Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest

Pages : [1] 2

Pirata.
03-20-2012, 02:46 AM
Tennis Channel is airing a special to showcase their picks for the 100 Greatest Players of all Time

VeBui1DoQ-4p

Here is who they have listed so far, I'll add in the next couple days when they announce the others.

100 – Michael Chang, USA
99 – Ann Haydon Jones, GBR
98 – Henry Bunny Austin, GBR
97 – Pat Cash, AUS
96 – Manuel Orantes, ESP
95 – Thomas Muster, AUT
94 – Andy Roddick, USA
93 – Nicola Pietrangeli, ITA
92 – Svetlana Kuznetsova, RUS
91 – Shirley Fry Irvin, USA
90 – Bill Johnston, USA
89 – Dorothea Lambert Chambers, GBR
88 – Amelie Mauresmo, FRA
87 – Mary Pierce, FRA
86 – Tony Wilding, NZL
85 – Yannick Noah, FRA
84 – Norman Brookes, AUS
83 – Jan Kodes, CZE
82 – Yevgeny Kafelnikov, RUS
81 – Vic Seixas, USA
80 – Marat Safin, RUS
79 – Gabriela Sabatini, ARG
78 – Ashley Cooper, AUS
77 – Molla Mallory, USA
76 – William Renshaw, GBR
75 – Pauline Betz Addie, USA
74 – Tony Roche, AUS
73 – Jaroslav Drobny, CZE
72 – Gottfried Von Cramm, GER
71 – Maria Sharapova, RUS
70 - Patrick Rafter, AUS
69 - Louise Brough Clapp, USA
68 - Helen Hull Jacobs, USA
67 - Fred Stolle, AUS
66 - Bobby Riggs, USA
65 - Pancho Segura, ECU
64 - Ellsworth Vines, USA
63 - Lleyton Hewitt, AUS
62 - Hana Mandlikova, CZE
61 - Neale Fraser, AUS
60 - Virginia Wade, GBR
59 - Margaret Osborne DuPort, USA
58 - Alice Marble, USA
57 - Jennifer Capriati, USA
56 - Stan Smith, USA
55 - Gustavo Kuerten, BRA
54 - Manolo Santana, ESP
53 - Tracy Austin, USA
52 - Jack Crawford, AUS
51 - Doris Hart, USA
50 - Tony Trabert, USA
49 - Ilie Nastase, ROU
48 - Frank Sedgman, AUS
47 - Jean Borotra, FRA
46 - Henri Cochet, FRA
45 - Kim Clijsters, BEL
44 - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, ESP
43 - Lindsay Davenport, USA
42 - Jim Courier, USA
41 - Guillermo Vilas, ARG
40 - Novak Djokovic, SRB
39 - Althea Gibson, USA
38 - Maria Bueno, BRA
37 - Evonne Goolagong, AUS
36 - René Lacoste, FRA
35 - Pancho Gonzales, USA
34 - Jack Kramer, USA
33 - Mats Wilander, SWE
32 - Lew Hoad, AUS
31 - John Newcombe, AUS
30 - Martina Hingis, SUI
29 - Helen Wills Moody, USA
28 - Arthur Ashe, USA
27 - Maureen Connolly, USA
26 - Justine Henin, BEL
25 - Stefan Edberg, SWE
24 - Suzanne Lenglen, FRA
23 - Fred Perry, GBR
22 - Venus Williams, USA
21 - Boris Becker, GER
20 - Ken Rosewall, AUS
19 - Monica Seles, USA
18 - Ivan Lendl, CZE/USA
17 - Roy Emerson, AUS
16 - Bill Tilden, USA
15 - Jimmy Connors, USA
14 - Serena Williams, USA
13 - John McEnroe, USA
12 - Andre Agassi, USA
11 - Don Budge, USA
10 - Billie Jean King, USA
9 - Chris Evert, USA
8 - Margaret Court, AUS
7 - Bjorn Borg, SWE
6 - Rafael Nadal, ESP
5 - Pete Sampras, USA
4 - Martina Navratilova, USA
3 - Steffi Graf, GER
2 - Rod Laver, AUS
1 - Roger Federer, SUI


1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Don Budge
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe
9. Jimmy Connors
10. Bill Tilden
11. Roy Emerson
12. Ivan Lendl
13. Ken Rosewall
14. Boris Becker
15. Fred Perry
16. Sefan Edberg
17. Arthur Ashe
18. John Newcombe
19. Lew Hoad
20. Matt Wilander
21. Jack Kramer
22. Pancho Gonzales
23. Rene Lacoste
24. Novak Djokovic
25. Guillermo Vilas
26. Jim Courier
27. Henri Cochet
28. Jean Borotra
29. Frank Sedgman
30. Ilie Nastase
31. Tony Trabert
32. Jack Crawford
33. Manolo Santana
34. Gustavo Kuerten
35. Stan Smith
36. Neale Fraser
37. Lleyton Hewitt
38. Ellsworth Vines
39. Pancho Segura
40. Bobby Riggs
41. Fred Stolle
42. Patrick Rafter
43. Gottfried Von Cramm
44. Jaroslav Drobny
45. Tony Roche
46. William Renshaw
47. Ashley Cooper
48. Marat Safin
49. Vic Seixas
50. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
51. Jan Kodes
52. Norman Brookes
53. Yannick Noah
54. Tony Wilding
55. Bill Johnston
56. Niccola Pietrangeli
57. Andy Roddick
58. Thomas Muster
59. Manuel Orantes
60. Pat Cash
61. Michael Chang

thrust
03-20-2012, 02:58 AM
Why are they combining men with the women? Utterly stupid, IMO!

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 03:00 AM
Oh no, dont mix men with women..

MIMIC
03-20-2012, 03:15 AM
Kinda invalidates it to mix the men with the women :sad: Still, I'm enjoying it.

SerialKillerToBe
03-20-2012, 03:21 AM
Watch Steffi Graf get first place now. You know it's going to happen too.

Ziros
03-20-2012, 03:49 AM
Watch Steffi Graf get first place now. You know it's going to happen too.
Navratilova if they take doubles into account

Pea
03-20-2012, 05:11 AM
Wow, I see all sorts of problems already.

stewietennis
03-20-2012, 05:20 AM
Steffis CYGS practically puts Laver's, Federer's, McEnroe's and Novak's best seasons to shame.

Ziros
03-20-2012, 05:45 AM
Tennis Magazine did a combined list like this a few years back. Their top 10:

1.Pete Sampras
2.Martina Navratilova
3.Steffi Graf
4.Chris Evert
5.Björn Borg
6.Margaret Court
7.Jimmy Connors
8.Rod Laver
9.Billie Jean King
10.Ivan Lendl

asotgod
03-20-2012, 06:10 AM
Tennis Magazine did a combined list like this a few years back. Their top 10:

1.Pete Sampras
2.Martina Navratilova
3.Steffi Graf
4.Chris Evert
5.Björn Borg
6.Margaret Court
7.Jimmy Connors
8.Rod Laver
9.Billie Jean King
10.Ivan Lendl

How Sampras topped this list above baffles me as he is no where close to the ladies in #2, 3 and 4 in terms of singles, how much more doubles slams won. If Sampras was put on the top then, Federer should be put on top by this same magazine but I am almost 100% certain that since he is not American, if you ask them to create the same list again, they will not put him on top of the the list but have excuses.

If combining both men and women, Navratilova should top the list,followed by Graf. Federer should be listed as the first man on the Tennis Channel list or any list, whatever the # the 1st man may be - no ifs and but about it. Enough of the excuses given for Sampras and Laver by most of these commentators, especially because Federer is not American. Laver won 12 - and that's all he won. Enough with him trying to toot his own horns. As he comes up with excuses, so can anyone can come up with many excuses to diminish what he has accomplished and it could be argued till eternity (e.g. slams being played on the same surface, etc.)

Greatness should be, in my opinion, only about what you win - not what you had the potential to win, or if the circumstances were different or how beautiful your game looks. Fortunately, singles tennis is a one on one game (unlike b-ball). So, you cannot blame it on a partner. Whatever you won, you won. If not, you didn't. No, shoulda, coulda about it. At the end, irrespective of the measures to diminish, numbers don't lie.

castle007
03-20-2012, 06:26 AM
I think either Graf or Navartilova will be number 1.

asotgod
03-20-2012, 06:29 AM
This list is quite funny. The lady at #89 won 7 Wimbledon titles. Mauresmo probably won 2 or 3 grand slams. How can she be ranked about the lady with 7 Wimbledon titles? Even though the other lady won only at Wimbledon, it does not change the fact that there is too much difference in # of slams won to put Mauresmo above her. Just like Sharapova should also be behind this lady in #89 because I think she has won 3 grand slams. Yes, it may have been on somewhat different surfaces, but that's a 4 grand slam differential. I think only if the difference is 1 or at most 2 grand slams should difference surfaces, rankings, etc should come into it.

Ziros
03-20-2012, 07:38 AM
This list is quite funny. The lady at #89 won 7 Wimbledon titles. Mauresmo probably won 2 or 3 grand slams. How can she be ranked about the lady with 7 Wimbledon titles? Even though the other lady won only at Wimbledon, it does not change the fact that there is too much difference in # of slams won to put Mauresmo above her. Just like Sharapova should also be behind this lady in #89 because I think she has won 3 grand slams. Yes, it may have been on somewhat different surfaces, but that's a 4 grand slam differential. I think only if the difference is 1 or at most 2 grand slams should difference surfaces, rankings, etc should come into it.
Because dinosaur tennis isn't given much respect nowadays,as it probably shouldn't

guy in sf
03-20-2012, 08:20 AM
Personally for me I could never place Graf at the top because Monica Seles' stabbing allowed her to rack up a lot of slams that she otherwise would not have gotten. This is forever an asterisk next to her name. At least with Navratilova there's no "what if", it's a done deal. Graf at #2 at best for me and Federer should no doubt be the highest man on the list!

Pirata.
03-20-2012, 08:40 AM
Personally for me I could never place Graf at the top because Monica Seles' stabbing allowed her to rack up a lot of slams that she otherwise would not have gotten. This is forever an asterisk next to her name. At least with Navratilova there's no "what if", it's a done deal. Graf at #2 at best for me and Federer should no doubt be the highest man on the list!

:facepalm:

Who's to say that, if she hadn't been stabbed, Seles would've matched Steffi's career? Maybe she developed the yips on her serve and declined? Maybe Steffi would've figured her out? Or she began to suffer a bizarre Ivanovic-like decline. Who knows. You can't put an asterisk by someone's career because of another player's career, you never know what would've happened otherwise.

Ben.
03-20-2012, 12:05 PM
You forgot to bold Chang, Kodes and Mauresmo.

Johnny Groove
03-20-2012, 03:36 PM
Tons of disrespect on this list already :facepalm:

Yannick Noah and his 1 slam over Anthony Wilding and his 6 slams and 6 years as #1/#2 in the world? Wilding I have as #22 all time, and he is 80+ here? Even with women, Wilding should be in the 40's.

All the men from 93 to 100 are debatable to be even on the list. Bill Johnston and Norman Brookes are both about 10 spots disrespected. Kafelnikov and Safin are a bit over ranked here, which I am surprised about since this is an American list, giving such respect to Russia.

Cooper at 78 is a bit of a joke, he shouldn't have made the list. Kodes is arguable, as is Seixas, Von Cramm, Drobny, and Roche. Renshaw at #71 is a swift kick in the balls. He should be #36 at worst.

It seems they are over rating Open Era accomplishments and maybe including doubles accomplishments too. Adding the women into the list does nothing but make it more complicated.

MaxPower
03-20-2012, 04:24 PM
horrible decision to mix men and women. Should have made the 50 best men and the 50 best women then and presented 10 from each list every time or something. Now the list will be all about political correctness even though women's tennis hasn't been as competitive until the recent decades. Even to this day it hasn't caught up to men's tennis even if the equal prize money is a nice gesture.

sexybeast
03-20-2012, 04:24 PM
Good to see you have that avatar back Johnny.

We already have your top 55 fully explained and all (20% or so on the list I dont agree, but I understand the logic behind every decision), I dont think tennis channel will make a better job, they will probably make mainstream errors creating their list.

Purple Rainbow
03-20-2012, 04:30 PM
Tennis Magazine did a combined list like this a few years back. Their top 10:

1.Pete Sampras
2.Martina Navratilova
3.Steffi Graf
4.Chris Evert
5.Björn Borg
6.Margaret Court
7.Jimmy Connors
8.Rod Laver
9.Billie Jean King
10.Ivan Lendl

I can't think of a single argument to put Sampras ahead of Navratilova.

asmazif
03-20-2012, 04:40 PM
I can't think of a single argument to put Sampras ahead of Navratilova.

he can beat her at tennis





is one (terrible) argument.

Saberq
03-20-2012, 04:41 PM
Tons of disrespect on this list already :facepalm:

Yannick Noah and his 1 slam over Anthony Wilding and his 6 slams and 6 years as #1/#2 in the world? Wilding I have as #22 all time, and he is 80+ here? Even with women, Wilding should be in the 40's.

All the men from 93 to 100 are debatable to be even on the list. Bill Johnston and Norman Brookes are both about 10 spots disrespected. Kafelnikov and Safin are a bit over ranked here, which I am surprised about since this is an American list, giving such respect to Russia.

Cooper at 78 is a bit of a joke, he shouldn't have made the list. Kodes is arguable, as is Seixas, Von Cramm, Drobny, and Roche. Renshaw at #71 is a swift kick in the balls. He should be #36 at worst.

