The Original Most Accomplished Players on the ATP [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Original Most Accomplished Players on the ATP

Pages : [1] 2

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 05:49 AM
I thought it would be fun to do a list analagous to the one I have for WTA World, as it seems more posters have been debating who is greater than who on the tour currently.

Accomplishments, as I see it, are based on Slam count, ranking, Masters titles, number of total titles, in that order. The players have to be active in the last year, so Guga didn't make the list. Sjeng Schalken will probably fall off it by February.

No suprise that Federer is the most accomplished. Surprising that his nemesis, Nadal, is not #2. Unlike the WTA, there is only one player adept at both singles & doubles these days--Jonas Bjorkman.

It will be interesting to see how this list changes in the next year.

Updated for: 6/11/07

I probably made some errors, you may kindly point them out. Otherwise, discuss :cool:



1. Roger FEDERER, 25. 10 Slams, 13 Masters, 2 Master Cups, 23 other singles. 7 doubles. #1 for 164 weeks. Year end #1: 2004-2006. Current rank: 1

2. Rafael NADAL, 21. 3 Slams. 1 other Slam final. 9 Masters. 9 other singles. 3 doubles. HR: #2. Current rank: 2

3. Lleyton HEWITT, 25. 2 Slams. 2 other Slam finals. 1 Slam Doubles. 2 Masters. 2 Master Cups. 22 others singles. 1 other doubles. #1 for 80 weeks. Year end #1: 2001 & 2002. Current rank: 16

4. Marat SAFIN, 26. 2 Slams. 2 other Slam finals. 5 Masters. 8 other singles. 1 doubles. #1 for 9 weeks. Current rank: 24

5. Andy RODDICK, 24. 1 Slam. 3 other Slam finals. 4 Masters. 16 other singles. 3 doubles. HR: #1 for 13 weeks. Year end #1: 2003. Current rank: 5

6. Juan Carlos FERRERO, 26. 1 Slam. 2 other Slam finals. 4 Masters. 6 others singles. HR:#1 for 8 weeks. Current rank: 19

7. Carlos MOYA, 30. 1 Slam. 1 other Slam final. 3 Masters. 15 other singles. #1 for 2 weeks. Current rank: 21

8. Gaston GAUDIO, 27. 1 Slam. 7 others singles. 2 doubles. HR: #5. Current rank: 99

9. Thomas JOHANSSON, 31. 1 Slam. 1 Masters. 7 other singles. 1 doubles. HR: #7. Current rank: 76

10. Nicolas MASSU, 27. 2 Olympics Gold Medal (1 in singles, 1 in doubles). 5 other singles. HR#9. Current rank: 50

11. Mark PHILIPPOUSSIS, 29. 2 Slam Finals. 1 Masters. 10 other singles. 3 doubles. HR: #8. Current rank: 134

12. Guillermo CORIA, 25. 1 Slam Finals. 2 Masters. 7 other singles. HR: #3. Current rank: 344

13. David NALBANDIAN, 25. 1 Slam Finals. 1 Masters Cup. 4 others singles. 1 doubles. HR:#3. Current rank: 25

14. Fernando GONZALEZ, 26. 1 Slam Final. 6 singles. HR: #5 Current rank: 6

15. Ranier SCHUETTLER, 31. 1 Slam Final. 4 singles. 2 doubles. HR: #5. Current rank: 144

16. Arnaud CLEMENT, 29. 1 Slam Final. 4 singles. 1 Masters doubles. 3 others doubles. HR: #10. Current rank: 43

17. Marcos BAGHDATIS, 21. 1 Slam Final. 2 titles. HR. #8. Current rank: 18

18. Martin VERKERK, 27. 1 Slam Final. 2 titles. HR. #14. Current rank: 660

19. Tim HENMAN, 32. 6 Slam SFs. 1 Masters. 10 others titles. 1 Masters doubles. 3 other doubles. HR: #4. Current rank: 54

20. Sebastien, GROSJEAN, 29. 4 Slam SFs. 1 Masters. 2 other titles. HR. #4. Current rank: 69

its.like.that
10-14-2006, 06:01 AM
GM is just getting worse and worse.

:retard:

BlakeorHenman
10-14-2006, 06:58 AM
Where is Henman?????

its.like.that
10-14-2006, 07:14 AM
Moya's slam was better than Roddick's.

Therefore Moya should be above Roddick.

DrJules
10-14-2006, 08:01 AM
3. Marat SAFIN, 26. 2 Slams. 5 Masters. 8 other singles. 1 doubles. #1 for 9 weeks.

4. Rafael NADAL, 20. 2 Slams. 6 Masters. 9 other singles. 3 doubles. HR: #2.


8. Gaston GAUDIO, 27. 1 Slam. 7 others singles. 2 doubles. HR: #5.

9. Thomas JOHANNSON, 31. 1 Slam. 1 Masters. 7 other singles. 1 doubles. HR: #7.



Overall feel that Nadal should be ahead of Safin. Surely, 1 master title, 1 other single and 2 doubles extra is worth more than a number 1 ranking?

Johannson with a master title should be ahead of Gaudio. In other respects records similar.

Norrage
10-14-2006, 08:54 AM
Surely Roddick has more Masters (i think 4 instead of 3) than you have listed there, Schalken hasn't reached a GS final (only semi final so should instantly be lower on the list :P), and you base the entire ranking entirely on GS records..One day flies like Verkerk should be lower ranked, although with most of your top I tend to agree.
Would switch Ferrero with moya btw

And Dr Jules...surely Nadal isnt ahead of Safin yet..for godsake. Safin has 2 different grand slams, which I think is better than what Nadal has achieved, has 2 GS Finals and lots of Semis and Quarters too...nadal has only his Wimby final outside of RG...

nanoman
10-14-2006, 09:00 AM
You put too much emphasis on Slam-Results(non-wins) . I wouldn't put Martin Verkerk anywhere near the top50, let alone top20.

And Schalken has reached a Slam-Final ? Which one ?

CooCooCachoo
10-14-2006, 09:01 AM
:lol: Sjeng in a slam final?

