitt as a counterpuncher enjoyed playing in an era where the best serve/vollyers were already retiring and grass was getting slower. If prime Courier and prime Hewitt played against each other on fast hc or grass, iīd give Courier the edge, because he was the more active one of the two.

Riosreigned
12-26-2011, 03:48 PM
Good question. Courier was bigger and stronger and won more slams but I think Hewitt was actually the more talented player. Quicker, more aesthetic and a better fighter, not that Courier wasn't a super animal great fighter but Hewitt was the greatest fighter I ever saw on court, even better than Nadal pound for pound, Nadal was much bigger and stronger but Hewitt was like a rabid pack of Heyenas. Hewitt loved to scrap it out, he was the supreme player and that was an incredible feat because he did it against all the HWTs and Hewitt was a welterweight in stature. I think Hewitt's backhand was far better than the Rock's too, and so was his net game and footspeed/court coverage. Not to take anything away from Courier because he was an overachiever and a phenomenal player too but Hewitt was more talented IMO.

Riosreigned
12-26-2011, 03:50 PM
Prime Courier vs. prime Hewitt would have been one helluva slugfest, I'd really like to see that match. Can't remember if they ever played each other. Don't think they did.

Bobby
12-26-2011, 03:52 PM
It's not possible to compare talents of two players.

HKz
12-26-2011, 03:54 PM
I wouldnt say Couriers game was that suited for slower surfaces. Itīs easy to say that because of the two RGīs titles, but he definitely wasnīt like the clay court grinders of that era. He hit relatively flat, and he was much more succesful on hard courts. Excluding the two RG-titles, he only won three other titles on clay.



You have to remember that Courier made it to the WImbledon final in an era where he had to play against serve/volley-players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Edberg etc, when they were at their prime, and grass was actually fast. Thatīs quite an accomplishment. Hewitt as a counterpuncher enjoyed playing in an era where the best serve/vollyers were already retiring and grass was getting slower. If prime Courier and prime Hewitt played against each other on fast hc or grass, iīd give Courier the edge, because he was the more active one of the two.

Yes, Courier wasn't as suited to slower surfaces as some other players, but he certainly wasn't an Agassi that benefited well from playing on the faster surfaces. Hewitt was clearly much more successful on the fastest surfaces in the world while struggled on clay/slow hardcourts.

Well let's take a look at who Courier lost to at Wimbledon..

1989 - 1st round Seguso
1990 - 3rd round Woodforde
1991 - QF Stich
1992 - 3rd round Olhovskiy
1993 - Final Sampras
1994 - 2nd round Forget
1995 - 2nd round Pioline
1996 - 1st round Stark
1997 - 1st round Gimelstob
1998 - 1st round Johansson
1999 - 4th round Henman

Really the only notable one was 1993 as Courier did beat Edberg along the way (and Martin if that counts). Aside from that, Stich was the only truly notable loss (Forget/Pioline/Henman were clearly not slam class). But yes, aside from the Edberg win, Courier had taken no other notable scalps as far as I can remember.

Dougie
12-26-2011, 04:00 PM
Yes, Courier wasn't as suited to slower surfaces as some other players, but he certainly wasn't an Agassi that benefited well from playing on the faster surfaces. Hewitt was clearly much more successful on the fastest surfaces in the world while struggled on clay/slow hardcourts.

Well let's take a look at who Courier lost to at Wimbledon..

1989 - 1st round Seguso
1990 - 3rd round Woodforde
1991 - QF Stich
1992 - 3rd round Olhovskiy
1993 - Final Sampras
1994 - 2nd round Forget
1995 - 2nd round Pioline
1996 - 1st round Stark
1997 - 1st round Gimelstob
1998 - 1st round Johansson
1999 - 4th round Henman

Really the only notable one was 1993 as Courier did beat Edberg along the way (and Martin if that counts). Aside from that, Stich was the only truly notable loss (Forget/Pioline/Henman were clearly not slam class). But yes, aside from the Edberg win, Courier had taken no other notable scalps as far as I can remember.

Certainly losing to Gimelstob is embarassing on any surface, at any time. But you have to remember that COurierīs career at the top was really short, it was pretty much from 1991-95, on any surface. His downhill was really quick. So if we look at that period, only the loss to Olhovskiy seems like a bad one, Stich, Sampras, Forget and Pioline were all excellent players.