It seems they are over rating Open Era accomplishments and maybe including doubles accomplishments too. Adding the women into the list does nothing but make it more complicated.


dude I respect that you took time to do your list but it sucks......

asmazif
03-20-2012, 05:25 PM
Yannick Noah and his 1 slam over Anthony Wilding and his 6 slams and 6 years as #1/#2 in the world? Wilding I have as #22 all time, and he is 80+ here? Even with women, Wilding should be in the 40's.


Not saying I agree with the placing, but they're probably taking into account the fact that for his four Wimbledons, Wilding only had to play 9 matches :shrug:

pretty difficult to compare regardless tbh.

BArsonlyone
03-20-2012, 09:23 PM
All I care about is where Hingis is placed ..lol. I hope atleast in the top 30.

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 12:42 AM
Missed the first 40 minutes :o But the rerun will be on right after so I'll list the names.

guy in sf
03-21-2012, 12:45 AM
:facepalm:

Who's to say that, if she hadn't been stabbed, Seles would've matched Steffi's career? Maybe she developed the yips on her serve and declined? Maybe Steffi would've figured her out? Or she began to suffer a bizarre Ivanovic-like decline. Who knows. You can't put an asterisk by someone's career because of another player's career, you never know what would've happened otherwise.

I NEVER said that Seles would have ended up with as many slams as Graf, I said that Graf was able to get more because Seles was out of the picture and you can't deny that! You just can't!

MIMIC
03-21-2012, 12:51 AM
he can beat her at tennis


:lol:

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 01:38 AM
Second day, 70-41

70 - Patrick Rafter, AUS
69 - Louise Brough Clapp, USA
68 - Helen Hull Jacobs, USA
67 - Fred Stolle, AUS
66 - Bobby Riggs, USA
65 - Pancho Segura, ECU
64 - Ellsworth Vines, USA
63 - Lleyton Hewitt, AUS
62 - Hana Mandlikova, CZE
61 - Neale Fraser, AUS
60 - Virginia Wade, GBR
59 - Margaret Osborne DuPort, USA
58 - Alice Marble, USA
57 - Jennifer Capriati, USA
56 - Stan Smith, USA
55 - Gustavo Kuerten, BRA
54 - Manolo Santana, ESP
53 - Tracy Austin, USA
52 - Jack Crawford, AUS
51 - Doris Hart, USA
50 - Tony Trabert, USA
49 - Ilie Nastase, ROU
48 - Frank Sedgman, AUS
47 - Jean Borotra, FRA
46 - Henri Cochet, FRA
45 - Kim Clijsters, BEL
44 - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, ESP
43 - Lindsay Davenport, USA
42 - Jim Courier, USA
41 - Guillermo Vilas, ARG

Johnny Groove
03-21-2012, 01:45 AM
I mean, I don't dispute the male players they have here, just the order. So many players ahead of Vines?

Edda
03-21-2012, 01:52 AM
I thought I knew my tennis players, but I've never heard of many of the people on this list! So far, my highest ranked favorite player on the list is Kim Clijsters at #45.

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 01:57 AM
They included a lot of Pre-Open Era players, lots of great b&w footage.

MuzzahLovah
03-21-2012, 02:03 AM
Sorry guys, Steffi and Martina are way better than Fed is and will every be. :wavey:

MuzzahLovah
03-21-2012, 02:11 AM
Personally for me I could never place Graf at the top because Monica Seles' stabbing allowed her to rack up a lot of slams that she otherwise would not have gotten. This is forever an asterisk next to her name. At least with Navratilova there's no "what if", it's a done deal. Graf at #2 at best for me and Federer should no doubt be the highest man on the list!

Silly. With that logic, the slams Fed or Nadal won while Del Po was injured don't count. And really, Steffi won the Golden Calendar Year Slam way before Monica's stabbing, still the greatest achievement in tennis.

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 02:13 AM
Sorry guys, Steffi and Martina are way better than Fed is and will every be. :wavey:

That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

In the future we might give equal attention to all people with physical disabilities (beeing a woman is a physical disability in sports), maybe some blind man will dominate "blind mens tennis tour" and win 20 straight grand slams against a bunch of other blind people and then he will be the greatest tennis player ever.

Slice Winner
03-21-2012, 02:14 AM
That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

oh, WOW, you did not just go there :lol:

MuzzahLovah
03-21-2012, 02:18 AM
That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

Hello misogyny! If we are only compare who can beat each other in a direct match, you couldn't compare eras at all and would have to put Rafa above Fed. If this is about achievement in the time in which they played, which is the only sensible way to do this, then you can't deny the truth.

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 02:19 AM
Who cares. Women's tennis is absolute garbage. I could understand if they did separate lists. To put them with the men is disgraceful and invalidates the list immediately. Ranking a top 10 or top 20 of men should be based on achievement to a degree but also who would most likely beat everyone under them or at least beat the most people in most playing conditions past and present.

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 02:25 AM
Hello misogyny! If we are only compare who can beat each other in a direct match, you couldn't compare eras at all and would have to put Rafa above Fed. If this is about achievement in the time in which they played, which is the only sensible way to do this, then you can't deny the truth.

Obviously you cant really find out who is the greatest tennis player of all time comparing eras, you can only find out who achieved most competing with the best tennis players of his/her era, in each era so far the 1000 best players in the world or so have been of the male gender and younger than 50 and a special tour is needed for people with the physical disability of beeing a woman, just like seniors need a special tour for people with the physical disability beeing old.

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 02:32 AM
So, the greatest tennis player of all time (defined as the most dominant player within the group of people with your own physical/mental disabilities):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vergeer

Esther Vergeer (born 18 July 1981, Woerden) is a Dutch wheelchair tennis player. Combining singles and doubles, she has won 39 Grand Slams, 22 year-end championships and 5 Paralympics titles. Vergeer has been the world number one wheelchair tennis player since 1999. In singles, she has not been beaten since January 2003 and is on a winning streak of 444 matches. She is often mentioned as the most dominant player in professional sports.

MuzzahLovah
03-21-2012, 02:43 AM
So, the greatest tennis player of all time (defined as the most dominant player within the group of people with your own physical/mental disabilities):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vergeer

Esther Vergeer (born 18 July 1981, Woerden) is a Dutch wheelchair tennis player. Combining singles and doubles, she has won 39 Grand Slams, 22 year-end championships and 5 Paralympics titles. Vergeer has been the world number one wheelchair tennis player since 1999. In singles, she has not been beaten since January 2003 and is on a winning streak of 444 matches. She is often mentioned as the most dominant player in professional sports.

39 is not even close to what Martina had. :wavey:

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 02:48 AM
39 is not even close to what Martina had. :wavey:

But 444 match winning streak is still on and she wins 7 slams every year. She will be there in 2 years.

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 02:53 AM
Maybe this is the best tennis player in the world:

u1gWRqN8B38

MIMIC
03-21-2012, 03:29 AM
That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

In the future we might give equal attention to all people with physical disabilities (beeing a woman is a physical disability in sports), maybe some blind man will dominate "blind mens tennis tour" and win 20 straight grand slams against a bunch of other blind people and then he will be the greatest tennis player ever.

I'm a guy and even I was offended. :lol:

But seriously, the senior tour or wheelchair tennis is hardly analogous to the WTA. For starters, the checks at the slams are the same for both the WTA and ATP tour. I'm not trying to suggest that the prize money should be equal, but that feats in the women's tour are just as impressive as a man's.

rickcastle
03-21-2012, 03:40 AM
That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

In the future we might give equal attention to all people with physical disabilities (beeing a woman is a physical disability in sports), maybe some blind man will dominate "blind mens tennis tour" and win 20 straight grand slams against a bunch of other blind people and then he will be the greatest tennis player ever.

I get what you're trying to say but an analogy where you're basically equating being a woman to a disability is full of fail.

tripwires
03-21-2012, 04:06 AM
That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

In the future we might give equal attention to all people with physical disabilities (beeing a woman is a physical disability in sports), maybe some blind man will dominate "blind mens tennis tour" and win 20 straight grand slams against a bunch of other blind people and then he will be the greatest tennis player ever.

:facepalm:

so full of fail that I can't even come up with the appropriate response to this misogynistic shit.

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 04:15 AM
All things considered being a woman is not a physical disabilty in sports. Its just a biological disadvantage when compared to men. Speed, strength, stamina with skills being equal is what separates you in sports along with a little bit of luck sometimes.

SerialKillerToBe
03-21-2012, 05:08 AM
I agree with Djokovic's point of view: if women don't play best 3 of 5 then they can't be considered on equal terms with male tennis players.

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 05:21 AM
I agree with Djokovic's point of view: if women don't play best 3 of 5 then they can't be considered on equal terms with male tennis players.


Womens tennis should be best of 1 set. The crowd would be saved of all that ruckus that azarenka and sharapova make. Along with viewers who are just waiting for the mens match to start.

And their matches should always be second if there is a Best of 5 mens match the same night. Its the fair thing to do if one is playign 5 sets potentially and the other match could be over within an hour. However, if we're at masters events where everyone is playing 3 sets then it should alternate which is fair. The pay should also be changed in grand slams unless women play best of 5. They are playing 3/5 of the tennis that men are and should be made that portion of the mens pay. If they play best of 5 sets then equal pay for all. But its not equal if one is to play less sets and expect the same pay. If anything thats discrimination against the men. I would also be ok if they made women play in bikini's instead of 5 sets as an alternate way to get full pay ;)


The above comments above were my failed attempts at sarcasm except for the women grunting..I really do change the channel. Women >>>> Men

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 05:36 AM
a special tour is needed for people with the physical disability of beeing a woman

Wow.

All things considered being a woman is not a physical disabilty in sports. Its just a biological disadvantage when compared to men. Speed, strength, stamina with skills being equal is what separates you in sports along with a little bit of luck sometimes.

But its not equal if one is to play less sets and expect the same pay. If anything thats discrimination against the men. I would also be ok if they made women play in bikini's instead of 5 sets as an alternate way to get full pay ;)

Takes a special brand of idiocy mixed with sexism to not only believe this, but make those beliefs public.

calvinhobbes
03-21-2012, 05:47 AM
To make a list of the 100 greatest at whatever sport or skills is a bizarre way of masturbating. You can do it thinking in whoever you want. Nobody may complain:devil::devil::devil:

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 05:50 AM
Pirana,

You are woman? I just thought posters here at menstennisforums are actually men. Anyways, Im just being facetious. Didn't mean to offend you or any of the other ladies (setsampras) out there.


Peace

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 05:52 AM
To make a list of the 100 greatest at whatever sport or skills is a bizarre way of masturbate. You can do it thinking in whoever you want. Nobody may complain:devil::devil::devil:


not sure what your saying

rickcastle
03-21-2012, 06:08 AM
Pirana,

You are woman? I just thought posters here at menstennisforums are actually men. Anyways, Im just being facetious. Didn't mean to offend you or any of the other ladies (setsampras) out there.


Peace

Your posts are offensive to any human being regardless of what their reproductive organs may be. It is really disturbing how little regard and respect some people have for women considering we all came from one.

Mountaindewslave
03-21-2012, 06:23 AM
Your posts are offensive to any human being regardless of what their reproductive organs may be. It is really disturbing how little regard and respect some people have for women considering we all came from one.

hahha come on relax, fedvsnole is just trying to have some fun, his posts were not meant to be taken seriously

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 06:33 AM
Let me be clear. I have respect for everything women,men, dogs, cats, I dont even kill bugs because i value life. Also, in past lives I've probably been a woman many times and im sure faced many difficulties with not being able to vote, own land and childbirth along with unspeakable atrocities etc.

When i said Biological Disadvantage I meant that in terms of sports/athletics. Women live longer than men so overall they have the advantage in the whole life thing..so they kinda win in that.

Otherwise my bikini comments about women were noted with a wink.

Respectfully,
Sincerely,
Regards,
Me and I

rickcastle
03-21-2012, 06:37 AM
hahha come on relax, fedvsnole is just trying to have some fun, his posts were not meant to be taken seriously

I don't laugh at jokes that I find offensive and unfunny, sorry.

Otherwise my bikini comments about women were noted with a wink that I was just being cute there.

Well, you tried.

Ziros
03-21-2012, 06:40 AM
Amazing how quickly things happen in tennis,a year ago Djokovic might have just scraped into the top 100 with his second Australian Open title. Before that title,he would miss the 100. Now he's in the TOP 40

MuzzahLovah
03-21-2012, 07:00 AM
Let me be clear. I have respect for everything women,men, dogs, cats, I dont even kill bugs because i value life. Also, in past lives I've probably been a woman many times and im sure faced many difficulties with not being able to vote, own land and childbirth along with unspeakable atrocities etc.

When i said Biological Disadvantage I meant that in terms of sports/athletics. Women live longer than men so overall they have the advantage in the whole life thing..so they kinda win in that.

Otherwise my bikini comments about women were noted with a wink that I was just being cute there.

Respectfully,
Sincerely,
Regards,
Me and I

You earned a spot on your own list. :o

habibko
03-21-2012, 07:00 AM
lol at some girls getting fussy over stating the obvious, let a woman play in ATP tour and see if her being a woman is a disability or not

note definition of disability: lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 07:11 AM
lol at some girls getting fussy over stating the obvious, let a woman play in ATP tour and see if her being a woman is a disability or not

note definition of disability: lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity

at least i now know rickcastle and pirata are women. And habibko big props for those highlights you always put up in the fed matches. I always watch them but dont think i ever gave you props.

MAD PROPS for that!!

habibko
03-21-2012, 07:15 AM
at least i now know rickcastle and pirata are women. And habibko big props for those highlights you always put up in the fed matches. I always watch them but dont think i ever gave you props.

MAD PROPS for that!!

always glad to share the genius at work with tennis fans :hatoff: :D

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 07:24 AM
Framing a person's biological sex as some sort of disability is just :o

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 07:27 AM
have you ever heard of an indoor tennis place called lakewood tennis in lexington ohio>?