Boris Franz Ecker
10-14-2006, 09:05 AM
1 Federer
2 Hewitt
3 Nadal
4 Safin
5 Roddick
6 Moya
7 Johansson
8 Gaudio
9 Nalbandian
10 Henman
11 Haas

DrJules
10-14-2006, 09:20 AM
And Dr Jules...surely Nadal isnt ahead of Safin yet..for godsake. Safin has 2 different grand slams, which I think is better than what Nadal has achieved, has 2 GS Finals and lots of Semis and Quarters too...nadal has only his Wimby final outside of RG...

I am basing it on the win figures listed.

Obviously, winning different grand slams is better than winning the same event. It shows a player's ability to adapt to different surfaces and conditions.

Frooty_Bazooty
10-14-2006, 09:46 AM
Schuettler, Clement, Verkerk... :lol:

You've prioritised having one good year over having lots of good years, which to me exemplifies have a successful career. Wheres Henman?

the rest of the list seems good to me

Action Jackson
10-14-2006, 09:49 AM
Cheech Marin should be there.

0-17 in GS is something that should be celebrated.

DrJules
10-14-2006, 09:55 AM
No suprise that Federer is the most accomplished. Surprising that his nemesis, Nadal, is not #2.


The position of Nadal is purely a result of his age.

Frooty_Bazooty
10-14-2006, 10:18 AM
Cheech Marin should be there.

0-17 in GS is something that should be celebrated.

What a shame he didnt beat Sampras that time in RG, a 1-17 record with the one win against Pete would be classicly ironic

Action Jackson
10-14-2006, 10:19 AM
What a shame he didnt beat Sampras that time in RG, a 1-17 record with the one win against Pete would be classicly ironic

He had his chances, that is the sad thing about that match.

LK_22
10-14-2006, 10:20 AM
Are you on something? :cuckoo:

Where is Tim Henman?

In_Disguise
10-14-2006, 10:32 AM
Are you on something? :cuckoo:

Where is Tim Henman?

Or Rusedski - 1 slam final, 15 single titles, former #4

LK_22
10-14-2006, 10:36 AM
Or Rusedski - 1 slam final, 15 single titles, former #4

Well said, Greg should easily make this list

fabolous
10-14-2006, 10:54 AM
why is haas behind guys like schalken, verkerk, baghdatis, schüttler, clement? why does schalken have a slam final? why is schalken on the list and not henman or rusedski? even ljubicic, kiefer or robredo have more achieved than he did. he is more in the lapentti/novak/el aynaoui category.

shonami slam
10-14-2006, 12:17 PM
get used to this - no ifs no buts - very dry statistics.
on wtaworld i'm constantly uping the tally on tennis fool, questioning mixed, doubles, tierIs and career highs in the much more even wtatour we have.
all very non-debatable stuff regarding who beat whom to win what - if you have correct facts he got wrond, list them, if you can remember someone he forgot - name him.
otherwise watch how Vaidisova is ranked higher than Sugiyama, Dechy over Hantuchova.

Peoples
10-14-2006, 12:59 PM
Slam wins are unquestionably the #1 criteria and #1 ranking is correctly more important than TMS wins IMO but slam finals are totally overrated in this system making one-time flukes look like tennis legends.

Corey Feldman
10-14-2006, 01:04 PM
how unbelievable that some of those names beat Henman in the list.. a 5 year top 10'er.

leng jai
10-14-2006, 01:19 PM
Pretty dodgy list I must say. Schuettler? Clement? Sjeng? VERKERK? And Haas has 2 GS semi-finals.

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 02:16 PM
I think I have a personal block on Henman and Rusedski :o For all the hype he's had over his career, you'd think Henman had accomplishmed more than he has.

Yes, they should be on the list. Sjeng, somehow I thought made a Final because he made the Masters one year, I believe. Sorry, Sjengster (I'm surprised you didn't point this out.)

I also regrettably omitted Massu by mistake, only remembering when looking at Peoples' avatar.

I made the correction in SFs for Haas, who is now #21 and Davydenko now #22, thus dropping out of the list.

fabolous
10-14-2006, 02:25 PM
but you still rate haas behind verkerk, schüttler, clement just because these guys made a fluke slam final??? seriously, come to germany and show me one person who thinks schüttler has more accomplished than haas or kiefer.

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 02:32 PM
Slam wins are unquestionably the #1 criteria and #1 ranking is correctly more important than TMS wins IMO but slam finals are totally overrated in this system making one-time flukes look like tennis legends.

but you still rate haas behind verkerk, schüttler, clement just because these guys made a fluke slam final??? seriously, come to germany and show me one person who thinks schüttler has more accomplished than haas or kiefer.

Yes, but these guys can always say the were in a Slam final. They also had respectable rankings. I don't think they are flukes. They have to literally come out of nowhere, have no ranking and disppear overnight. This is why I've kept Alex Stevensn off of my WTA list, even though she made a Wimbledon semifinal.

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 02:40 PM
Overall feel that Nadal should be ahead of Safin. Surely, 1 master title, 1 other single and 2 doubles extra is worth more than a number 1 ranking?

Johannson with a master title should be ahead of Gaudio. In other respects records similar.

Safin had the #1 ranking. Debatable if Nadal ever will get there. Probably the greatest No. 2 of all time.

I think I would rather been known as a top 5 player than having a random Masters title.

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 02:46 PM
Surely Roddick has more Masters (i think 4 instead of 3) than you have listed there, Schalken hasn't reached a GS final (only semi final so should instantly be lower on the list :P), and you base the entire ranking entirely on GS records..One day flies like Verkerk should be lower ranked, although with most of your top I tend to agree.

Here are the fast answers:
1) Yes, you're right. Roddick has 4 Masters. 2) Sjeng is off the list. 3)You are remembered for Slams. That's what get you into the HOF. 4)Ferrero has 1 more Masters & has been No. 1 for a longer period.