HKz
12-26-2011, 04:08 PM
Certainly losing to Gimelstob is embarassing on any surface, at any time. But you have to remember that COurierīs career at the top was really short, it was pretty much from 1991-95, on any surface. His downhill was really quick. So if we look at that period, only the loss to Olhovskiy seems like a bad one, Stich, Sampras, Forget and Pioline were all excellent players.

Stich and Sampras I acknowledge, but Forget was a Grand Slam mug honestly, and while Pioline was certainly a great and talented player, nothing to gawk at either. Hewitt in general had the better record and lost to more notable players IMO (Djokovic two times, Federer three times, Baghdatis one time, Soderling one time, Roddick one time).

Shinoj
12-26-2011, 04:14 PM
Courier's record at Wimbledon is still notably worse than Hewitt's even if you don't give Lleyton's win as much value. Courier made like one 4th round (which was his last Wimbledon), a QF and a final while Hewitt had four 4th rounds, three QFs, one SF and obviously the win. Lleyton also had the better record in New York as well by quite a stretch.


As Cliched it may sound but fact remains Courier was playing in quite a strong Era While Hewitt was in a Transitional Era.

HKz
12-26-2011, 04:16 PM
As Cliched it may sound but fact remains Courier was playing in quite a strong Era While Hewitt was in a Transitional Era.

Hewitt won during a transitional era, but I'm not pulling his losses during this period, rather after 2003.

Shinoj
12-26-2011, 04:16 PM
Yes, Courier wasn't as suited to slower surfaces as some other players, but he certainly wasn't an Agassi that benefited well from playing on the faster surfaces. Hewitt was clearly much more successful on the fastest surfaces in the world while struggled on clay/slow hardcourts.

Well let's take a look at who Courier lost to at Wimbledon..

1989 - 1st round Seguso
1990 - 3rd round Woodforde
1991 - QF Stich
1992 - 3rd round Olhovskiy
1993 - Final Sampras
1994 - 2nd round Forget
1995 - 2nd round Pioline
1996 - 1st round Stark
1997 - 1st round Gimelstob
1998 - 1st round Johansson
1999 - 4th round Henman

Really the only notable one was 1993 as Courier did beat Edberg along the way (and Martin if that counts). Aside from that, Stich was the only truly notable loss (Forget/Pioline/Henman were clearly not slam class). But yes, aside from the Edberg win, Courier had taken no other notable scalps as far as I can remember.

You have to count 91-93 as that was the time When Courier truly was at his peak.

HKz
12-26-2011, 04:22 PM
You have to count 91-93 as that was the time When Courier truly was at his peak.

Right, and then we have to compensate that grass is slower now, etc, etc, etc. It is somehow going to fall in favor of Courier, but either way, Hewitt was truly solid at Wimbledon and grass in general. Hewitt even has a win over Sampras at Queens, though obviously those in favor of Courier will point of Sampras was out of his peak, but even as though as that may be the case, peak Courier which we can agree is 91-93, had only 2 wins out of 9 matches against Sampras in those 3 years.

Dougie
12-26-2011, 04:34 PM
Right, and then we have to compensate that grass is slower now, etc, etc, etc. It is somehow going to fall in favor of Courier, but either way, Hewitt was truly solid at Wimbledon and grass in general. Hewitt even has a win over Sampras at Queens, though obviously those in favor of Courier will point of Sampras was out of his peak, but even as though as that may be the case, peak Courier which we can agree is 91-93, had only 2 wins out of 9 matches against Sampras in those 3 years.

I donīt see how comparison to Sampras is relevant when weīre talking about Courier and Hewitt. Yes, Courier had a losing record against Pete, but Sampras is one of the best players ever on grass and hc, and he was in his absolute prime in the 90s. And as you said, he was past his peak when Hewitt emerged. A prime Sampras would have kicked Lleytonīs ass if they had played on fast grass.

HKz
12-26-2011, 04:37 PM
I donīt see how comparison to Sampras is relevant when weīre talking about Courier and Hewitt. Yes, Courier had a losing record against Pete, but Sampras is one of the best players ever on grass and hc, and he was in his absolute prime in the 90s. And as you said, he was past his peak when Hewitt emerged. A prime Sampras would have kicked Lleytonīs ass if they had played on fast grass.