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 08:25 AM
Are you hitting on me? :eek:

scoutreporter
03-21-2012, 08:43 AM
Framing a person's biological sex as some sort of disability is just :o

You misunderstood:-) He just ment, that men are stronger, faster,have more stamina, and more brain than woman:-)

To qoute Borat '' Why so angryface , give me a smile pussycat:-)''

samanosuke
03-21-2012, 08:45 AM
:lol: this thread is like marriage fighting

tripwires
03-21-2012, 09:07 AM
lol at some girls getting fussy over stating the obvious, let a woman play in ATP tour and see if her being a woman is a disability or not

note definition of disability: lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity

I normally like you but this post is just shit. Any attempts at trying to frame the female gender as some inherent disability in a serious manner is just offensive.

This is what disability means:

dis·a·bil·i·ty/ˌdisəˈbilitē/Noun: 1.A physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.
2.A disadvantage or handicap, esp. one imposed or recognized by the law.

How is being female a condition? Last I checked my movements and senses aren't limited by the fact that I'm female. In fact, I'm fitter than some of the guys that I play tennis with.

Obviously if you were to put a pro WTA player on the ATP circuit she wouldn't be able to hold up, but to say that it's because her gender is a disability is just misogynistic to the highest level. There are irrefutable biological differences between a man and a woman, but it's not a fucking disability. Seriously.

at least i now know rickcastle and pirata are women. And habibko big props for those highlights you always put up in the fed matches. I always watch them but dont think i ever gave you props.

MAD PROPS for that!!

Rickcastle is a guy. Apparently he's also a rare breed around here.

leng jai
03-21-2012, 09:10 AM
Its becoming obvious I don't give some people on MTF enough credit for how stupid they are.

Ajde.

FedvsNole
03-21-2012, 09:11 AM
Are you hitting on me? :eek:

I don't hit on older women. I didn't think you were actually from ohio but i have cousins in that area and we played at that lakewood place every time i went down. Would have been scary if you were in the vicinity or playing on the court next to mine. You have no idea about the place im talking about so it doesn't matter.

tripwires
03-21-2012, 09:42 AM
You misunderstood:-) He just ment, that men are stronger, faster,have more stamina, and more brain than woman:-)

To qoute Borat '' Why so angryface , give me a smile pussycat:-)''

The disparity between my brain and yours is painfully obvious from your post.

scoutreporter
03-21-2012, 10:05 AM
The disparity between my brain and yours is painfully obvious from your post.

Lol, yes, its obvious that you are brainLESS...:rolleyes:

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 10:06 AM
You misunderstood:-) He just ment, that men are stronger, faster,have more stamina, and more brain than woman:-)

To qoute Borat '' Why so angryface , give me a smile pussycat:-)''

:(
:o
:mad:

I don't hit on older women.

FedvsNole
Age: 22

Pirata.
Age: 23

I think I've just begun my midlife crisis :facepalm:

leng jai
03-21-2012, 10:07 AM
Lol, yes, its obvious that you are brainLESS...:rolleyes:

Having no brain would be more beneficial than having your brain.

Ajde.

River
03-21-2012, 10:11 AM
I don't know about you debaters, but I'm just glad Roddick is on this list :lol:

I honestly don't mind where he's placed, either. To me, being in the top 100 of all-time is really an honor. So many former players would kill to be on this list no matter what people say.

tripwires
03-21-2012, 10:37 AM
Lol, yes, its obvious that you are brainLESS...:rolleyes:

:haha: Thanks for the laugh.

scoutreporter
03-21-2012, 11:16 AM
Lol, some in here obviously take things too serious, and lack any sort of humor...

scoutreporter
03-21-2012, 11:19 AM
Its becoming obvious I don't give some people on MTF enough credit for how stupid they are.

Ajde.

Ajde pusi kurac. Ajde:-)

Some more of the shouting Djokovic does... Some new words you can learn...

ogre
03-21-2012, 12:48 PM
Watch Steffi Graf get first place now. You know it's going to happen too.


Hmmm......no other conetders...like for exampe Margaret Court. (Graff total grand slam titles =23, Court total grand slam totals =62)

fasnik
03-21-2012, 12:51 PM
Ajde pusi kurac. Ajde:-)

Some more of the shouting Djokovic does... Some new words you can learn...
:haha:

Epic.

habibko
03-21-2012, 12:56 PM
I normally like you but this post is just shit. Any attempts at trying to frame the female gender as some inherent disability in a serious manner is just offensive.

in the context of male sports it's a disability to be a woman and try to compete with men, I've put the definition I meant with the word in my post, no one is saying being a woman is a disability in general, but within men sports it obviously is

to put that in this thread's context, it's absolutely hilarious to include women and rank them among men, because Graf or Navratilova wouldn't have ranked in the top 500 of any men's generation

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 01:20 PM
People need to get over all these sensibilities, I used to enjoy watching womens tennis when Henin, Mauresmo, Pierce and some other entertaining players were around, just like I enjoy watching Mcenroe play seniors tennis and I can at times enjoy to watch some talented junior play tennis in local tournaments. All of these play in special tours because of disabilities because of age or gender that make them unable to compete with the best, but they are still good tennis players in relation to what they have to work with.

However nothing compares to watching the best play tennis, men are just better at everything in sports and I am not only talking about physical strength and athletisism, but skills and mental strength. That is why men and women compete in different sports even when physical advantage is gone, like Archery and golf. Only advantage I give to womens tennis is that it turns me on, specially Ana Ivanovic and Maria Kirilenko, that I cant say about mens tennis. Call me a Misogynist or whatever you want (I dont hate women, but sure I have a problem with sexual objectification of women since I was 13 like any other man), I try only to be honest when other guys try to be egalitarian and polite in their speech but that doesnt correspond what they think.

Johnny Groove
03-21-2012, 01:30 PM
No, it is not a disability to be a woman in sports. sexybeast surely used the wrong words here, as some women in the thread have clearly pointed out. Perhaps saying that men have a physical advantage in sports compared to women would be less offensive.

But it is a bit unfair to both genders really to include a list with both. It does nothing but create confusion.

thrust
03-21-2012, 04:11 PM
No, it is not a disability to be a woman in sports. sexybeast surely used the wrong words here, as some women in the thread have clearly pointed out. Perhaps saying that men have a physical advantage in sports compared to women would be less offensive.

But it is a bit unfair to both genders really to include a list with both. It does nothing but create confusion.

IAGREE! Wome are just as mentally tough in sports, certainly: Court, King, Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Serena are just some examples. Physically though, Women were just not created as physically strong as most men. There should definitely be different lists for men and women.

sexybeast
03-21-2012, 04:17 PM
IAGREE! Wome are just as mentally tough in sports, certainly: Court, King, Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Serena are just some examples. Physically though, Women were just not created as physically strong as most men. There should definitely be different lists for men and women.

There has never been any woman as skilled as Laver, Mcenroe or Federer with a tennis raquet. But yeah, there used to exist women with great mental strength in tennis just like there used to be some skillfull ladies out there not long ago (Hingis, Henin, Mauresmo). Today the WTA is a mess.

thrust
03-21-2012, 04:34 PM
I mean, I don't dispute the male players they have here, just the order. So many players ahead of Vines?

The thing that most annoyed me with your list was your Vines position. To me, with only 3 Major wins Vines is highly overrated by you and others. Perhaps on a given day he could beat anyone but the fact is he was very inconsistant and not very successful, overall.

Johnny Groove
03-21-2012, 04:40 PM
The thing that most annoyed me with your list was your Vines position. To me, with only 3 Major wins Vines is highly overrated by you and others. Perhaps on a given day he could beat anyone but the fact is he was very inconsistant and not very successful, overall.

3 Amateur slams, sure, but also 4 Pro slams, and 7 years as #1 or #2 in the world, tough to argue against :yeah:

Andresito
03-21-2012, 06:14 PM
Mmmhhh.

Federer to be the male nº 2, Tennis Channel should respect Laver.

For overall nº 1 is between Vergeer / Navratilova IMO.

rocketassist
03-21-2012, 06:53 PM
Mmmhhh.

Federer to be the male nº 2, Tennis Channel should respect Laver.

For overall nº 1 is between Vergeer / Navratilova IMO.

A woman should NOT be overall 1.

r2473
03-21-2012, 06:58 PM
Maybe this is the best tennis player in the world:

u1gWRqN8B38

This guy? The best?

You must be blind!!!

comesbackatlast
03-21-2012, 07:51 PM
1. Some here may be sexist and/or are using annoying and objectionable words.

2. Many here are over-sensitive.

3. Being offended (for a good reason or otherwise) doesn't mean you should use the sexism card. Abusing this term leads to the loss of its effect and lets true offenders get away sometimes.

4. Political correctness helps check the prejudiced but it stifles discussion. For example, why isn't there a single black Nobel laureate (in science)? Many are honest in this question but they're afraid to ask lest they would be called racist. I don't know the answer, and I wouldn't jump to conclusions (as a habit and because the implications of the issue are too serious to do so), but tabooing the matter could lead to no less serious implications in itself. But, still again, to make such things open to public discussion could lead to disasters. For example, a single study suggesting that black are even slightly less intelligent may lead to racist waves and discrimination even when the real cause may be cultural (ironically, it could be discrimination itself in learning and employment, hostile work environment, bad nurture as poor, crime-ridden neighbourhoods, stereotyped self-image (I know I'm stupid so why bother?), consuming diseases and bad use of resources as in Africa or other reasons. Is the hypothetical scenario where such studies and information are available only to fair scientists applicable? Does the public have to know everything, even if that is harmful to know (think of national security secrets)? It's beyond me.

5. Practically all of these "disadvantages" or "disabilities" (the real ones) are subject to normal distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution), meaning that on average, such group are less or more in certain aspects (for example, women are on average less muscular), but individuals in that group may be better than most individuals in other groups (for example, some women could be more muscular than most men.)

6. When discussing talents in a sport, you have to consider the "pool" factor. If men's tennis is more rewarding than women's tennis (I don't know. Is it?), then it's safe to assume that more men than women will choose it and hence more talents are likely to be in men's tennis than women's tennis. But you shouldn't forget the "freak" factor.

7. The "freak" factor:

By this I mean an exceptional talent that would appear once in a very long time, and skew the argument towards one group. Think of Einstein. Are males, Jews, or Germans smarter than females, non-Jews or other countries? I won't give any tennis examples; too dangerous ;) and I don't know much.

8. Even if a group is "disadvantaged", they usually have a right to be treated like the other groups as much as possible, with relative considerations of course.

9. SetSampras is a woman?! :o And for tripwires, that explains all the "Rogi"s. They were just creeping me!

10. Comments are more than welcome. :)

arm
03-21-2012, 08:02 PM
That is like saying someone who wins alot of tournaments in the senior tour is better than Federer because he is so good compared to seniors or someone who dominates paralympics tennis is the best tennis player of all time because he dominates a bunch of guys on wheelchairs with his tennis raquet.

In the future we might give equal attention to all people with physical disabilities (beeing a woman is a physical disability in sports), maybe some blind man will dominate "blind mens tennis tour" and win 20 straight grand slams against a bunch of other blind people and then he will be the greatest tennis player ever.

What is this supposed to mean? :facepalm:

lol at some girls getting fussy over stating the obvious, let a woman play in ATP tour and see if her being a woman is a disability or not

note definition of disability: lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity

:facepalm: Women don't lack poer, stregnth or physical ability and they certainly don't an incapacity. Just because men run faster or hit harder it doesn't mean woman have a "disability", ffs what's wrong with you people?

thrust
03-21-2012, 08:24 PM
3 Amateur slams, sure, but also 4 Pro slams, and 7 years as #1 or #2 in the world, tough to argue against :yeah:

I do not recall that he won 4 Pro Slams. If so, then I stand corrected.

asotgod
03-21-2012, 09:01 PM
Mmmhhh.

Federer to be the male nº 2, Tennis Channel should respect Laver.

For overall nº 1 is between Vergeer / Navratilova IMO.

Laver, imo, deserves no such respect. Yeah, Laver won 4 slams in a year and did that twice. However, three of those slams were on grass if i am not mistaken. That is not sufficient to nullify a 5 slam differential that Federer has.

HKz
03-21-2012, 09:07 PM
What is this supposed to mean? :facepalm:



:facepalm: Women don't lack poer, stregnth or physical ability and they certainly don't an incapacity. Just because men run faster or hit harder it doesn't mean woman have a "disability", ffs what's wrong with you people?

Fact is men and women are different, and the sport of tennis certainly shows the physical and play style differences in the game, so point is, it is unfair to both the men's game and the women's game to make any sort of connection between the two.

habibko
03-21-2012, 09:16 PM
:facepalm: Women don't lack poer, stregnth or physical ability

competing against men they do, that's the point

Orka_n
03-21-2012, 09:29 PM
This thread turned out to be such a beautiful pile of shit.

TigerTim
03-21-2012, 09:50 PM
This thread turned out to be such a beautiful pile of shit.

:p

Pirata.
03-21-2012, 10:14 PM
This thread turned out to be such a beautiful pile of shit.

Never would've started it if I'd known that it was going to devolve into sexist bullshit :rolleyes:

SerialKillerToBe
03-22-2012, 12:07 AM
Djokovic at number 40. Sweet

Pirata.
03-22-2012, 12:20 AM
I missed the first 20 minutes :lol: Keep forgetting this is on at 7pm, but it reruns at 8pm.

I guess this is based primarily on singles accomplishments, Dan Nestor, for example, has won basically everything in doubles there is to win.