Corey Feldman
10-14-2006, 02:51 PM
Yes, they should be on the list. Sjeng, somehow I thought made a Final because he made the Masters one year, I believe. Sorry, Sjengster (I'm surprised you didn't point this out.)Sjeng made the masters one year?? :eek:

Johnny Groove
10-14-2006, 02:52 PM
No suprise that Federer is the most accomplished. Surprising that his nemesis, Nadal, is not #2.

:rolleyes: as if you got this from an alternative source

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 02:58 PM
Sjeng made the masters one year?? :eek:

I thought he did, but I might be confusing him with Scheuttler :o :o

I don't know why I have Sjeng on my mind. I blame this on Sjengster for the overhype :devil:

Corey Feldman
10-14-2006, 03:01 PM
sounds to me like you have too much Sjengster not sjeng on your mind :eek: :p

Tennis Fool
10-14-2006, 03:06 PM
sounds to me like you have too much Sjengster not sjeng on your mind :eek: :p

Only in that I'm waiting to have an intelligent conversation with him on the Wiliams sisters. Still waiting after 4 years. ;)

fabolous
10-14-2006, 03:46 PM
Yes, but these guys can always say the were in a Slam final. They also had respectable rankings. I don't think they are flukes. They have to literally come out of nowhere, have no ranking and disppear overnight. This is why I've kept Alex Stevensn off of my WTA list, even though she made a Wimbledon semifinal.
so we have pretty different criterias, that's why my list would differ in many ways from yours, especially concerning haas.

and yes, i do call verkerk and schüttler fluke slam finalists.

Sjengster
10-14-2006, 04:36 PM
I think I have a personal block on Henman and Rusedski :o For all the hype he's had over his career, you'd think Henman had accomplishmed more than he has.

Yes, they should be on the list. Sjeng, somehow I thought made a Final because he made the Masters one year, I believe. Sorry, Sjengster (I'm surprised you didn't point this out.)

I also regrettably omitted Massu by mistake, only remembering when looking at Peoples' avatar.

I made the correction in SFs for Haas, who is now #21 and Davydenko now #22, thus dropping out of the list.

I only just logged on here and found this thread, thanks for making me feel better TF but Schalken's presence in this list would have been fraudulent to say the least. And nope, he didn't make the Masters either, and only had two years where he even had half a chance of making it (2002/2003). :o

Time to overcome that personal block on the Brits TF, because Henman deserves to be ahead of Clement, Verkerk, Schuettler and also Baghdatis at this stage. It's 6 Slam SFs by the way, not 5, which includes semis at 3 of the 4 Slams. Not to mention 5 year-end finishes in the Top 10....

Sjengster
10-14-2006, 04:38 PM
Sjeng made the masters one year?? :eek:

TF has a wire into my dreams. ;)

Sjengster
10-14-2006, 04:41 PM
I thought he did, but I might be confusing him with Scheuttler :o :o

I don't know why I have Sjeng on my mind. I blame this on Sjengster for the overhype :devil:

This doesn't surprise me, since you once suggested they were "the boring twins" or somesuch and were exactly alike (when they met at Wimbledon 03, I recall).

I'm not sure I ever overhyped Schalken, except when I pointed out how versatile he was in doing well on all surfaces for someone with such a one-dimensional game? :confused:

Sjengster
10-14-2006, 04:43 PM
Only in that I'm waiting to have an intelligent conversation with him on the Wiliams sisters. Still waiting after 4 years. ;)

If my hunch about you is correct, you think I sit there with a KKK hood on every time I post about them on a tennis board. :o Anyhow, 4 years is a decent period, add a 0 to it and I might bring up the subject again. ;)

CmonAussie
10-14-2006, 05:11 PM
1 Federer
2 Hewitt
3 Nadal
4 Safin
5 Roddick
6 Moya
7 Johansson
8 Gaudio
9 Nalbandian
10 Henman
11 Haas

:wavey: ~~almost agree with you:cool:
1. Federer [by a long shot]:worship:
....
2. Hewitt [2001 & 2002 can`t be deleted from the records]:p
3. Nadal [2005 was greatest #2 year since Vilas in 77]:devil:
4. Safin [should be more highlights like USO 00 & AO 05]:angel:
......
5. Roddick
6. Moya
7. Ferrero
8. Gaudio
9. Johannson
10. Philippoussis

GlennMirnyi
10-14-2006, 05:16 PM
I've never read so much :bs:

RickDaStick
10-14-2006, 05:18 PM
Martin Verkerk an accomplished tennis player? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

CmonAussie
10-14-2006, 05:19 PM
I've never read so much :bs:
:wavey:
Atleast you could give your opinion:p ~~~Takes a BS artist to know a BS artist:cool:

DrJules
10-14-2006, 05:19 PM
I've never read so much :bs:


Why do you say that.

And where would you place Nadal:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sjengster
10-14-2006, 05:26 PM
Martin Verkerk an accomplished tennis player? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Got Ljubo in the Milan semis three years ago en route to the title, didn't he? :p Anyway, he certainly was an accomplished player for two weeks, just never again thereafter (injuries playing a large part in that). You don't fluke consecutive victories over Schuettler, Moya and Coria to reach a Slam final.

RickDaStick
10-14-2006, 05:30 PM
Got Ljubo in the Milan semis three years ago en route to the title, didn't he? :p Anyway, he certainly was an accomplished player for two weeks, just never again thereafter (injuries playing a large part in that). You don't fluke consecutive victories over Schuettler, Moya and Coria to reach a Slam final.

He also got Ljubo in Indianapolis. I'll never forget that much, It was on a back court with about 20 people watching(me being one of them) and it was probably well over 100 degrees. After losing the 1st, Ivan pretty much refused to play in the 2nd and just stood there watching Martin uncorcking aces. Good Times.

GlennMirnyi
10-14-2006, 05:34 PM
:wavey:
Atleast you could give your opinion:p ~~~Takes a BS artist to know a BS artist:cool:

You don't know much tennis yourself to give me that... :)

GlennMirnyi
10-14-2006, 05:38 PM
Why do you say that.

And where would you place Nadal:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that a question? If it is, I'll answer: you can't measure a player's accomplishments while he's still playing. When he retires we'll have a significant parameter to analyze something.