You don't see why we are comparing their success against Sampras? Obviously because he was the best in the 90s on the faster surfaces. Only true way to really link the two players in terms of success as that is the only common element. Even then it is still extremely subjective, but it is much less subjective than trying to point out the field of players, surface speeds, etc.

Courier had his chances in 1991-1993 as he was in his prime while Sampras was still clearly not in his prime, so you can make the case either way. Both Hewitt and Courier faced a non-prime Sampras in their times and both managed to win 1 US Open around the same time with Sampras entering his prime in 1993 and leaving his prime in 2000.

Shinoj
12-26-2011, 04:56 PM
Right, and then we have to compensate that grass is slower now, etc, etc, etc. It is somehow going to fall in favor of Courier, but either way, Hewitt was truly solid at Wimbledon and grass in general. Hewitt even has a win over Sampras at Queens, though obviously those in favor of Courier will point of Sampras was out of his peak, but even as though as that may be the case, peak Courier which we can agree is 91-93, had only 2 wins out of 9 matches against Sampras in those 3 years.

Its a hypothesis but still consider this

If Federer would have peaked in 2001 than 2003 what would have Hewitt been left with?

On the other hand Courier would have nicked the RGs and the odd AO as well if Sampras peaked in 91.

Dougie
12-26-2011, 05:50 PM
You don't see why we are comparing their success against Sampras? Obviously because he was the best in the 90s on the faster surfaces. Only true way to really link the two players in terms of success as that is the only common element. Even then it is still extremely subjective, but it is much less subjective than trying to point out the field of players, surface speeds, etc.

Courier had his chances in 1991-1993 as he was in his prime while Sampras was still clearly not in his prime, so you can make the case either way. Both Hewitt and Courier faced a non-prime Sampras in their times and both managed to win 1 US Open around the same time with Sampras entering his prime in 1993 and leaving his prime in 2000.

By 1993 Sampras had already 3 GS titles and 1 final, as well as 1 year end championship and 1 Grand Slam Cup. So he was clearly at the beginning of his prime, and certainly more competitive and hungry than he was in 2000, when Hewitt started beating him.

Also, the Sampras-factor clearly favors Hewitt, because Sampras was the worst possible mactch-up for COurier. It was Sampras who originally exposed Courierīs game, exposing his backhand by first attacking his forehand-side. Sampras was the first to figure it out, and thatīs pretty much where Courierīs downhill started.
Hewitt, on the other hand, was more than happy to keep passing Sampras, who was getting older and slower by the beginning of the 2000īs.
So itīs not really fair to compare Courier and Hewitt by comparing their results against Sampras.

By the way, Courier never won the US Open.

HKz
12-26-2011, 07:55 PM
Its a hypothesis but still consider this

If Federer would have peaked in 2001 than 2003 what would have Hewitt been left with?

On the other hand Courier would have nicked the RGs and the odd AO as well if Sampras peaked in 91.

Uh, your point? RG and AO is not in question bro. I said Courier would beat Hewitt at RG and AO pretty easily. Wimbledon and US Open are in question here.

By 1993 Sampras had already 3 GS titles and 1 final, as well as 1 year end championship and 1 Grand Slam Cup. So he was clearly at the beginning of his prime, and certainly more competitive and hungry than he was in 2000, when Hewitt started beating him.

Also, the Sampras-factor clearly favors Hewitt, because Sampras was the worst possible mactch-up for COurier. It was Sampras who originally exposed Courierīs game, exposing his backhand by first attacking his forehand-side. Sampras was the first to figure it out, and thatīs pretty much where Courierīs downhill started.
Hewitt, on the other hand, was more than happy to keep passing Sampras, who was getting older and slower by the beginning of the 2000īs.
So itīs not really fair to compare Courier and Hewitt by comparing their results against Sampras.

By the way, Courier never won the US Open.

By 1993, Sampras only had one slam. It was only until 1993 that he won Wimbledon and US Open for the second time.

I never said Courier won the US Open, it was a slightly mid-wording on my part, I meant Sampras won US Open during both stretches after a short drought period (1991 and 2002) while facing Courier and Hewitt respectively.