Johnny Groove
03-22-2012, 12:28 AM
Laver, imo, deserves no such respect. Yeah, Laver won 4 slams in a year and did that twice. However, three of those slams were on grass if i am not mistaken. That is not sufficient to nullify a 5 slam differential that Federer has.

You speak as if the CYGS has been done so many times :lol:

And besides, Laver has more slams than Fed does. In fact, Rosewall has the most slams overall, but he never won Wimbledon :awww: :hug:

tskimny
03-22-2012, 12:44 AM
Djokovic only at No. 40? What a joke!
Last year, beating Federer and Nadal, both considered to be two of the best players of all time?
Still no. 1 for how many weeks now?

Pancho is even ranked higher than Nole?
Jack Kramer at 34?
Lew Hoad at 32??? Lew who???


Oh please!

asotgod
03-22-2012, 12:46 AM
You speak as if the CYGS has been done so many times :lol:

And besides, Laver has more slams than Fed does. In fact, Rosewall has the most slams overall, but he never won Wimbledon :awww: :hug:

Maybe more singles and doubles combined but definitely not single slams. The way the championships were back then with the naming of those championships and which ones became slams, those are confusing. When you look at some of the match-ups in the old times, you will see some people face each other 50, 60+ times. That is never possible in this era. I think that tells you how much depth existed or how many people played back then. By the current nomenclature, he has 11 and Fed has 16. So, he should not be greater even if the CYGS is difficult to do. Moreoever, we can bring into question the # of rounds played back then, the strength of the competition, etc. I bet you and I can argue it both way to favor either Laver or Fed.

All I am saying is if we go by the way the ATP has counted slams so far, Fed should be ahead of him. If anything, in trying to be fair, they should separate the Open from the pre-Open era. That is in my opinion what I think will be honestly fair to everyone.

Johnny Groove
03-22-2012, 12:49 AM
Maybe more singles and doubles combined but definitely not single slams. The way the championships were back then with the naming of those championships and which ones became slams.When you look at some of the match-ups in the old times, you will see some people face each other 60, 70 times. That is never possible in this era. I think that tells you how much depth existed or how many people played back then. By the current nomenclature, he has 11 and Fed has 16. So, he should not be greater even if the CYGS is difficult to do. Moreoever, we can bring into question the # of rounds played back then, the strength of the competition, etc. I bet you and I can argue it both way to favor either Laver or Fed.

All I am saying is if we go by the way the ATP has counted slams so far, Fed should be ahead of him. If anything, in trying to be fair, they should separate the Open from the pre-Open era. That is in my opinion what I think will be honestly fair to everyone.

You talk sense here.

Without a doubt, Federer is the greatest of the Open Era. The issue is that guys like Laver and Rosewall whose careers spanned both eras. Laver especially since he won his '69 slam at the dawn of the Open Era :spit:

I think that when its all said and done, Fed will be the nearly undisputed GOAT. Maybe within 6 months time if he wins 1-2 slams, plus Olympics and #1.

AntiTennis
03-22-2012, 12:54 AM
Djokovic only at No. 40? What a joke!
Last year, beating Federer and Nadal, both considered to be two of the best players of all time?
Still no. 1 for how many weeks now?

Pancho is even ranked higher than Nole?
Jack Kramer at 34?
Lew Hoad at 32??? Lew who???


Oh please!
I think is not enought to be the best one year, he has to play good more years, he is still young

asotgod
03-22-2012, 12:55 AM
You talk sense here.

Without a doubt, Federer is the greatest of the Open Era. The issue is that guys like Laver and Rosewall whose careers spanned both eras. Laver especially since he won his '69 slam at the dawn of the Open Era :spit:

I think that when its all said and done, Fed will be the nearly undisputed GOAT. Maybe within 6 months time if he wins 1-2 slams, plus Olympics and #1.

I don't even think Fed should be #1 in this list combining men and women. As I stated in some previous posts, Graf and Navratilova won more in singles, and there is a massive beatdown in doubles when you compare Fed to those players. But, what about someone like Suzanne Lenglen who lost just once? And that was because she was sick. If anyone ever lost once in their entire history, I think they should be named #1. Unless someone else comes and never loses. Here is my vote for Suzanne Lenglen.

Don't know if Fed can win 2 slams plus Olympics this year. I hope he wins at least 1 of the slams and the olympics. Even then Fed's resume is flawed on many grounds - no Davis cup wins, no doubles grand slam, only 1 French. Seems I am running in circles - when you compare both singles and doubles, Federer is far behind in my opinion by a lot.:)

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 12:59 AM
Djokovic only at No. 40? What a joke!
Last year, beating Federer and Nadal, both considered to be two of the best players of all time?
Still no. 1 for how many weeks now?

Pancho is even ranked higher than Nole?
Jack Kramer at 34?
Lew Hoad at 32??? Lew who???


Oh please!

:lol:

Pancho Gonzalez was the nr1 player in the world for 8 years, something no other player has achieved. Jack Kramer is a legend and the greatest tennis player of his decade (the 40s), Lew Hoad was maybe the most talented player of his era, Rosewall and Laver included! Hoad was however lazy and inconsistant, his career ended with back problems.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 01:08 AM
Djokovic only at No. 40? What a joke!


Oh please!

Djokovic will only go higher. I am actually surprised he is at #40 already despite only having 5 slams and dominating 1 season. I don't mean that as a diss but there are quite a number of people - male and female - with more than 5 slams and have dominated longer. If he keeps up this pace, there is no reason he shouldn't be able to end up with at least 10 slams - maybe even challenge for Federer's count. He needs to pick up steam this year and the next though or else a kid from no where may suddenly come and start beating up the big 3.

Pirata.
03-22-2012, 01:13 AM
Wednesday's list

40 - Novak Djokovic, SRB
39 - Althea Gibson, USA
38 - Maria Bueno, BRA
37 - Evonne Goolagong, AUS
36 - René Lacoste, FRA
35 - Pancho Gonzales, USA
34 - Jack Kramer, USA
33 - Mats Wilander, SWE
32 - Lew Hoad, AUS
31 - John Newcombe, AUS
30 - Martina Hingis, SUI
29 - Helen Wills Moody, USA
28 - Arthur Ashe, USA
27 - Maureen Connolly, USA
26 - Justine Henin, BEL
25 - Stefan Edberg, SWE
24 - Suzanne Lenglen, FRA
23 - Fred Perry, GBR
22 - Venus Williams, USA
21 - Boris Becker, GER

SerialKillerToBe
03-22-2012, 01:16 AM
I don't even think Fed should be #1 in this list combining men and women. As I stated in some previous posts, Graf and Navratilova won more in singles, and there is a massive beatdown in doubles when you compare Fed to those players. But, what about someone like Suzanne Lenglen who lost just once? And that was because she was sick. If anyone ever lost once in their entire history, I think they should be named #1. Unless someone else comes and never loses. Here is my vote for Suzanne Lenglen.

Don't know if Fed can win 2 slams plus Olympics this year. I hope he wins at least 1 of the slams and the olympics. Even then Fed's resume is flawed on many grounds - no Davis cup wins, no doubles grand slam, only 1 French. Seems I am running in circles - when you compare both singles and doubles, Federer is far behind in my opinion by a lot.:)

Have you actually seen Lenglen play? Doesn't even look like tennis.

thrust
03-22-2012, 01:19 AM
Laver, imo, deserves no such respect. Yeah, Laver won 4 slams in a year and did that twice. However, three of those slams were on grass if i am not mistaken. That is not sufficient to nullify a 5 slam differential that Federer has.

Laver lost 5 years, Rosewall 11 on the Pro Tour. Ken won 15, Rod won 8 Pro Slams playing tougher competiton than Roger when he won most of his Slams. The Pro Slams were on grass, clay, and indoor surfaces. True, Laver never won a Pro Slam on clay as the French switched to indoor when he played. Ken won 4 on clay and 4 on fast indoor surfaces. He also won on grass and indoor. Rod though did win the FO once in the Open Era. IMHO, Rosewall was the greatest all surface player of the post World War II era. Not including the amateur slams, He won 5 slams on grass, 5 on clay, 9 indoor. Laver has the better H-H against Rosewall, but in slam finals Ken leads 7-5, also winning 2 WCT finals against Rod. ACCOMPLISHMENT wise, I would rank Laver #1, Rosewall a close #2, then Federer, Sampras, Gonzalez, Borg, Nadal, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. There is a good arguement for ranking Borg above Sampras and Gonzalez in that he won slams on Grass and Clay, the two most diverse surfaces, especially in that era and before. Pete and Gonzalez never won a clay slam, but Borg never won a hard court slam. One could go on forever with this-LOL!!

Corey Feldman
03-22-2012, 01:21 AM
If you look at it women could dominate the top 4

M.Court, Graf, Navrat, Evert

Fed will do well to hit 5th, but they will probably put rocket Rod Laver above him

Johnny Groove
03-22-2012, 01:22 AM
Pancho Gonzales should be way higher. I also wonder if they will even put Tilden on the list at all.

I don't even think Fed should be #1 in this list combining men and women. As I stated in some previous posts, Graf and Navratilova won more in singles, and there is a massive beatdown in doubles when you compare Fed to those players. But, what about someone like Suzanne Lenglen who lost just once? And that was because she was sick. If anyone ever lost once in their entire history, I think they should be named #1. Unless someone else comes and never loses. Here is my vote for Suzanne Lenglen.

Don't know if Fed can win 2 slams plus Olympics this year. I hope he wins at least 1 of the slams and the olympics. Even then Fed's resume is flawed on many grounds - no Davis cup wins, no doubles grand slam, only 1 French. Seems I am running in circles - when you compare both singles and doubles, Federer is far behind in my opinion by a lot.:)

I think if Fed wins RG beating Nadal en route, he's the GOAT. Olympics or no.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 01:29 AM
Have you actually seen Lenglen play? Doesn't even look like tennis.

It doesn't have to look like tennis. I bet in 100 years, someone will say this era doesn't look like tennis. That's the way things go. She lost once playing tennis - whether it looks like it or not.

Corey Feldman
03-22-2012, 01:29 AM
no players who played on black and white tv belong on the top10 list

with their 20kph ground strokes

Johnny Groove
03-22-2012, 01:31 AM
no players who played on black and white tv belong on the top10 list

with their 20kph ground strokes

Yes, the current era is much better with 21 kph ground strokes.

N8iunyDh4ms

I'd rather watch the following.

K8IJ0F01IiU

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 01:32 AM
What a joke, Wilander is ahead of Pancho Gonzalez, one of the alltime greatest in tennis history and 8 years ranked as nr1 (Wilander had 1 year as nr1).

Even more of a joke to have Ash even further up on the list, but ofcourse he is american (but so was Pancho).

asotgod
03-22-2012, 01:36 AM
Laver lost 5 years, Rosewall 11 on the Pro Tour. Ken won 15, Rod won 8 Pro Slams playing tougher competiton than Roger when he won most of his Slams. The Pro Slams were on grass, clay, and indoor surfaces. True, Laver never won a Pro Slam on clay as the French switched to indoor when he played. Ken won 4 on clay and 4 on fast indoor surfaces. He also won on grass and indoor. Rod though did win the FO once in the Open Era. IMHO, Rosewall was the greatest all surface player of the post World War II era. Not including the amateur slams, He won 5 slams on grass, 5 on clay, 9 indoor. Laver has the better H-H against Rosewall, but in slam finals Ken leads 7-5, also winning 2 WCT finals against Rod. ACCOMPLISHMENT wise, I would rank Laver #1, Rosewall a close #2, then Federer, Sampras, Gonzalez, Borg, Nadal, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. There is a good arguement for ranking Borg above Sampras and Gonzalez in that he won slams on Grass and Clay, the two most diverse surfaces, especially in that era and before. Pete and Gonzalez never won a clay slam, but Borg never won a hard court slam. One could go on forever with this-LOL!!

How exactly can you proof he played tougher competition? That's entirely your opinion and way too subjective. Can you say for certain if his opposition will beat the ones playing now? I don't think so. Neither can we say the same for this opposition versus his. In the pre-Open era, you see people playing each other 50 times or more. How can you compare that depth to now? I just cant see Federer playing Nadal 60 times, then Djokovic 50 times like Laver has played some people so many times. It just cannot happen.

Nevertheless, you bring up good points on his Amateur slam wins. Further, some of your points do aid and could also be used to discredit Laver - e.g. winning the slam but having a losing head to head just like we all know Fed has against Nadal. All I am saying is that based on # of grand slams won which is quantifiable and objective, Laver has 11, Fed has 16. We don't need to trying to figure out what if about that.

Now as per the opposition, we can argue that till eternity. We will never be able to tell. Some old folks say the former era was tougher. Some say this era is tougher. Which is which? If any, make Laver or whoever did the best in the pre-Open era the best singles player and Fed for the Open-era. That's my point. Just like I do not agree Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever - Russell won 12 championships I think. But I am not trying to steer the pot on that.

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 01:42 AM
K8IJ0F01IiU

That is one amazing clip, incredible movement these 32 and 36 year olds!