Nadal is far from being an accomplished player. Never got to #1 is enough for me. As I said, however, he can still make it (if some miracle happens, of course) and when he retires we'll have a significant point of view on that matter.

CmonAussie
10-14-2006, 05:58 PM
You don't know much tennis yourself to give me that... :)
:angel: :devil:
Admitedly my level of tennis is not very good:sad:
...............
..............However I`ve been an avid armchair fan since the early eighties & heyday of McEnroe. Also I`ve been to see the AO live at Kooyong & Melb Park nearly every year for the better part of 20-years:cool: ...SO I`ve seen most of the recent greats play:D

Boris Franz Ecker
10-14-2006, 06:34 PM
:wavey: ~~almost agree with you:cool:
1. Federer [by a long shot]:worship:
....
2. Hewitt [2001 & 2002 can`t be deleted from the records]:p
3. Nadal [2005 was greatest #2 year since Vilas in 77]:devil:
4. Safin [should be more highlights like USO 00 & AO 05]:angel:
......
5. Roddick
6. Moya
7. Ferrero
8. Gaudio
9. Johannson
10. Philippoussis

Johansson had better results than Gaudio.
Philippoussis finished only one year in top 10 and reached a sad no 7.
Nalbandian already 3 years in top 10 and will surely make it 4 year in a row.
And he has won the Masters Cup.
Henman finished 5 years in top 10.
Both have to be ahead of this Philippoussis.
Olympic champion Massu, Coria, Phillippoussis, Rusedski, Haas compete for next place.
Kuerten would be no 3 behind Hewitt if he would be still an active player.

->
1 Federer
2 Hewitt
3 Nadal
4 Safin
5 Roddick
6 Moya
7 Ferrero
8 Johansson
9 Gaudio
10 Nalbandian
11 Henman
12 Rusedski
13 Haas
14 Philippousis
15 Massu
16 Coria
17 Ljubicic
18 Grosjean
19 Mantilla
20 Davydenko

Wulfram
10-14-2006, 07:26 PM
For an alternative perspective, by Career Prize money the order is

1 Federer, Roger $26,464,458
2 Hewitt, Lleyton $16,609,137
3 Kuerten, Gustavo $14,705,818 (Do we count him as active?)
4 Bjorkman, Jonas $13,156,784
5 Safin, Marat $12,571,075
6 Moya, Carlos $11,983,764
7 Roddick, Andy $11,486,476
8 Henman, Tim $11,442,567
9 Ferrero, Juan Carlos $10,799,248
10 Rusedski, Greg $8,942,431 (Not really active either)
11 Santoro, Fabrice $8,252,221
12 Nadal, Rafael $7,935,089
13 Novak, Jiri $7,581,463 (Wow!)
14 Haas, Tommy $7,508,008
15 Grosjean, Sebastien $7,336,205
16 Mirnyi, Max $7,172,281
17 Philippoussis, Mark $6,975,842
18 Nalbandian, David $6,790,894
19 Johansson, Thomas $6,178,252
20 Hrbaty, Dominik $6,146,255
21 Kiefer, Nicolas $6,132,481

Coria and Gaudio are next

It underrates the Nadal a lot, and some of the old doubles guys do rather too well, but it's not totally unreasonable

Federer's earnings this year would put him at 18th

Henman has won two Doubles Masters BTW. Both at Monte Carlo

Boris Franz Ecker
10-14-2006, 07:45 PM
Haas earned more money than this australian guy Phillipoussis.

Yes, it would be fair to promote Nalbandian above Gaudio.

Norrage
10-14-2006, 07:50 PM
For an alternative perspective, by Career Prize money the order is

1 Federer, Roger $26,464,458
2 Hewitt, Lleyton $16,609,137
3 Kuerten, Gustavo $14,705,818 (Do we count him as active?)
4 Bjorkman, Jonas $13,156,784
5 Safin, Marat $12,571,075
6 Moya, Carlos $11,983,764
7 Roddick, Andy $11,486,476
8 Henman, Tim $11,442,567
9 Ferrero, Juan Carlos $10,799,248
10 Rusedski, Greg $8,942,431 (Not really active either)
11 Santoro, Fabrice $8,252,221
12 Nadal, Rafael $7,935,089
13 Novak, Jiri $7,581,463 (Wow!)
14 Grosjean, Sebastien $7,336,205
15 Mirnyi, Max $7,172,281
16 Philippoussis, Mark $6,975,842
17 Nalbandian, David $6,790,894
18 Johansson, Thomas $6,178,252
19 Hrbaty, Dominik $6,146,255
20 Kiefer, Nicolas $6,132,481

Coria and Gaudio are next

It underrates the Nadal a lot, and some of the old doubles guys do rather too well, but it's not totally unreasonable

Federer's earnings this year would put him at 18th

Henman has won two Doubles Masters BTW. Both at Monte Carlo
Now that's an interesting list! :worship:

Wulfram
10-14-2006, 07:59 PM
Haas earned more money than this australian guy Phillipoussis.

Damn, you're right. Must have missed him (I was using an all time list and picking out active players), he's between Novak and Grosjean with $7,508,008.

Hendu
10-14-2006, 08:16 PM
Johansson had better results than Gaudio.
Philippoussis finished only one year in top 10 and reached a sad no 7.
Nalbandian already 3 years in top 10 and will surely make it 4 year in a row.
And he has won the Masters Cup.
Henman finished 5 years in top 10.
Both have to be ahead of this Philippoussis.
Olympic champion Massu, Coria, Phillippoussis, Rusedski, Haas compete for next place.
Kuerten would be no 3 behind Hewitt if he would be still an active player.

->
1 Federer
2 Hewitt
3 Nadal
4 Safin
5 Roddick
6 Moya
7 Ferrero
8 Johansson
9 Gaudio
10 Nalbandian
11 Henman
12 Rusedski
13 Haas
14 Philippousis
15 Massu
16 Coria
17 Ljubicic
18 Grosjean
19 Mantilla
20 Davydenko

With all due respect, whats Massu doing up there?

Coria: former #3, 3 years top ten, GS finalist, 9 titles (2 AMS).