But your posts have shown how subjective, like most of tennis analysis, this has become. You can argue Sampras was so much better 1991-1993 despite not being in his true prime, but one could argue similarly 2000-2002. Yes, he wasn't the same physically, but he certainly had the years of experience and mental game to still be at the top. It is a total trade off. Bringing in specific match-ups is exactly what I didn't want pointed out.

tommyg6
12-26-2011, 08:04 PM
Here's my breakdown

Fast Grass: Hewitt>>>Courier
Slow Grass: Hewitt>>Courier
Indoor Carpet: Hewitt>Courier
Indoor Hard: Courier>Hewitt
Outdoor Slow Hard: Courier>>>Hewitt
Outdoor Medium Hard: Courier>>Hewitt
Outdoor Fast Hard: Courier>Hewitt
Outdoor Slow Clay: Courier>>>>>>Hewitt
Outdoor Medium Clay: Courier>>>>>>Hewitt
Outdoor Fast Clay: Courier>>>>>Hewitt

rutinos harcos
12-27-2011, 12:01 AM
Hewitt

Naah,Courier.

rutinos harcos
12-27-2011, 12:04 AM
Courier is way way more talented than Hewitt.

Had a massive Forehand which was well discussed in the forum. Had a Solid Backhand. Great First serve. And a really Strong Strong game.

Hewitt on the other hand feeds on the strength of the ball from the opponents. Has a feeble game really as compared to Courier
and the Results show. 2 more Grand Slams for Courier.
Yep.I agree.

Chirag
12-27-2011, 02:27 AM
Courier

rocketassist
12-27-2011, 02:56 AM
Hewitt more talented, Courier superior career.

Good to see my fellow Wirral lad about.

Mountaindewslave
12-27-2011, 03:25 AM
Courier had a higher level of competition when he won his Grand Slams than Hewitt did. both weren't on top of the game in particularly strong periods of time BUT you can't be on top in much more of a transitional period than Hewitt was. I think memory becomes a problem, like with this poll, people vote for Hewitt because they better remember his best moments, and forget how great Courier was at certain points. Not at all similar styles but Courier was very talented off the baseline and it's a bit of a myth that people figured him out as much as that someone with his style couldn't dominate for a prolonged period of time against the variety that was around as the 90's developed.

Definitely Courier > Hewitt as far as talent, Hewitt got extremely lucky no one else emerged with him besides Roddick and that the other great players were winding down. Federer was MIA for a few years as well which definitely helped.

Courier had a tougher field and was more talented.

Shinoj
12-27-2011, 05:50 AM
Uh, your point? RG and AO is not in question bro. I said Courier would beat Hewitt at RG and AO pretty easily. Wimbledon and US Open are in question here.




Honestly i cant see a Peak Hewitt beating peak Courier.

As we had discussed earlier Courier had better Ground Strokes,Better serve over Hewitt. Only thing Hewitt was par at was their temperament. Both had a Champions mentality,bear in mind i am talking about their Peak levels.

So i would say it would be Courier over Hewitt on all surfaces including Wimbeldon and US Open.

stewietennis
12-27-2011, 10:53 PM
Peak Hewitt didn't have close to the firepower of Peak Courier. However, Hewitt was like a roadrunner during his peak years.

leng jai
12-27-2011, 10:59 PM
Talent wise it has to be Hewitt - his court craft and all round skills are far ahead of Courier.

SaFed2005
12-28-2011, 04:02 AM
Good question. Courier was bigger and stronger and won more slams but I think Hewitt was actually the more talented player. Quicker, more aesthetic and a better fighter, not that Courier wasn't a super animal great fighter but Hewitt was the greatest fighter I ever saw on court, even better than Nadal pound for pound, Nadal was much bigger and stronger but Hewitt was like a rabid pack of Heyenas. Hewitt loved to scrap it out, he was the supreme player and that was an incredible feat because he did it against all the HWTs and Hewitt was a welterweight in stature. I think Hewitt's backhand was far better than the Rock's too, and so was his net game and footspeed/court coverage. Not to take anything away from Courier because he was an overachiever and a phenomenal player too but Hewitt was more talented IMO.

I agree with this. :)

philosophicalarf
12-28-2011, 08:00 PM
Courier had a higher level of competition when he won his Grand Slams than Hewitt did.