But it is unfair to compare them to 2 megapushers on clay.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 01:44 AM
If you look at it women could dominate the top 4

M.Court, Graf, Navrat, Evert

Fed will do well to hit 5th, but they will probably put rocket Rod Laver above him

I won't be surprised if Laver is put ahead of him. That will make the old man happy. But I do not agree with that. 2 calendar slams don't wipe out a 5 slam differential - which could even go higher should Fed win a couple more slams. But it is what it is. Until about 30 years or so ago, no one was making too much of a fuss about winning a calendar slam as rarely did anyone come close to Laver's count. Once it became obvious that people began passing Laver, then we hear 'Oh, the calendar slam was unique and difficult ...' I am not saying it is easy to do, but there will always be room for excuses when certain high achievements are reached quicker than expected. It is life.

jonas
03-22-2012, 01:47 AM
Laver lost 5 years, Rosewall 11 on the Pro Tour. Ken won 15, Rod won 8 Pro Slams playing tougher competiton than Roger when he won most of his Slams. The Pro Slams were on grass, clay, and indoor surfaces. True, Laver never won a Pro Slam on clay as the French switched to indoor when he played. Ken won 4 on clay and 4 on fast indoor surfaces. He also won on grass and indoor. Rod though did win the FO once in the Open Era. IMHO, Rosewall was the greatest all surface player of the post World War II era. Not including the amateur slams, He won 5 slams on grass, 5 on clay, 9 indoor. Laver has the better H-H against Rosewall, but in slam finals Ken leads 7-5, also winning 2 WCT finals against Rod. ACCOMPLISHMENT wise, I would rank Laver #1, Rosewall a close #2, then Federer, Sampras, Gonzalez, Borg, Nadal, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker. There is a good arguement for ranking Borg above Sampras and Gonzalez in that he won slams on Grass and Clay, the two most diverse surfaces, especially in that era and before. Pete and Gonzalez never won a clay slam, but Borg never won a hard court slam. One could go on forever with this-LOL!!

TBF Borg only played 4 hard court-slams in his life (US Open) and made final in three of them (lost to McEnroe and Connors).
He won 27 (!) titles on HC/Carpet, including 2 Year End Masters.

6 FO's and 5 Wimbys - and he played his last GS at 25.
No one has ever dominated to that degree on all three surfaces.
Of course he's ahead of Sampras.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 01:47 AM
What a joke, Wilander is ahead of Pancho Gonzalez, one of the alltime greatest in tennis history and 8 years ranked as nr1 (Wilander had 1 year as nr1).

Even more of a joke to have Ash even further up on the list, but ofcourse he is american (but so was Pancho).

Exactly. I saw that too and confirmed what I already knew... how pathetic those who put the list together are. Greatness in sports - especially in an individual sport like tennis, should be objective, i.e., based on what you won. No, ifs and what not about it.

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 01:51 AM
I won't be surprised if Laver is put ahead of him. That will make the old man happy. But I do not agree with that. 2 calendar slams don't wipe out a 5 slam differential - which could even go higher should Fed win a couple more slams. But it is what it is. Until about 30 years or so ago, no one was making too much of a fuss about winning a calendar slam as rarely did anyone come close to Laver's count. Once it became obvious that people began passing Laver, then we hear 'Oh, the calendar slam was unique and difficult ...' I am not saying it is easy to do, but there will always be room for excuses when certain high achievements are reached quicker than expected. It is life.

Laver got 7 years as nr1, that is one very important advantage he got over Federer in my opinion. Federer and Laver have about the same amound of "super dominant years" in 3-4 such years. Another advantage is less to do with statistics but that mentally Laver showed himself to be stronger than Federer on many occasions, I would say Federer's only weakness is not his backhand but a rather fragile mentality compared to many other champions. He only feels confident when he absolutely dominates his opponent and even then like against Del Potro 2009 (which would give him the Federer slam) he failed.

Johnny Groove
03-22-2012, 01:54 AM
Some Tilden instructional videos for the truly hardcore tennis history fanatic.

YMyQkN2KoWs

EUA3Yb66YSQ

Also relevant:

7kpwI7bQBIo

How about a little Don Budge?

tvFHFvpWtks

Watch 7:00 to 8:00

BSviYytkGlQ

6XTR8z5kjWc

asotgod
03-22-2012, 02:57 AM
Here is my recommendation on ranking for the greatest singles male and female players

Criteria Points

Grand slam (calendar)- 1275
4 consecutive slam - 1200
Winning a slam - 1000
Olympics - 800
End of year championship - 750
Grand slam final - 700
Year end #1 - 550
Masters series 500
Reaching #1 - 400
Davis Cup - 250
# of weeks at #1 - 25 for each
Other tournaments won - 10 for each


Notes:

If you win a calendar slam, you get 1275 in addition to 1000 points for each slam in the year.
If you win 4 consecutive slam, you get 1200 in addition to 1000 points for each slam you won.
You cannot get points for a calendar slam and also for 4 consecutive. It is either one or the other.
I rated Olympics higher because it comes along once in every 4 years.
I rated reaching #1 lower than the masters series because we have scenarios in the women game where people reach #1 without winning a slam, reach it for being consistent or playing many tournaments.
I rated ending the year #1 as higher because that recognizes the whole season.
If a player reaches #1 at 2 different times, he only gets awarded for the 1st time (this is not wrestling)
I had difficulty deciding on the value of consecutive weeks at #1 versus weeks but thought the year end will compensate for that.
I thought of not adding Davis Cup because of the doubles and the fact that it may also be decided by the 2nd singles player on your team. However, I decided on awarding for every time won.
I did not add doubles because there is a second player that helps determine the results.



I'd appreciate any thoughts on this, especially on areas that others feel should be ranked higher than I have placed them. It will be interesting to see how the numbers pan out when crunched.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 03:00 AM
Laver got 7 years as nr1, that is one very important advantage he got over Federer in my opinion. Federer and Laver have about the same amound of "super dominant years" in 3-4 such years. Another advantage is less to do with statistics but that mentally Laver showed himself to be stronger than Federer on many occasions, I would say Federer's only weakness is not his backhand but a rather fragile mentality compared to many other champions. He only feels confident when he absolutely dominates his opponent and even then like against Del Potro 2009 (which would give him the Federer slam) he failed.

I agree with everything but for the 'mentally' part. Too subjective. For someone as 'mentally' weak as Federer is, he has won 16 slams - which those who are much 'mentally' stronger have not. You see it kinda defies logic. Either Federer is or was too talented that it covered his 'mental' weakness, or he was mentally strong to pull through as he did. The mentally strong ones like Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick have not won as much as Fed. Doesn't add up...

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 03:14 AM
I agree with everything but for the 'mentally' part. Too subjective. For someone as 'mentally' weak as Federer is, he has won 16 slams - which those who are much 'mentally' stronger have not. You see it kinda defies logic. Either Federer is or was too talented that it covered his 'mental' weakness, or he was mentally strong to pull through as he did. The mentally strong ones like Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick have not won as much as Fed. Doesn't add up...

He is so talented it makes up for his weaker mentality, if he had the mental strength of someone like Djokovic he would have won atleast 4-5 more slams. But yes, it is subjective and maybe we should only take into account the statistics and achievments at hand, I dont think we can find anyone GOAT because all have advantages to each other.

Take Rosewall who had pretty much 15 years as top 3 player in the world but only 3 years as nr1, difficult to meassure how to put such a player in an all time list. I would say Laver and Federer are the goats, possibly with Gonzales close behind but to single out only one GOAT is not easy because each have achieved some things that outrank the others. Who am I to decide what achievment holds most value? Federer leads the slam count, I agree on that, I put Laver with 14 slams (I dont count his amateur slams) but Gonzales is more complicated as he dominated a tour where what was most important was a league between top players where they played 20-40 matches and whoever won most matches in the h2h was the nr1, like in football leagues instead of cups.

juan27
03-22-2012, 03:30 AM
Laver got 7 years as nr1, that is one very important advantage he got over Federer in my opinion. Federer and Laver have about the same amound of "super dominant years" in 3-4 such years. Another advantage is less to do with statistics but that mentally Laver showed himself to be stronger than Federer on many occasions, I would say Federer's only weakness is not his backhand but a rather fragile mentality compared to many other champions. He only feels confident when he absolutely dominates his opponent and even then like against Del Potro 2009 (which would give him the Federer slam) he failed.

it`s true that federer hasn`t the best mental strenght.

all the big champions has his good and bad things , if roger should has a better mentality , he should been the perfect player , but the perfection is impossible or very very very difficult, don`t exist the perfect player yet , but in terms of game and records , roger is the best

FedvsNole
03-22-2012, 03:39 AM
it`s true that federer hasn`t the best mental strenght.

all the big champions has his good and bad things , if roger should has a better mentality , he should been the perfect player , but the perfection is impossible or very very very difficult, don`t exist the perfect player yet , but in terms of game and records , roger is the best

Its also a byproduct of his success. Even as a junior i know he won the junior wimbledon at 17 or somthing. So he was just winning so much, so easily. And most of his career has been that way so he never really sruggled and had to grind out or eek out victories from all the suceess because he was so talented.
I think it at least has a part to do with that.

rocketassist
03-22-2012, 03:42 AM
Yes, the current era is much better with 21 kph ground strokes.

N8iunyDh4ms

I'd rather watch the following.

K8IJ0F01IiU

Love the Hamburg crowd booing. I'd have booed that too.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 03:42 AM
He is so talented it makes up for his weaker mentality, if he had the mental strength of someone like Djokovic he would have won atleast 4-5 more slams. But yes, it is subjective and maybe we should only take into account the statistics and achievments at hand, I dont think we can find anyone GOAT because all have advantages to each other.

Take Rosewall who had pretty much 15 years as top 3 player in the world but only 3 years as nr1, difficult to meassure how to put such a player in an all time list. I would say Laver and Federer are the goats, possibly with Gonzales close behind but to single out only one GOAT is not easy because each have achieved some things that outrank the others. Who am I to decide what achievment holds most value? Federer leads the slam count, I agree on that, I put Laver with 14 slams (I dont count his amateur slams) but Gonzales is more complicated as he dominated a tour where what was most important was a league between top players where they played 20-40 matches and whoever won most matches in the h2h was the nr1, like in football leagues instead of cups.

Well said, my friend. The issue of Rosewall is funny since you said he was top 3 for 15 years but only #1 for 3 years. Unfortunately, we shouldn't give him credit for that. Gonzalez may actually, imo, be a much better player than Laver based on the way he dominated but we will never be able to tell. Oh well...

asotgod
03-22-2012, 03:46 AM
it`s true that federer hasn`t the best mental strenght.

all the big champions has his good and bad things , if roger should has a better mentality , he should been the perfect player , but the perfection is impossible or very very very difficult, don`t exist the perfect player yet , but in terms of game and records , roger is the best

Honestly, the person Fed has struggled with the most that this mental strength issue may be valid is Nadal. Even Nadal now looks lost and seems to have no belief when facing Djokovic. Does that mean now that he has no mental strength. Note that I do not consider shouting vamos or pumping yourself up when opponents make errors as mental strength. How do we even define mental strength?

BroTree123
03-22-2012, 04:01 AM
^^
Pumping yourself up is pretty much the same as relief that you won the point/set/match...etc.

thrust
03-22-2012, 02:59 PM
Well said, my friend. The issue of Rosewall is funny since you said he was top 3 for 15 years but only #1 for 3 years. Unfortunately, we shouldn't give him credit for that. Gonzalez may actually, imo, be a much better player than Laver based on the way he dominated but we will never be able to tell. Oh well...

Ken was also joint #1 for a few years. He still has more combined slams,19, than any male player even taking away his 4 amateur slams. He has the greates longevity record of any player in the history of the game. There is NO ONE GOAT, but among the greatest of all time. Borg had only 2 YE at #1, still he is among the greatest of all-time along with: Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Federer, Gozalez, Nadal, and Tilden. All these players have 10 or more Slams, which is my critera for being Among the GOAT.

Saberq
03-22-2012, 03:42 PM
I am not sure Tilden would take 1 game of Fed today if Tilden was in his prime

Johnny Iznrr
03-22-2012, 04:31 PM
Some Tilden instructional videos for the truly hardcore tennis history fanatic.

YMyQkN2KoWs

EUA3Yb66YSQ


Knowing about Tilden now this video looks like one of those "beware of homosexual pedophiles" videos from the 50s :lol: And the outfits, wow the 20s were gay :p

Mefes
03-22-2012, 04:38 PM
:confused: Sharapova is ahead of Djokovic??

arm
03-22-2012, 04:43 PM
N8iunyDh4ms



This is sad. :facepalm: it's almost as if they we're warming up.

yesh222
03-22-2012, 06:59 PM
Here is my recommendation on ranking for the greatest singles male and female players

Criteria Points

Grand slam (calendar)- 1275
4 consecutive slam - 1200
Winning a slam - 1000
Olympics - 800
End of year championship - 750
Grand slam final - 700
Year end #1 - 550
Masters series 500
Reaching #1 - 400
Davis Cup - 250
# of weeks at #1 - 25 for each
Other tournaments won - 10 for each


Notes:

If you win a calendar slam, you get 1275 in addition to 1000 points for each slam in the year.
If you win 4 consecutive slam, you get 1200 in addition to 1000 points for each slam you won.
You cannot get points for a calendar slam and also for 4 consecutive. It is either one or the other.
I rated Olympics higher because it comes along once in every 4 years.
I rated reaching #1 lower than the masters series because we have scenarios in the women game where people reach #1 without winning a slam, reach it for being consistent or playing many tournaments.
I rated ending the year #1 as higher because that recognizes the whole season.
If a player reaches #1 at 2 different times, he only gets awarded for the 1st time (this is not wrestling)
I had difficulty deciding on the value of consecutive weeks at #1 versus weeks but thought the year end will compensate for that.
I thought of not adding Davis Cup because of the doubles and the fact that it may also be decided by the 2nd singles player on your team. However, I decided on awarding for every time won.
I did not add doubles because there is a second player that helps determine the results.



I'd appreciate any thoughts on this, especially on areas that others feel should be ranked higher than I have placed them. It will be interesting to see how the numbers pan out when crunched.

My problem with this is that you value all Slams equally. The Australian Open for a very long time was nothing compared to Wimbledon. Wimbledon is probably still more valuable in tennis history and to these players than any other Slam (except for maybe the French for a Frenchman who actually has a chance to win).