Boris Franz Ecker
10-14-2006, 08:31 PM
With all due respect, whats Massu doing up there?

Coria: former #3, 3 years top ten, GS finalist, 9 titles (2 AMS).

Massu has won randomly a major title, the Olympics.
For these reason he gets a good position, same reason for Gaudio.
Both were never as good as Coria once was.
Would be Ok to promote Coria above Massu, but consequently he would have to be promoted above Gaudio.
Ok, maybe Gaudio, Johansson and Massu have too good positions in the list... but the one title...

Hendu
10-14-2006, 08:46 PM
Massu has won randomly a major title, the Olympics.
For these reason he gets a good position, same reason for Gaudio.
Both were never as good as Coria once was.
Would be Ok to promote Coria above Massu, but consequently he would have to be promoted above Gaudio.
Ok, maybe Gaudio, Johansson and Massu have too good positions in the list... but the one title...

How can an Olympic gold medal compare to 1 a GS final, two AMS titles, plus 3 year end top ten? :confused:

Coria: 9 titles. Monte Carlo AMS, Hamburg TMS, Kitzbuhel, Sopot, Stuttgart, Umag, Basel, Buenos Aires, Viña del Mar. Roland Garros finalist.
Best ranking: #3. (year end top ten in 2003, 2004, 2005)

Massu: 6 titles. Olympics, Amersfoort, Buenos Aires; Kitzbuhel, Palermo, Costa Do Sauipe.
Best ranking: #9 (top ten for 2 weeks)


OH, and Gaudio:

Gaudio: 8 titles. Roland Garros, Barcelona, Mallorca, Buenos Aires, Estoril, Gstaad, Kitzbuhel, Viña del Mar.
Best ranking: #5 (year end top ten in 2004 and 2005)

Coria should be ahead of Gaudio and Massu shouldn't be in the list.

Agassi Aces
10-14-2006, 08:48 PM
Surely Kuerten should be up there will 3 Roland Garros titles, and he is officially still active.

Peoples
10-14-2006, 10:21 PM
For an alternative perspective, by Career Prize money the order is

1 Federer, Roger $26,464,458
2 Hewitt, Lleyton $16,609,137
3 Kuerten, Gustavo $14,705,818 (Do we count him as active?)
4 Bjorkman, Jonas $13,156,784
5 Safin, Marat $12,571,075
6 Moya, Carlos $11,983,764
7 Roddick, Andy $11,486,476
8 Henman, Tim $11,442,567
9 Ferrero, Juan Carlos $10,799,248
10 Rusedski, Greg $8,942,431 (Not really active either)
11 Santoro, Fabrice $8,252,221
12 Nadal, Rafael $7,935,089
13 Novak, Jiri $7,581,463 (Wow!)
14 Haas, Tommy $7,508,008
15 Grosjean, Sebastien $7,336,205
16 Mirnyi, Max $7,172,281
17 Philippoussis, Mark $6,975,842
18 Nalbandian, David $6,790,894
19 Johansson, Thomas $6,178,252
20 Hrbaty, Dominik $6,146,255
21 Kiefer, Nicolas $6,132,481
The advantage of this list is that it ignores the flukes (or however you want to call them) and highlights the guys who have been performing consistently well over a number of years.

trulliscorpion
10-14-2006, 11:05 PM
Massu has won both singles & doubles at the Olympics, and the fields were the strongest there were back then. If anyone just can't see the greatness on that, then there's something deeply wrong on that person.

As for Verkerk.. I could understand why a win over Schuttler could be called a fluke (mind you, he was Masters SF, AO Finalist and Top 10er that year)... but following them up with wins over Moya and Coria when they were both playing top tennis?

I think -3- consecutive wins over great players can hardly be called a fluke. 1 win, there are high chances it's a fluke. 2 wins.. maybe. But 3?

Hendu
10-14-2006, 11:28 PM
Massu has won both singles & doubles at the Olympics, and the fields were the strongest there were back then.

Massu's and in general the Chilean accomplishments in the Olympics are great.

But in tennis (as in football) the Olympics are not that important. And by that I mean they don't have the level of importance of Grand Slams, AMS Tournaments and Masters Cup.

Massu is a very good player, but his main accomplishments to be in that list are the Olympic golds and being a top ten for two weeks, and I think thats not enough.

If anyone just can't see the greatness on that, then there's something deeply wrong on that person.

As I already wrote, I think it was great... but not enough to be in the top 20 of accomplishments. Maybe there is something deeply wrong in me... :unsure:

revolution
10-14-2006, 11:47 PM
Verkerk and Baghdatis above Henman? Are you nuts? Yes one slam final but little else from those two.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 12:06 AM
...
But in tennis (as in football) the Olympics are not that important. And by that I mean they don't have the level of importance of Grand Slams, AMS Tournaments and Masters Cup.

Massu is a very good player, but his main accomplishments to be in that list are the Olympic golds and being a top ten for two weeks, and I think thats not enough.


Stay serious! Olympic gold medal means much mure than an AMS title and is comparable to the Masters Cup.
AMS winners are forgotten after two days.
Gold medal winners write history.
Massu won a bigger thing than Coria and most other players.
Therefore Massu earns a good position among the players.
He's usually introduced as the Olympic champion and will stay in the books no matter what happens.

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 02:13 AM
Johansson had better results than Gaudio.
Philippoussis finished only one year in top 10 and reached a sad no 7.
Nalbandian already 3 years in top 10 and will surely make it 4 year in a row.
And he has won the Masters Cup.
Henman finished 5 years in top 10.
Both have to be ahead of this Philippoussis.
Olympic champion Massu, Coria, Phillippoussis, Rusedski, Haas compete for next place.
Kuerten would be no 3 behind Hewitt if he would be still an active player.