True. But strangely, Courier had most success when the competition was best, 91-93. For example, end 92 the top10: Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Korda, Lendl and Krajicek. Now some weren't the players they had been, or the players they would become, so that looks stronger than it is ....... but still, topping that lot takes some doing.

Oddly enough, despite the level of the field dropping away seriously as the 90s went on, Courier never regained the level of those years.

TennisGrandSlam
12-29-2011, 06:49 AM
Courier is more hardworking
Hewitt is more talented but burnt out

Courier could not establish his dynasty, because of Sampras.
Hewitt could not establish his dynasty, not because of Federer, but because of his strategy.

No doubt, Hewitt has more effect on Tennis history than Courier. (S&Vers are totally KOed by Baseliners, especially by defensive baseliners like Hewitt (and now Nadal).

rleatherman
08-05-2013, 12:06 AM
The statistics don't lie... Hewitt by a long shot. See attached Statistics

Kyle_Johansen
08-05-2013, 12:52 AM
Not to let a good bump go to waste....

Hewitt.

Del GOATro
08-05-2013, 01:32 AM
Courier by a country mile.

BackhandDTL
08-05-2013, 01:39 AM
I don't know why this thread was revived, but I'd like to know where I can get a pair of rose-colored lenses people oft-review the past with.

Reading this thread, you would think Courier was some all-court legend rather than the decidedly one-dimensional great he actually was.

"Solid backhand" :lol: That's so generous.

leng jai
08-05-2013, 02:19 AM
Courier played baseball on a tennis court.

HKz
08-05-2013, 02:28 AM
The statistics don't lie... Hewitt by a long shot. See attached Statistics

Courier's numbers are IMO unfairly skewed due to his immediate decline after 1993, he was burned out. Hewitt on the other hand didn't drop in results as quickly because he was pretty much a top contender from about 2000 till perhaps around 2006. Such a question requires one to look at just their peak years. But yes, in overall numbers, Hewitt perhaps the more successful player despite the lack of 2 slams.

rleatherman
08-05-2013, 03:17 AM
Courier's numbers are IMO unfairly skewed due to his immediate decline after 1993, he was burned out. Hewitt on the other hand didn't drop in results as quickly because he was pretty much a top contender from about 2000 till perhaps around 2006. Such a question requires one to look at just their peak years. But yes, in overall numbers, Hewitt perhaps the more successful player despite the lack of 2 slams.

Actually this is where there are similarities in that I agree that Courier's numbers and ranking fell when he was burned out... Hewitt's numbers also declined from major injuries in his career being 2008 hip surgery and later major foot surgery. He has been plagued with foot issues from 2007.

Courier was still in the top 20's in 1997, ten years after he kicked off his career and Lleyton Hewitt was also in top 20's in 2007, ten years after his career started. Hewitt and Jim both declined around the same time in their careers with Hewitt making somewhat of a resurgence in 2010.

If you look at both of their peak years, Hewitt still has dramatically better stats, hence the reason why overall Hewitt's stats are dramatically better in just about all categories.

dencod16
08-05-2013, 04:04 AM
True. But strangely, Courier had most success when the competition was best, 91-93. For example, end 92 the top10: Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Korda, Lendl and Krajicek. Now some weren't the players they had been, or the players they would become, so that looks stronger than it is ....... but still, topping that lot takes some doing.

Oddly enough, despite the level of the field dropping away seriously as the 90s went on, Courier never regained the level of those years.

LOL. Edberg, Lendl were in decline. And Ivanisevic and Krajicek reaching QF of French shows how player were on clay. Chang and Sampras were just going up the ladder. Kodra was a random player, he reached the final of French Open but never got beyond 4th round other than that, Won Australian Open but only got pass the 3rd round other than that.

dencod16
08-05-2013, 04:06 AM
Courier was a better baseliner but Hewitt is better overall.

rleatherman
08-05-2013, 05:13 AM
Courier had a higher level of competition when he won his Grand Slams than Hewitt did. both weren't on top of the game in particularly strong periods of time BUT you can't be on top in much more of a transitional period than Hewitt was. I think memory becomes a problem, like with this poll, people vote for Hewitt because they better remember his best moments, and forget how great Courier was at certain points. Not at all similar styles but Courier was very talented off the baseline and it's a bit of a myth that people figured him out as much as that someone with his style couldn't dominate for a prolonged period of time against the variety that was around as the 90's developed.