Pirata.
03-22-2012, 07:38 PM
:confused: Sharapova is ahead of Djokovic??

Sharapova is 71, Novak is 40.

Pirata.
03-22-2012, 07:40 PM
Here is my recommendation on ranking for the greatest singles male and female players

Criteria Points

Olympics - 800
End of year championship - 750
Grand slam final - 700


Massu greater than Davydenko, Nalbandian or Gonzalez by this criteria :scratch:

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 07:51 PM
Ken was also joint #1 for a few years. He still has more combined slams,19, than any male player even taking away his 4 amateur slams. He has the greates longevity record of any player in the history of the game. There is NO ONE GOAT, but among the greatest of all time. Borg had only 2 YE at #1, still he is among the greatest of all-time along with: Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Federer, Gozalez, Nadal, and Tilden. All these players have 10 or more Slams, which is my critera for being Among the GOAT.

Yes, I agree that Ken deserves to be among the GOATs. What is to his disadvantage was that he was obviously not the greatest player when Gonzales was around and neither when Laver was around, squeezed between these 2 greats he just kept going and collecting slams here and there well above the normal age for a tennis player. Longevity must be counted as a sign of great adaptability and talent to overcome limitations that come with age and new challenges on the tour, it should be a criteria for beeing among the GOATs and I dont see Borg or Sampras living up to that criteria so I dont count them as GOATs (they also dont have an achievment well above everyone else), Tilden reminds me of Gonzalez/Sampras in what he achieved on tennis courts but Gonzales achieved most within this group so Tilden I have behind Federer, Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales.

sexybeast
03-22-2012, 08:10 PM
Here is my recommendation on ranking for the greatest singles male and female players

Criteria Points

Grand slam (calendar)- 1275
4 consecutive slam - 1200
Winning a slam - 1000
Olympics - 800
End of year championship - 750
Grand slam final - 700
Year end #1 - 550
Masters series 500
Reaching #1 - 400
Davis Cup - 250
# of weeks at #1 - 25 for each
Other tournaments won - 10 for each


Notes:

If you win a calendar slam, you get 1275 in addition to 1000 points for each slam in the year.
If you win 4 consecutive slam, you get 1200 in addition to 1000 points for each slam you won.
You cannot get points for a calendar slam and also for 4 consecutive. It is either one or the other.
I rated Olympics higher because it comes along once in every 4 years.
I rated reaching #1 lower than the masters series because we have scenarios in the women game where people reach #1 without winning a slam, reach it for being consistent or playing many tournaments.
I rated ending the year #1 as higher because that recognizes the whole season.
If a player reaches #1 at 2 different times, he only gets awarded for the 1st time (this is not wrestling)
I had difficulty deciding on the value of consecutive weeks at #1 versus weeks but thought the year end will compensate for that.
I thought of not adding Davis Cup because of the doubles and the fact that it may also be decided by the 2nd singles player on your team. However, I decided on awarding for every time won.
I did not add doubles because there is a second player that helps determine the results.



I'd appreciate any thoughts on this, especially on areas that others feel should be ranked higher than I have placed them. It will be interesting to see how the numbers pan out when crunched.


In my opinion you should only compare what is comparable between eras if you want to make a list that goes far back in time. Master series, tournaments, olympics and all that can be used to compare open era players but we all know Federer wins in this regard (because Laver/Rosewall only played in the birth of the open era which also was the end of their careers). I would also within the open era count the master cup as a grand slam between 72 and 87 and Australian Open should not count as a slam within this period.

The only criteria that could be used is years as nr1, years of complete domination, number of slams/pro slams, number of years in the top 3/4, if you ever won all 4 slams in one year or the career slam (and if it was on 3 different surfaces), also if you had a career span that went beyond 10-15 years which should be a sign of great adaptability.

That is everything which can be compared between vastly different eras, take into account great exceptions of the rule of counting only pro slams, like Don Budge who dominated the amateur tour and won the Grand slam and the next year proved as a pro that he was indeed the best player in the world, sometimes the pro tour was not as good as the amateur tour which was the case in most of the 20s and part of the 30s.

arm
03-22-2012, 08:18 PM
My problem with this is that you value all Slams equally. The Australian Open for a very long time was nothing compared to Wimbledon. Wimbledon is probably still more valuable in tennis history and to these players than any other Slam (except for maybe the French for a Frenchman who actually has a chance to win).

Yes, they all value it more, but should it mean more for a ranking like this? I don't think so.

I often read people saying that winning Wimbledon is harder than winning any other slam. I simply don't understand why. :confused: It's 2 weeks of play, and the same exact players, what makes it harder than, let's say, USO? Because the conditions of the grass change during the tournament? True, but it changes for everyone :shrug:. Because there are less tournaments played on grass? Also true, but again it's the thing for everyone. In the end you have to beat the exact same players that play USO, RG or AO... if it's harder, it's harder for everyone, in the end, winning it's about beating the players, not the court. ;)

Obviously because of historic reasons it's more meaningful for players, but I don't think that winning Wimbledon should mean more than winning any other slam when you're making a ranking like this.

(Of course I am not taking into account the difference between eras, and the AO back than.. that's another story.)

asotgod
03-22-2012, 10:12 PM
My problem with this is that you value all Slams equally. The Australian Open for a very long time was nothing compared to Wimbledon. Wimbledon is probably still more valuable in tennis history and to these players than any other Slam (except for maybe the French for a Frenchman who actually has a chance to win).

So, what then do you recommend? Please, give me your values for all the 4 slams. I still think in the last 25 years, any slam won should carry the same weight - maybe less before that.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 10:17 PM
Massu greater than Davydenko, Nalbandian or Gonzalez by this criteria :scratch:

Not necessarily. That was the only tournament of significance that Massu won. Davydenko has won at least 2 masters series, I think. There is no way Massu stands to be greater. If you think the Olympic should be rated lower, what numerical value will you give to it?

asotgod
03-22-2012, 10:29 PM
In my opinion you should only compare what is comparable between eras if you want to make a list that goes far back in time. Master series, tournaments, olympics and all that can be used to compare open era players but we all know Federer wins in this regard (because Laver/Rosewall only played in the birth of the open era which also was the end of their careers). I would also within the open era count the master cup as a grand slam between 72 and 87 and Australian Open should not count as a slam within this period.

The only criteria that could be used is years as nr1, years of complete domination, number of slams/pro slams, number of years in the top 3/4, if you ever won all 4 slams in one year or the career slam (and if it was on 3 different surfaces), also if you had a career span that went beyond 10-15 years which should be a sign of great adaptability.

That is everything which can be compared between vastly different eras, take into account great exceptions of the rule of counting only pro slams, like Don Budge who dominated the amateur tour and won the Grand slam and the next year proved as a pro that he was indeed the best player in the world, sometimes the pro tour was not as good as the amateur tour which was the case in most of the 20s and part of the 30s.


Doubt Fed wins. Laver gets a significant boost (bonus) for each calendar slam equivalent to 1.5 slam or so a piece. That's a lot. The other pro championships that Laver may have won may be more than Fed and could carry him and some of the older folks above. I have not put the computation together yet. I just put the numbers together. In fact, you can argue that the numbers based on the bonus for the Calendar slam favors Laver way too much. I did that intentionally to quiet any perception of diminishing the difficulty in achieving the calendar slam. Years at #1 are already in my criteria, years of complete domination is too subjective. If you were not #1 at the end of the year (especially on the men's side), you did not dominate in my opinion. So, I do not see a reason to add that in. Neither do I see a reason to give credit for being in the top 3/4 as it makes the core list too cumbersome.

Per your recommendation, I can use the Masters cup as the slam in place of the Australian between the years you had mentioned and maybe make the Australian half the value within this period. On the career span, I agree with you on that although I have concerns especially when you consider the likes of Borg retiring early. However, I will appreciate if you can provide a numerical value for longetivity. Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 10:32 PM
That is everything which can be compared between vastly different eras, take into account great exceptions of the rule of counting only pro slams, like Don Budge who dominated the amateur tour and won the Grand slam and the next year proved as a pro that he was indeed the best player in the world, sometimes the pro tour was not as good as the amateur tour which was the case in most of the 20s and part of the 30s.

Can you also rank the tournaments in the pre-Open era numerically based on the order of importance then? Maybe we can use that for the older folks. If anyone overlap with the Open era, then he gets points based on the numerical values I have created coupled with what you may have for the pre-Open era. Let me know what you think :)

asotgod
03-22-2012, 10:38 PM
Yes, they all value it more, but should it mean more for a ranking like this? I don't think so.

I often read people saying that winning Wimbledon is harder than winning any other slam. I simply don't understand why. :confused: It's 2 weeks of play, and the same exact players, what makes it harder than, let's say, USO? Because the conditions of the grass change during the tournament? True, but it changes for everyone :shrug:. Because there are less tournaments played on grass? Also true, but again it's the thing for everyone. In the end you have to beat the exact same players that play USO, RG or AO... if it's harder, it's harder for everyone, in the end, winning it's about beating the players, not the court. ;)

Obviously because of historic reasons it's more meaningful for players, but I don't think that winning Wimbledon should mean more than winning any other slam when you're making a ranking like this.

(Of course I am not taking into account the difference between eras, and the AO back than.. that's another story.)


Good points made. I do not want to flood MTF with polls but think it might be helpful to have a poll which maybe we can allow to run for a week (say even 2 weeks) to get feedback from knowledgeable folks on here what their perception is on the equality of value in making this computation. These are the polls I think we might need. Let me know your thoughts.

1. Should all slams in the Open era be valued equally?
2. Should the Masters Championship replace the Australian Open between the 72 and 87 period?
3. Should the Olympics be valued lower or higher than the Masters Series?
4. Should the Olympics be valued lower or higher than reaching a slam final?
5. What numerical value should be given as bonus for achieving a Calendar year slam or 4 consecutive slams

Pirata.
03-22-2012, 11:48 PM
Should winning Indian Wells and Miami be worth more than the other Masters because they're longer tournaments with a larger field?

leng jai
03-22-2012, 11:54 PM
This is sad. :facepalm: it's almost as if they we're warming up.

Some of the rallies in the AO final weren't that dissimilar, considering they were on hard court :facepalm:

Ajde.

Pirata.
03-23-2012, 12:03 AM
Rosewall #20, JG is going to go nuts :lol:

sexybeast
03-23-2012, 12:05 AM
They ranked Venus Williams ahead of Suzane Lenglen, that is rather strange (however, far from the strangest decision so far)..

arm
03-23-2012, 12:05 AM
Some of the rallies in the AO final weren't that dissimilar, considering they were on hard court :facepalm:

Ajde.

Maybe by the end, but their arms and legs were falling off. :lol: no message way Rafa or Nole play like that against each other when thy are fresh and healthy.

There's pushing and then there is that.. it's a whole other level of pushing provided by Simon and Gael. They are lucky they are both cute.

Pirata.
03-23-2012, 12:47 AM
20-11

20 - Ken Rosewall, AUS
19 - Monica Seles, USA
18 - Ivan Lendl, CZE/USA
17 - Roy Emerson, AUS
16 - Bill Tilden, USA
15 - Jimmy Connors, USA
14 - Serena Williams, USA
13 - John McEnroe, USA
12 - Andre Agassi, USA
11 - Don Budge, USA

Top ten, in no order, will definitely be Laver, Fed, Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Graf, Evert, Navratilova, BJ King and Court

Saberq
03-23-2012, 12:50 AM
why is Agassi 12th

Arkulari
03-23-2012, 01:03 AM
I still think Esther Vergeer should have made the list, there's no one who can claim her victory streak in tennis :(

asotgod
03-23-2012, 01:04 AM
20-11



Top ten, in no order, will definitely be Laver, Fed, Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Graf, Evert, Navratilova, BJ King and Court


If Nadal is in the top 10, Serena should be there as well. Nadal has 10 slams and is not finished. Serena has 13 slams and may or may not be finished. If you factor doubles, big difference as well with advantage for Serena. Even Agassi was ranked higher than Serena with 8 slams. This is pitiful.

Pirata.
03-23-2012, 01:05 AM
I think the top ten will be
Laver or Fed (1/2)
Margaret Court (3)
Pete Sampras/Martina Navratilova (4/5)
Steffi Graf (6)
Chris Evert (7)
Bjorn Borg (8)
Rafael Nadal (9)
Billie Jean King (10)

If Nadal is in the top 10, Serena should be there as well. Nadal has 10 slams and is not finished. Serena has 13 slams and may or may not be finished. If you factor doubles, big difference as well with advantage for Serena. Even Agassi was ranked higher than Serena with 8 slams. This is pitiful.

Yeah, agreed, especially the fact that Serena won her own Serena Slam. Factoring in her doubles in addition to her singles results, she definitely deserves a top ten place, maybe over Rafa and BJK?

sexybeast
03-23-2012, 01:06 AM
What a joke, they put Roy Emerson ahead of Ken Rosewall. Now that is downright bizarre!

asotgod
03-23-2012, 01:06 AM
I still think Esther Vergeer should have made the list, there's no one who can claim her victory streak in tennis :(

I agree. Last I checked, she is playing tennis. She should get credit for that.

asotgod
03-23-2012, 01:09 AM
I think the top ten will be
Laver or Fed (1/2)
Margaret Court (3)
Pete Sampras/Martina Navratilova (4/5)
Steffi Graf (6)
Chris Evert (7)
Bjorn Borg (8)
Rafael Nadal (9)
Billie Jean King (10)

Fed and Laver should be no higher than 3 or even 4, imo. Graf and Navratilova accomplished more than Fed did. Fed accomplished more than Laver, again imo. Greatness should be about accomplishments, i.e., quantifiable and not what some American somewhere thought. For instance in terms of talent, maybe no one rivals McEnroe but why should he be ranked that high when he has only 7 slams?