->
1 Federer
2 Hewitt
3 Nadal
4 Safin
5 Roddick
6 Moya
7 Ferrero
8 Johansson
9 Gaudio
10 Nalbandian~ only 5-titles
11 Henman~ no GS finals
12 Rusedski~ drug cheat
13 Haas~ no GS finals
14 Philippousis~ 11-titles, 2-GS finals, 2-Davis Cups:cool:
15 Massu
16 Coria
17 Ljubicic
18 Grosjean
19 Mantilla
20 Davydenko

:wavey: ~ Philippoussis should be promoted above Nalbandian, Henman, Rusedski, Haas~~> since Mark Poo is the only guy in that group to have have reached 2-Grand Slam finals & also he`s the only to have won 2-Davis Cups;) ... DS is not individual but it`s still a crucial part of a tennis players resume & Mark certainly had a significant contribution in both Cup wins. Futhermore Philippoussis has 11-titles, whereas Nalbandian has 5-titles:p

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:27 AM
Johansson had better results than Gaudio.
Philippoussis finished only one year in top 10 and reached a sad no 7.
Nalbandian already 3 years in top 10 and will surely make it 4 year in a row.
And he has won the Masters Cup.
Henman finished 5 years in top 10.
Both have to be ahead of this Philippoussis.
Olympic champion Massu, Coria, Phillippoussis, Rusedski, Haas compete for next place.
Kuerten would be no 3 behind Hewitt if he would be still an active player.

->
1 Federer
2 Hewitt
3 Nadal
4 Safin
5 Roddick
6 Moya
7 Ferrero
8 Johansson
9 Gaudio
10 Nalbandian
11 Henman
12 Rusedski
13 Haas
14 Philippousis
15 Massu
16 Coria
17 Ljubicic
18 Grosjean
19 Mantilla
20 Davydenko
Didn't Mantilla retire?

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 02:28 AM
I agree with Willy the Argie. Olympic medal in tennis doesn't have much of a significance. Remember titles in tennis are measured by their tradition, and tennis in olympics has no tradition at all.

bad gambler
10-15-2006, 02:32 AM
:wavey: ~ Philippoussis should be promoted above Nalbandian, Henman, Rusedski, Haas~~> since Mark Poo is the only guy in that group to have have reached 2-Grand Slam finals & also he`s the only to have won 2-Davis Cups;) ... DS is not individual but it`s still a crucial part of a tennis players resume & Mark certainly had a significant contribution in both Cup wins. Futhermore Philippoussis has 11-titles, whereas Nalbandian has 5-titles:p

Mark's contribution in 1999 was far more significant

But I agree with you about his position :p

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:32 AM
Surely Kuerten should be up there will 3 Roland Garros titles, and he is officially still active.

Refer to my criteria on "activity" ;)

World Beater
10-15-2006, 02:34 AM
the question:

poo or henman?

who would you rank higher

anyone with a gs win is automatically higher...but after that things get hazy.

for me its nalbandian, henman,poo, then the rest.
since bandy reached wimby final

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:36 AM
Verkerk and Baghdatis above Henman? Are you nuts? Yes one slam final but little else from those two.

If those two guys could make 1 slam final in 1 try, but Henman couldn't win a Slam SF in 6 tries, tells you something about Henman, doesn't it?

bad gambler
10-15-2006, 02:36 AM
Stay serious! Olympic gold medal means much mure than an AMS title and is comparable to the Masters Cup.
AMS winners are forgotten after two days.
Gold medal winners write history.
Massu won a bigger thing than Coria and most other players.
Therefore Massu earns a good position among the players.
He's usually introduced as the Olympic champion and will stay in the books no matter what happens.

Maybe by virtue of reputation alone given it is part of such a global event. But lets be honest here, all the top players do not compete in the Olympics. Massu's achievement was great but I wouldn't put it in ahead of an AMS title.

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:39 AM
I agree with Willy the Argie. Olympic medal in tennis doesn't have much of a significance. Remember titles in tennis are measured by their tradition, and tennis in olympics has no tradition at all.
:scratch: The AO has as long a tradition as the other Slams, but wasn't given the same weight until its surface changed from Grass to Hardcourt/Rebound Ace.

Sjengster
10-15-2006, 02:42 AM
If those two guys could make 1 slam final in 1 try, but Henman couldn't win a Slam SF in 6 tries, tells you something about Henman, doesn't it?

Yep, it tells you that Henman played Slam champions 4 times in his 6 SFs, and that Verkerk and Baghdatis faced players who had never won a Slam before. Interestingly enough Coria is the common factor for Henman and Verkerk, both faced him in the RG semis with contrasting results. Still, Coria in 2004 was an even more intimidating foe on clay than he was in 2003.

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:42 AM
Maybe by virtue of reputation alone given it is part of such a global event. But lets be honest here, all the top players do not compete in the Olympics. Massu's achievement was great but I wouldn't put it in ahead of an AMS title.

Still, to be in the league with Agassi and Kafel is nothing to be ashamed of. And when the world's greatest active player wants it as bad as the missing FO, that should say something...

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 02:43 AM
:scratch: The AO has as long a tradition as the other Slams, but wasn't given the same weight until its surface changed from Grass to Hardcourt/Rebound Ace.

Because of its distance too. The difficulties of the time when the circuit wasn't as good scheduled as now were huge factors for players to skip the AO, thus giving it less importance.

World Beater
10-15-2006, 02:44 AM
henman had to play pete sampras on grass...nuff said.

verkerk didnt have to play nadal or kuerten

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 02:44 AM
Maybe by virtue of reputation alone given it is part of such a global event. But lets be honest here, all the top players do not compete in the Olympics. Massu's achievement was great but I wouldn't put it in ahead of an AMS title.

Perfect. I guess everybody knows the olympics are not so much more than a IS, maybe a ISG.

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:45 AM
Yep, it tells you that Henman played 4 Slam champions in his 6 SFs, and tha

Ok, those two those two players got to the Finals in 1 try because they played Nobodies. Henman has two more tries NOT playing Slam Champs, what happened?

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 02:47 AM
henman had to play pete sampras on grass...nuff said.

verkerk didnt have to play nadal or kuerten
But he did play Coria & Moya...

bad gambler
10-15-2006, 02:48 AM
Still, to be in the league with Agassi and Kafel is nothing to be ashamed of. And when the world's greatest active player wants it as bad as the missing FO, that should say something...