Definitely Courier > Hewitt as far as talent, Hewitt got extremely lucky no one else emerged with him besides Roddick and that the other great players were winding down. Federer was MIA for a few years as well which definitely helped.

Courier had a tougher field and was more talented.

Don't agree... take a look at the Top Ten players Hewitt was up against during 2001 -2003:

Gustavo Kuerten, Andre Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Sebastian Grosjean, Patrick Rafter, Tommy Haas, Tim Henman, Pete Sampras, Carlos Moya, Roger Federer, Jiri Novak, Albert Costa, Andy Roddick, Guillermo Coria, Rainer Schuettler, David Nalbandian, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin

Federer was number 2 in the world in 2003, number 6 in the world in 2002 and number 12 in the world in 2001... hardly MIA. Saying no one else emerged with him is not correct. For example, Juan Carlos Ferrero emerged at the exact same time, went on to be number 1 in the world in 2003 and was in the top 5 for most of 2001 and 2002. David Nalbandian also emerged at the same time as Hewitt climbing into the top ten in 2003 and was in the top 20 in 2002. Guillermo Coria emerged at the same time and was a top 3 player. Kuerten... number 1 in the world. Moya was number 4 in 2003. Safin emerged at exactly the same time as Hewitt and made it to number one during that time and was a dominant force in tennis for years later.

Also, Agassi was at the 2nd peak of his career having climbed back into number 1 position in 2001 and 2003 and number 2 in 2002. He was arguably playing the best tennis of his career. Haas made it to number 2 at the time and he's ranked # 12 today.

NicolasKiefer44
08-05-2013, 12:05 PM
All the way Courier.

rleatherman
08-05-2013, 12:35 PM
All the way Courier.

really... did you not read the stats?

Kyle_Johansen
08-05-2013, 08:36 PM
Don't agree... take a look at the Top Ten players Hewitt was up against during 2001 -2003:

Gustavo Kuerten, Andre Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Sebastian Grosjean, Patrick Rafter, Tommy Haas, Tim Henman, Pete Sampras, Carlos Moya, Roger Federer, Jiri Novak, Albert Costa, Andy Roddick, Guillermo Coria, Rainer Schuettler, David Nalbandian, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin

Federer was number 2 in the world in 2003, number 6 in the world in 2002 and number 12 in the world in 2001... hardly MIA. Saying no one else emerged with him is not correct. For example, Juan Carlos Ferrero emerged at the exact same time, went on to be number 1 in the world in 2003 and was in the top 5 for most of 2001 and 2002. David Nalbandian also emerged at the same time as Hewitt climbing into the top ten in 2003 and was in the top 20 in 2002. Guillermo Coria emerged at the same time and was a top 3 player. Kuerten... number 1 in the world. Moya was number 4 in 2003. Safin emerged at exactly the same time as Hewitt and made it to number one during that time and was a dominant force in tennis for years later.

Also, Agassi was at the 2nd peak of his career having climbed back into number 1 position in 2001 and 2003 and number 2 in 2002. He was arguably playing the best tennis of his career. Haas made it to number 2 at the time and he's ranked # 12 today.

I don't know why people forget how many great players played in 2001-2004. There was no one dominant player until Federer raised his game in 2004 but why does that make it weak? There were many contenders at every tournament, and isn't that what competition is about? How is an era where there are 3 real contenders for every Masters and Slam (now) more "competitive" than one where anyone in the top 20 (or even outside) could make deep runs in tournaments and be winners?

Brick Top
08-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Hewitt. Close the thread.

rleatherman
08-05-2013, 09:06 PM
I don't know why people forget how many great players played in 2001-2004. There was no one dominant player until Federer raised his game in 2004 but why does that make it weak? There were many contenders at every tournament, and isn't that what competition is about? How is an era where there are 3 real contenders for every Masters and Slam (now) more "competitive" than one where anyone in the top 20 (or even outside) could make deep runs in tournaments and be winners?

great point

Sombrerero loco
08-05-2013, 09:39 PM
rusty takes it in terms of talent, imo