Corey Feldman
03-23-2012, 01:30 AM
Serena at 14 is ridiculous :lol:

she won 13 slams and held all 4 at the same time once - and still behind Mac :tape:

thrust
03-23-2012, 01:36 AM
What a joke, they put Roy Emerson ahead of Ken Rosewall. Now that is downright bizarre!

I AGREE! They obviously did not factor in Ken's pro tour slams and other wins. With 19 Pro and Open Slams he shoul be in the top 5, at least.

Ziros
03-23-2012, 01:58 AM
For instance in terms of talent, maybe no one rivals McEnroe but why should he be ranked that high when he has only 7 slams?
Because he's one of the 5-10 best doubles players of all time as well as his singles

I think the thing that hurts Serena Williams is that she spent long periods not playing/caring about the game,and consequently her titles for that number of slams is very low. Most who have won even half as many slams have won more titles

thrust
03-23-2012, 02:04 AM
I think the top ten will be
Laver or Fed (1/2)
Margaret Court (3)
Pete Sampras/Martina Navratilova (4/5)
Steffi Graf (6)
Chris Evert (7)
Bjorn Borg (8)
Rafael Nadal (9)
Billie Jean King (10)



Yeah, agreed, especially the fact that Serena won her own Serena Slam. Factoring in her doubles in addition to her singles results, she definitely deserves a top ten place, maybe over Rafa and BJK?

No way they are going to rank Court at #3, even though she deserves it. My guess is: Laver
Fed
Graf
Navratilova
Evert
King
Borg
Court
Nadal

Court

Federerhingis
03-23-2012, 02:42 AM
Yeah I agree with many, this ranking is very male centric and Ameri-centric unsurprisingly. I admire Ashe's serve and volley game, and his countless humanitarian efforts but he was totally overrated. I thought Serena was ranked too low, she should have made the top 10, but then again I guess at this point in her career Serena still has a couple of slams in her if healthy, perhaps that skewed her ranking. Agassi and McEnroe above Emerson and Serena, give me a break, I guess longevity was a big factor.

I can see them finishing the top 10 as follows:
10. Nadal
9. Billie Jean King
8. Borg
7. Sampras
6. Evert
5. Court
4. Federer
3. Laver
2. Navratilova
1. Graf

rickcastle
03-23-2012, 02:52 AM
McEnroe, Nadal and Agassi higher than Serena Williams :confused:

Obviously slam count isn't their only criteria but Williams has 13 slams and she had that Serena slam of 4 in a row. I guess they won't be ranking Graf and Navratilova above Federer and Sampras.

stewietennis
03-23-2012, 03:01 AM
I guess they won't be ranking Graf and Navratilova above Federer and Sampras.

If they don't the list is a joke. Martina and Steffi have achieved much more than Sampras and Federer.

MIMIC
03-23-2012, 03:51 AM
Because he's one of the 5-10 best doubles players of all time as well as his singles

I think the thing that hurts Serena Williams is that she spent long periods not playing/caring about the game,and consequently her titles for that number of slams is very low. Most who have won even half as many slams have won more titles

That could actually be a valid explanation. Otherwise, she is easily in the top 10. In fact, that's the ONLY thing I can even think of that would put her behind Nadal, Agassi and McEnroe. Based on achievement alone, she is undoubtedly ahead of those guys.

With that said, I can see Martina at #1. Not only did she win everything under the sun (multiple times), but she STILL plays tennis. So something that hurt Serena could work strongly in Navratilova's favor.

selyoink
03-23-2012, 03:53 AM
Serena definitely underranked. Lendl should be ahead of Agassi.

Pea
03-23-2012, 04:17 AM
lol@venus being ahead of Hingis and Henin. Ridiculous.

asotgod
03-23-2012, 04:59 AM
Because he's one of the 5-10 best doubles players of all time as well as his singles

I think the thing that hurts Serena Williams is that she spent long periods not playing/caring about the game,and consequently her titles for that number of slams is very low. Most who have won even half as many slams have won more titles

You are right that she did not care a lot. Despite that, she has 13 slams which seems to rubbish those who cared a lot but could not win more than half what she did. Serena has won all the doubles titles as well. No doubt McEnroe is more talented but he also did not care for a while after Borg retired and yet he was not penalized for that. I just don't see why he should be ranked higher than Serena.

asotgod
03-23-2012, 05:02 AM
No way they are going to rank Court at #3, even though she deserves it. My guess is: Laver
Fed
Graf
Navratilova
Evert
King
Borg
Court
Nadal

Court

As I have said many times, Laver should not be ranked ahead of Fed irrespective of the calendar slam once as amateur and once as a pro. People keep bringing up the argument that no one has accomplished that. I agree but it should not nullify the 5 slam differential. Further, some will say the pro tour was tougher because most of his challengers turned pro before him while some will argue that the amateur group was tougher. Which is which? Even then, I don't see him as a greater talent that Fed or McEnroe.

asotgod
03-23-2012, 05:13 AM
I think the top ten will be
Laver or Fed (1/2)
Margaret Court (3)
Pete Sampras/Martina Navratilova (4/5)
Steffi Graf (6)
Chris Evert (7)
Bjorn Borg (8)
Rafael Nadal (9)
Billie Jean King (10)

Yeah, agreed, especially the fact that Serena won her own Serena Slam. Factoring in her doubles in addition to her singles results, she definitely deserves a top ten place, maybe over Rafa and BJK?


I think it should be:

Helen Wooly Moody as 1: Won 16 slams in a row (not counting her default and dominated from 1924 - 1933)
Graf or Navratilova (either 2 or 3)
Court or Evert (either 4 or 5)

So, pretty much no man in the top 5. I just think women dominated more and have the hardware to show for it.
Laver

asotgod
03-23-2012, 05:22 AM
If they don't the list is a joke. Martina and Steffi have achieved much more than Sampras and Federer.

Serena has achieved more than Sampras and could be argued more than Fed as well. 13 slams to 14 for Sampras but Serena has the Serena slam, probably 12 doubles titles and maybe 1 or 2 mixed doubles with the Olympics, I think.

Federer may be ahead of her in terms of slams - 16 to 13 and has dominated more which could be argued in his favor. But dont see how Sampras should be ahead of Serena.

rickcastle
03-23-2012, 05:27 AM
Serena has achieved more than Sampras and could be argued more than Fed as well. 13 slams to 14 for Sampras but Serena has the Serena slam, probably 12 doubles titles and maybe 1 or 2 mixed doubles with the Olympics, I think.

Serena also has the career grandslam which is what is sorely lacking in Sampras' resume.

Mefes
03-23-2012, 06:45 AM
the top 10 must be:
1-2. Layver (TWO GS) or Graf (Golden Slam)
3. Federer (16 GST in single)
4. Court (62 GST)
5. Navratilova (9 Wimbledon)
6. Sampras
7. Evert
8. Borg
9. Nadal
10. Billie Jean King

Pirata.
03-23-2012, 07:23 AM
At least the top ten will be an even male/female distribution but I'm still :scratch: at Serena being #14

Johnny Groove
03-23-2012, 11:45 AM
Rosewall #20, JG is going to go nuts :lol:

Words cannot describe the utter disrespect :facepalm:

20 - Ken Rosewall, AUS
19 - Monica Seles, USA
18 - Ivan Lendl, CZE/USA
17 - Roy Emerson, AUS
16 - Bill Tilden, USA
15 - Jimmy Connors, USA
14 - Serena Williams, USA
13 - John McEnroe, USA
12 - Andre Agassi, USA
11 - Don Budge, USA

There are so many things wrong with 11-20, I don't even know where to start. Rosewall should be top 10, or even higher, w/o a doubt, Lendl should be ahead of Connors, Mac, and Agassi for sure. Emerson shouldn't be anywhere near this, he should be back in the 40's or 50's on the list. Serena has been disrespected as well, and Budge could be higher. I'm actually surprised they have Tilden on the list at all considering his history, but he should be top 5/10 like Rosewall.

Overrating American players and underrating others? NID with Tennis Channel.

Mystique
03-23-2012, 11:52 AM
Overrating American players and underrating others? NID with Tennis Channel.

This.

Now they should complete this list adding the final touch of ranking Sampras ahead of Federer.

MaxPower
03-23-2012, 12:04 PM
To me it doesn't make much sense to whine about the old school players and their placement. It's not a coincidence most of them are US/AUS. Competition was different then. Eastern Europe hadn't entered the party for example. Same for both men and women. Once players from countries like russia, serbia, czech republic etc became common on the tour becoming truly dominant was much harder.


That ofc works against Borg that I'm biased towards but he's even said that himself that competition was weaker in his era. For Laver it was even weaker.

As for Borg's career he didn't play Australian Open that was on grass until 87. He was amazing on grass so that's obviously a horrible decision. He skipped French Open in 77 because of a stupid sponsor commitment that is another strange situation as he was in excellent shape and won Wimbledon that year. He reached USO final 4 times without winning it before age 25. With some better planning Borg could have had 15-16 slams at age 25. Had he played a full career he could have had 20-25. Even now he keeps the slam winning % record and the slam matches winning % record and no-one ahead of him in the greatest rankings can reach those.

Borg is probably one of the most mismanaged careers ever in terms of becoming the greatest. Not only did he quit at his peak but he also did so much to increase interest in tennis and then quit just as prize money started to become big. I feel a bit sorry for him for those reasons and with some record to fight for maybe his motivation hadn't died out.

In fact it's crazy that he is in the top10 all time seeing all the weird career decisions he made and that he retired so young. Sampras played nearly twice the number of slams. Federer will before his career is over have played more than twice the number of slams that Borg did. Borg only played 27 slams in total and Fed is already at 51

uNIVERSE mAN
03-23-2012, 01:04 PM
Serena also has the career grandslam which is what is sorely lacking in Sampras' resume.

williams only 39 career titles and two YE #1's also she checked out for large parts of her career and has missed lots of time due to injuries.

rickcastle
03-23-2012, 01:15 PM
williams only 39 career titles and two YE #1's also she checked out for large parts of her career and has missed lots of time due to injuries.

Yeah, but Serena's doubles resume is very impressive. Anyway, I do think Sampras should be ranked above Serena especially if we're looking at singles career mostly but I think she got the shaft by being below guys that she has 3+ grandslams differential with.

thrust
03-23-2012, 02:27 PM
As I have said many times, Laver should not be ranked ahead of Fed irrespective of the calendar slam once as amateur and once as a pro. People keep bringing up the argument that no one has accomplished that. I agree but it should not nullify the 5 slam differential. Further, some will say the pro tour was tougher because most of his challengers turned pro before him while some will argue that the amateur group was tougher. Which is which? Even then, I don't see him as a greater talent that Fed or McEnroe.

The fact is the Laver, and other Pro tour rookies, were creamed by the top pros. It took Laver 3 years before he became dominate over a 30 YO Rosewall. Rod lost 5 years of Slam play, Rosewall-11, Gonzalez- even more.

Johnny Groove
03-23-2012, 02:37 PM
The fact is the Laver, and other Pro tour rookies, were creamed by the top pros. It took Laver 3 years before he became dominate over a 30 YO Rosewall. Rod lost 5 years of Slam play, Rosewall-11, Gonzalez- even more.

Uh. Laver won the amateur slam in 62, turned pro and got slammed in 63, and was #1 in 64 :shrug:

sexybeast
03-23-2012, 02:49 PM
To me it doesn't make much sense to whine about the old school players and their placement. It's not a coincidence most of them are US/AUS. Competition was different then. Eastern Europe hadn't entered the party for example. Same for both men and women. Once players from countries like russia, serbia, czech republic etc became common on the tour becoming truly dominant was much harder.


That ofc works against Borg that I'm biased towards but he's even said that himself that competition was weaker in his era. For Laver it was even weaker.

As for Borg's career he didn't play Australian Open that was on grass until 87. He was amazing on grass so that's obviously a horrible decision. He skipped French Open in 77 because of a stupid sponsor commitment that is another strange situation as he was in excellent shape and won Wimbledon that year. He reached USO final 4 times without winning it before age 25. With some better planning Borg could have had 15-16 slams at age 25. Had he played a full career he could have had 20-25. Even now he keeps the slam winning % record and the slam matches winning % record and no-one ahead of him in the greatest rankings can reach those.

Borg is probably one of the most mismanaged careers ever in terms of becoming the greatest. Not only did he quit at his peak but he also did so much to increase interest in tennis and then quit just as prize money started to become big. I feel a bit sorry for him for those reasons and with some record to fight for maybe his motivation hadn't died out.

In fact it's crazy that he is in the top10 all time seeing all the weird career decisions he made and that he retired so young. Sampras played nearly twice the number of slams. Federer will before his career is over have played more than twice the number of slams that Borg did. Borg only played 27 slams in total and Fed is already at 51

Its true, Borg was not all that serious about chasing greatness, also the definitions for what made a tennis player legendary was not as clear back then as now. It doesnt really work as an excuse but it is worth reminding outselves about what kind of potential Borg had to climb to alltime greatness.

thrust
03-23-2012, 04:21 PM
Uh. Laver won the amateur slam in 62, turned pro and got slammed in 63, and was #1 in 64 :shrug:

According to most experts and Laver, himself, Rosewall was #1 in 64. Laver did win 2 pro slams to Ken's-1 but, overall, Laver conceded that Rosewall was still #1. Laver was #1 in 65,66 and 67 on the pro tour.

cutesteve22
03-23-2012, 04:38 PM
lol@venus being ahead of Hingis and Henin. Ridiculous.Venus is far better player then Hingis 7>5 :rolleyes: no doubt of it
Henin cheated at 2003 RG, so it shoild be 6<7, venus also leaded the H2H. And Venus archived much more in double, enough said. :wavey:

samanosuke
03-23-2012, 04:46 PM
Lendl on 18th place, Nadal in top 10 :lol: . Great list

Roamed
03-23-2012, 05:25 PM
There's a preview video here that explains how it was done:

VeBui1DoQ-4

"Tennis Channel reached out to an international panel of journalists, coaches, historians, and industry representatives. Participants hailed from 6 continents and included the International Tennis Hall of Fame."