Of course. I'm not dimishing the significance of an Olympic title. Just the argument of it being comparable and in fact being superior to an AMS and Masters Cup is all I was questioning given the field representation in the respective events.

As to Federer, wasn't that comment made when asked about his thoughts about London holding the 2012 Olympics? lol ;)

Sjengster
10-15-2006, 02:52 AM
Ok, those two those two players got to the Finals in 1 try because they played Nobodies. Henman has two more tries NOT playing Slam Champs, what happened?

He loses to a three-time former Wimbledon finalist at Wimbledon, and loses on his worst surface to someone who is at that moment in time clearly the best player on said surface. I don't have to tell you that even a Slamless Goran ranked 130 in the world was still a more accomplished player, with more experience of the business end of Slams, than either Coria at RG 2003 or Nalbandian at this year's AO, do I? And yes, pointing out that they haven't won Slams automatically means I am calling them nobodies, flawless reasoning.

Just because you dislike Henman doesn't mean you should underrate his career. And for the record, if Baghdatis can stay healthy for the years that are to come he is very likely indeed to surpass all of Henman's achievements (already a SF showing at Wimbledon, for instance), but this list is based on accomplishments as of NOW.

Pfloyd
10-15-2006, 02:54 AM
I agree with the list of players showed in the 39th post.

However, I think it is good to mention that maybe longetivity and uniqueness should be added into the list. We have players like Santoro or Nalbandian that have contributed in there own way to the great history of tennis.

Maybe accomplishments ought to be re-defined. Certainly playing like Santoro, or playing on all surfaces with almost equal ease and reaching the semis of all grand slams is an accomplishment in itself, but hey, that's just my opinion.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 02:55 AM
Henman is more accomplished than Nalbandian and faaar more than Baghdatis.

For the record, I don't think Baghdatis will win any MS. He seems just another Nalbandian to me.

World Beater
10-15-2006, 02:56 AM
But he did play Coria & Moya...

coria and moya are hardly comparable to sampras on grass

Sjengster
10-15-2006, 03:03 AM
I would probably give Nalbandian the nod over Henman, since he's already matched Henman's Slam results and indeed bettered them (1 less SF, but also a final), and the TMC title beats out Henman's Paris title, both on indoor carpet. Interestingly enough, both men have lost in three other TMS finals. Nalbandian still needs more titles, and really should reach double figures, but then Henman went through a title drought from the end of 98 to the end of 2000 comparable to Naba's titleless 2003-2004 seasons.

Longevity and consistency does in some cases count more than one exceptional achievement. Verkerk appeared from nowhere at RG and promptly disappeared to nowhere again, sadly largely through injury. I give him complete credit for his victories in Paris, particularly over Coria, who according to some people choked/froze/was disturbed by hitting the ball kid with his racket, rather than simply overpowered and outplayed as was actually the case. But his reaction to reaching that final, a slump that lasted until he was injured, doesn't suggest a player with a great deal of self-belief that he could remain at the top and challenge for more Slams. Henman may have suffered 6 defeats at the SF stage of the majors but they never brought his career crashing to a halt, and even now he just made his first final in 2 and a half years. And surprise surprise, it was the same man waiting for him there that he faced the last time.

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 03:06 AM
He loses to a three-time former Wimbledon finalist at Wimbledon, and loses on his worst surface to someone who is at that moment in time clearly the best player on said surface. I don't have to tell you that even a Slamless Goran ranked 130 in the world was still a more accomplished player, with more experience of the business end of Slams By the time he played Goran he'd played two SFs against No. 1 Pete. I don't get you point :confused: He even bageled Goran and got into a 4th set TB (5) and still couldn't win that match.

Just because you dislike Henman doesn't mean you should underrate his career. There's a few guys on my list I don't like; I'm going by cold stats. Henman has already underrated his own career.

And for the record, if Baghdatis can stay healthy for the years that are to come he is very likely indeed to surpass all of Henman's achievements (already a SF showing at Wimbledon, for instance), but this list is based on accomplishments as of NOW.
Yep :)

Sjengster
10-15-2006, 03:15 AM
By the time he played Goran he'd played two SFs against No. 1 Pete. I don't get you point :confused: He even bageled Goran and got into a 4th set TB (5) and still couldn't win that match.

There's a few guys on my list I don't like; I'm going by cold stats. Henman has already underrated his own career.


Yep :)


Goran had WON three SFs at Wimbledon, against Sampras, Becker and Krajicek (the last two already past Wimbledon champions when he faced them). Henman had lost two SFs; both men had been at the business end of Wimbledon before but with contrasting results at that SF stage. Look, I'm not denying that Henman should have won that match, it was the only one out of the 6 where he really had a clear-cut chance, but at the end of the day he didn't lose to a joker. He lost to a guy who could lose a set in 14 minutes winning just 3 points, and still come back and serve big in the next two sets as though nothing had happened. And the rain delay had something to do with that, of course.

Before you mention it, I know Baghdatis came out at the AO after a half-hour rain delay leading 5-4 in the fifth and served out the match to reach his first Slam final. That's a sign that he will most likely be a greater player than Henman. But he isn't yet, and this list deserves to reflect that.

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 03:21 AM
Goran had WON three SFs at Wimbledon, against Sampras, Becker and Krajicek (the last two already past Wimbledon champions when he faced them). Henman had lost two SFs; both men had been at the business end of Wimbledon before but with contrasting results at that SF stage. Look, I'm not denying that Henman should have won that match, it was the only one out of the 6 where he really had a clear-cut chance, but at the end of the day he didn't lose to a joker. He lost to a guy who could lose a set in 14 minutes winning just 3 points, and still come back and serve big in the next two sets as though nothing had happened. And the rain delay had something to do with that, of course.