Player criteria:
- Number of Major Titles won
- Overall performance at Grand Slam events
- Player ranking
- Performance at ATP/WTA events
- Performance at Davis and Fed Cup events
- Records held or broken (e.g. consecutive winning streaks)
- Intangibles (overall contribution to tennis)

sicko
03-23-2012, 05:39 PM
how can any woman be in this list???? this would be like putting juniors or handicapped players in the list...

fast_clay
03-23-2012, 05:45 PM
Words cannot describe the utter disrespect :facepalm:

20 - Ken Rosewall, AUS
19 - Monica Seles, USA
18 - Ivan Lendl, CZE/USA
17 - Roy Emerson, AUS
16 - Bill Tilden, USA
15 - Jimmy Connors, USA
14 - Serena Williams, USA
13 - John McEnroe, USA
12 - Andre Agassi, USA
11 - Don Budge, USA

There are so many things wrong with 11-20, I don't even know where to start. Rosewall should be top 10, or even higher, w/o a doubt, Lendl should be ahead of Connors, Mac, and Agassi for sure. Emerson shouldn't be anywhere near this, he should be back in the 40's or 50's on the list. Serena has been disrespected as well, and Budge could be higher. I'm actually surprised they have Tilden on the list at all considering his history, but he should be top 5/10 like Rosewall.

Overrating American players and underrating others? NID with Tennis Channel.

as much as JG loves spinning the odd yarn, he is absolutely correct here... 100%

emotion
03-23-2012, 06:51 PM
It's criminal the way Tennis Channel hypes Nadal

TennisOnWood
03-23-2012, 07:17 PM
Pancho in 35th place... just amazing

Sophocles
03-23-2012, 07:30 PM
This list is a joke. The rankings of Gonzales & Rosewall, both of whom have legitimate claims to be the greatest player of all time and both of whom are obvious shoe-ins for the Top 10, are ludicrous.

Saberq
03-23-2012, 07:35 PM
This list is a joke. The rankings of Gonzales & Rosewall, both of whom have legitimate claims to be the greatest player of all time and both of whom are obvious shoe-ins for the Top 10, are ludicrous.

I agree that the list is a joke but Gonzales an Rosewall are not even close to GOAT's

thrust
03-23-2012, 09:06 PM
I agree that the list is a joke but Gonzales an Rosewall are not even close to GOAT's

ACHIEVEMENT wise, YES they ARE! Rosewall- 19 Pro and Open Era Slams, Federer-16, Sampras-14, Laver- 13, Gonzalez-14 plus many other Pro Tour wins. Rosewall- Over 130 tournaments won, Fed- just over 70. One can only judge a players greatness according to what they won during the era they played in. Rosewall was a Slam winner in 3 era's, Amateur, Pro and Open Era, so was Laver. I am not saying anyone is the GOAT, but certainly: Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are among the very greatest, whether you like that FACT or not.

SerialKillerToBe
03-23-2012, 10:18 PM
I can't believe Nadal is in the top 5 male players.

Johnny Groove
03-23-2012, 10:18 PM
I agree that the list is a joke but Gonzales an Rosewall are not even close to GOAT's

What are you snorting?

Saberq
03-23-2012, 10:30 PM
ACHIEVEMENT wise, YES they ARE! Rosewall- 19 Pro and Open Era Slams, Federer-16, Sampras-14, Laver- 13, Gonzalez-14 plus many other Pro Tour wins. Rosewall- Over 130 tournaments won, Fed- just over 70. One can only judge a players greatness according to what they won during the era they played in. Rosewall was a Slam winner in 3 era's, Amateur, Pro and Open Era, so was Laver. I am not saying anyone is the GOAT, but certainly: Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are among the very greatest, whether you like that FACT or not.

their achievements were gained in a joke era...if they played today they would struggle to win Dubai

ogre
03-23-2012, 10:31 PM
So, what then do you recommend? Please, give me your values for all the 4 slams. I still think in the last 25 years, any slam won should carry the same weight - maybe less before that.

The point is that to break it down to a formulae and have it be really accurate would require assigning an individual value to every slam every year. There are just so many factors. Was the tour split and the best players of the day not competing? Was it during the depression and players did not travel? Was there strong competition at the time? It becomes subjective and thus in the end a matter of opinion. Yes you can declare that by having a formulae the opinion goes because you get a black and white answer- but it is not true, as you have just moved the matter of opinion to 'what is the right formulae' so you are back at the start and it is still just a matter of opinion. And hence very debatable.

reery
03-23-2012, 10:46 PM
Serena definitely underranked.

Nope. She does not even have 40 singles titles and has been a pro since 1995. :o

FedvsNole
03-23-2012, 10:48 PM
their achievements were gained in a joke era...if they played today they would struggle to win Dubai


Don't be so modest. They would stuggle to win challenger matches today.

reery
03-23-2012, 10:52 PM
I think the thing that hurts Serena Williams is that she spent long periods not playing/caring about the game,and consequently her titles for that number of slams is very low. Most who have won even half as many slams have won more titles

This.

Thunderfish8
03-23-2012, 11:06 PM
If anybody would like to comment on my predictions I thin the following are true about the 10 players left:

1. Federer > Sampras
2. Nadal > Borg
3. Laver > Nadal
4. Graf > Evert
5. Court > Evert
6. BJK > Evert
7. Navratilova > Graf > BJK
8. Court > Navratilova

So essentially...
Men
5. Becker
4. Nadal
3. Sampras
2. Laver
1. Federer

Women
5. Evert
4. BJK
3. Graf
2. Navratilova
1. Court

Ash86
03-23-2012, 11:12 PM
If anybody would like to comment on my predictions I thin the following are true about the 10 players left:

1. Federer > Sampras
2. Nadal > Borg
3. Laver > Nadal
4. Graf > Evert
5. Court > Evert
6. BJK > Evert
7. Navratilova > Graf > BJK
8. Court > Navratilova

So essentially...
Men
5. Becker
4. Nadal
3. Sampras
2. Laver
1. Federer

Women
5. Evert
4. BJK
3. Graf
2. Navratilova
1. Court

It truly would be ridiculous if Court was no.1 given she won so many Aus Opens when no one else was there. The top woman will be either Navratilova or Graf. Top man Laver or Fed -think they might go for Laver still... Also I think you meant Borg not Becker. Think no. 3-5 will be Sampras, Nadal, Borg - 1 or 2 hard to call.

TennisOnWood
03-23-2012, 11:31 PM
Graf and Laver on the top

Tennis-Life
03-23-2012, 11:37 PM
I believe If Novak wins Roland Garros this year he can be considered as top 20. Four consecutive Grand Slam titles :sport:

MatchFederer
03-23-2012, 11:42 PM
ACHIEVEMENT wise, YES they ARE! Rosewall- 19 Pro and Open Era Slams, Federer-16, Sampras-14, Laver- 13, Gonzalez-14 plus many other Pro Tour wins. Rosewall- Over 130 tournaments won, Fed- just over 70. One can only judge a players greatness according to what they won during the era they played in. Rosewall was a Slam winner in 3 era's, Amateur, Pro and Open Era, so was Laver. I am not saying anyone is the GOAT, but certainly: Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are among the very greatest, whether you like that FACT or not.

Isn't Rosewall on 23, but Laver on 19? I thought it was.

Pirata.
03-23-2012, 11:58 PM
Top ten about to start :rocker2:

Sunset of Age
03-23-2012, 11:59 PM
^^ I'm :scared: :scared: :scared:

There is so much WRONG with that list already, I don't even know where to start.
Men and women in ONE list??? What idiot thought about that to start with? :help: :smash:
(ah perhaps that's the way to get more USA folks on that list? :rolleyes:)

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:02 AM
Billie Jean King is #10

Johnny Groove
03-24-2012, 12:03 AM
I believe If Novak wins Roland Garros this year he can be considered as top 20. Four consecutive Grand Slam titles :sport:

Top 20 men of all time, yes.

emotion
03-24-2012, 12:04 AM
My god, Nadal is 9 or above :help:

Corey Feldman
03-24-2012, 12:05 AM
keep updating !!!

this is better than waiting for Wimbledon draw

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:06 AM
Commercial break six minutes into the show :facepalm:

nobama
03-24-2012, 12:07 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see #2 in the top 5. :o

Johnny Groove
03-24-2012, 12:07 AM
The men should be:

1. Laver/Fed
2. Fed/Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Laurence Doherty
7. William Larned

Shame if they skip over Larned and especially Doherty, which they probably will, especially since they have Wilding and Renshaw in the list :tape:

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:07 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see #2 in the top 5. :o

He will be #9, don't worry.

nobama
03-24-2012, 12:08 AM
Commercial break six minutes into the show :facepalm:Er why are they showing this now and not Miami? WTF ATP and WTA. What stupid TV deals. :rolleyes:

Ash86
03-24-2012, 12:08 AM
My god, Nadal is 9 or above :help:

What is wrong with you? The guy has 10 slams, the golden career slam, 4 Davis Cups, joint record Masters titles, longest ever clay streak (and longest ever streak on one surface), joint record no. of RG titles, winning H2H over greatest rival - why would he not be top 10? :rolleyes:

He needs to win a few more and overtake Sampras - that's enough for me. Don't think he needs 14 to do that - for me Borg's better than Sampras even if Borg has 3 fewer slams.

nobama
03-24-2012, 12:09 AM
He will be #9, don't worry.Honestly I could care less. Any list that includes both men and women is a joke. :o

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:09 AM
WTF Chris Evert #9

Nadal over Evert :facepalm:

SerialKillerToBe
03-24-2012, 12:09 AM
Nadal is 8 or above...Ugh. I'm cringing right now.

SerialKillerToBe
03-24-2012, 12:10 AM
Honestly I could care less. Any list that includes both men and women is a joke. :o

couldn't care less*

pet peeve of mine

emotion
03-24-2012, 12:11 AM
Nadal top 8 :(
Evert #9

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:11 AM
Evert at #9 is a joke. Seven French Opens, Six US Opens...

Ash86
03-24-2012, 12:11 AM
Nadal is 8 or above...Ugh. I'm cringing right now.

There's still hope for you - he might not be on the list. :shrug: I mean - he's awful right? Why even in the top 1000 players?

Corey Feldman
03-24-2012, 12:12 AM
they have a thread for this on WTA and even there they are fuming about Nadal :lol:

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:13 AM
omg Margaret Court at #7

Corey Feldman
03-24-2012, 12:13 AM
lol Evert 9th with 18 slams

they really are WTA hatas

i'm expecting Fed third, Graf 2nd and Nadal 1st

Johnny Groove
03-24-2012, 12:13 AM
Even when he's not playing, people hatin' on Rafa :lol:

Though I agree, Rafa isn't even top 8 men all time.

nobama
03-24-2012, 12:13 AM
couldn't care less*

pet peeve of mine
Actually I guess I could care less....if I did I wouldn't be following it here. :Lol:

Corey Feldman
03-24-2012, 12:14 AM
omg Margaret Court at #7:spit:

nobama
03-24-2012, 12:14 AM
Evert at #9 is a joke. Seven French Opens, Six US Opens...
Yeah that's just so wrong. :o

emotion
03-24-2012, 12:14 AM
seem to really be saving men

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:15 AM
Actually I guess I could care less....if I did I wouldn't be following it here. :Lol:

:lol:

Tennis-Life
03-24-2012, 12:15 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see #2 in the top 5. :o

Uncle Tony's influence once again :tape:

Johnny Groove
03-24-2012, 12:16 AM
Better be Doherty, Borg, Nadal, Sampras, Fed, and Laver the final 6.

Saberq
03-24-2012, 12:16 AM
Fed is number 1 period...I dont care about Rod Laver,Graf,Navratilova ect.....In the history of tennis there was never a greater or better player than Roger Federer.........He's not the best of all time because he won 16 GS's ..........he won 16 GS's because he is the best of all time..........and I am not his fan even.....

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:16 AM
Sorry, MC at #8, but still :facepalm:

Tennis-Life
03-24-2012, 12:17 AM
lol Evert 9th with 18 slams

they really are WTA hatas

i'm expecting Fed third, Graf 2nd and Nadal 1st

:superlol:

Johnny Groove
03-24-2012, 12:17 AM
Fed is number 1 period...I dont care about Rod Laver,Graf,Navratilova ect.....In the history of tennis there was never a greater or better player than Roger Federer.........He's not the best of all time because he won 16 GS's ..........he won 16 GS's because he is the best of all time..........and I am not his fan even.....

I don't always win 16 grand slams, but when I do, its because I'm the GOAT
I'm not always the GOAT, but when I am, its because I won 16 slams

:yeah:

SerialKillerToBe
03-24-2012, 12:17 AM
Actually I guess I could care less....if I did I wouldn't be following it here. :Lol:

good point :scratch:

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:18 AM
they have a thread for this on WTA and even there they are fuming about Nadal :lol:

Link? :lol:

Pirata.
03-24-2012, 12:19 AM
Borg At Number 7?!?!??!?!

emotion
03-24-2012, 12:20 AM
Jesus Christ. Top 6 :help: Lendl's rank is biggest crime thusfar though

nobama
03-24-2012, 12:20 AM
Chris Fowler must have been one of those voting. :o

SerialKillerToBe
03-24-2012, 12:20 AM
Nadal above Borg? Aww hell naw.