Before you mention it, I know Baghdatis came out at the AO after a half-hour rain delay leading 5-4 in the fifth and served out the match to reach his first Slam final. That's a sign that he will most likely be a greater player than Henman. But he isn't yet, and this list deserves to reflect that.
Well to imitate Safin, it was unlucky Henman couldn't make a Slam final to be higher seeded on TF's list.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 03:24 AM
Goran had WON three SFs at Wimbledon, against Sampras, Becker and Krajicek (the last two already past Wimbledon champions when he faced them). Henman had lost two SFs; both men had been at the business end of Wimbledon before but with contrasting results at that SF stage. Look, I'm not denying that Henman should have won that match, it was the only one out of the 6 where he really had a clear-cut chance, but at the end of the day he didn't lose to a joker. He lost to a guy who could lose a set in 14 minutes winning just 3 points, and still come back and serve big in the next two sets as though nothing had happened. And the rain delay had something to do with that, of course.

Before you mention it, I know Baghdatis came out at the AO after a half-hour rain delay leading 5-4 in the fifth and served out the match to reach his first Slam final. That's a sign that he will most likely be a greater player than Henman. But he isn't yet, and this list deserves to reflect that.

Baghdatis made the miracle of losing to a moonballer on grass. Top-form Henman would never lose to Nadal.

Sjengster
10-15-2006, 03:27 AM
Well to imitate Safin, it was unlucky Henman couldn't make a Slam final to be higher seeded on TF's list.

Right. I thought I'd managed to demonstrate that stats alone aren't always enough to make an entirely fair judgement, but never mind. I'll probably come out with my own list sometime anyway.

Pfloyd
10-15-2006, 04:09 AM
Baghdatis made the miracle of losing to a moonballer on grass. Top-form Henman would never lose to Nadal.

Hehe, Gustavo you are funny. But seriously, give credit when credit is due. Nadal played an awsome game that day against Baghdatis. :)

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 04:13 AM
Hehe, Gustavo you are funny. But seriously, give credit when credit is due. Nadal played an awsome game that day against Baghdatis. :)

I'm funny indeed, but that's serious. It's unconceivable that a player that's not a moonballer lost to Nadal on grass.

Pfloyd
10-15-2006, 04:21 AM
I'm funny indeed, but that's serious. It's unconceivable that a player that's not a moonballer lost to Nadal on grass.

Yeah...whatever.

I would agree with you on that point if, and only if, that match had been once by Rafa 10-8 in the fith set. It was a straights set win.

Also beating Agassi in straight sets is worth a mention.

Also, being the only person to take a set off Federer in wimbledon (and almost winining the 2nd set), is definetly not a sign of a "week grass court moonballer".

Yeah, complain about the draw, as I'm sure you will.

The fact still remains, Rafa reached the Wimby final playing awsome tennis. This game unfortuneatly did not translate into hard court. Nadal has been playing like a "clay court moonballer" these last couple of tournaments. The same is not true in Wimbledon.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 04:29 AM
Yeah...whatever.

I would agree with you on that point if, and only if, that match had been once by Rafa 10-8 in the fith set. It was a straights set win.

Also beating Agassi in straight sets is worth a mention.

Also, being the only person to take a set off Federer in wimbledon (and almost winining the 2nd set), is definetly not a sign of a "week grass court moonballer".

Yeah, complain about the draw, as I'm sure you will.

The fact still remains, Rafa reached the Wimby final playing awsome tennis. This game unfortuneatly did not translate into hard court. Nadal has been playing like a "clay court moonballer" these last couple of tournaments. The same is not true in Wimbledon.


Don't joke around, it's not that funny. Agassi lost to Galvani this year and his matches in the US were the best of him this year (awful matches). He was pretty much a done deal there.

Nadal got an easy draw and reached the final playing something very far from awesome tennis.

Pfloyd
10-15-2006, 04:39 AM
Don't joke around, it's not that funny. Agassi lost to Galvani this year and his matches in the US were the best of him this year (awful matches). He was pretty much a done deal there.

Nadal got an easy draw and reached the final playing something very far from awesome tennis.

So by that logic, had Nadal played awsome tennis (something that you wont admit Nadal ever does), he would have beaten Federer.

jayjay
10-15-2006, 04:40 AM
[QUOTE=Tennis Fool;4272407]I probably made some errors, you may kindly point them out. Otherwise, discuss :cool:
3. Marat SAFIN, 26. 2 Slams. 5 Masters. 8 other singles. 1 doubles. #1 for 9 weeks.

4. Rafael NADAL, 20. 2 Slams. 6 Masters. 9 other singles. 3 doubles. HR: #2.

Coming to your list a little late so apologies if anything I say may already have been touched upon.

Nadal should be ahead of Safin, although it's splitting heirs. He's younger, won the same amount of slams, more masters and more other titles. As well as the fact last year for Nadal would have been a no1 year in virtually any other year but for a certain Roger Federer.

If we are just talking stat wise, and it appears you are, then I don't see how 9 weeks at no1 is enough to put Safin ahead of Nadal when he is behind on all other categories bar the equal slams.

10. Nicolas MASSU, 27. 2 Olympics Gold Medal (1 in singles, 1 in doubles). 5 other singles. HR#9.

11. Mark PHILIPPOUSSIS, 29. 2 Slam Finals. 1 Masters. 8 other singles. 3 doubles. HR: #8.

12. Guillermo CORIA, 24. 1 Slam Finals. 2 Masters. 7 other singles. HR: #3.

13. David NALBANDIAN, 25. 1 Slam Finals. 1 Masters Cup. 4 others singles. 1 doubles. HR:#3.

Ok, here's where things get a bit messy. What Massu achieved at the Olympics was fantastic. However, I would not place him above any of these guys.

15. Ranier SCHUETTLER, 30. 1 Slam Final. 4 singles. 2 doubles. HR: #5.

16. Arnaud CLEMENT, 28. 1 Slam Final. 4 singles. 1 Masters doubles. 3 others doubles. HR: #10.

17. Marcos BAGHDATIS, 21. 1 Slam Final. 1 title. HR. #8.

18. Martin VERKERK, 27. 1 Slam Final. 2 titles. HR. #14.

19. Tim HENMAN, 32. 6 Slam SFs. 1 Masters. 10 others titles. 1 Masters doubles. 3 other doubles. HR: #4.

I'd say Henman deserves to be above all of these players. Henman has a Masters title which none of them have, and has more other singles titles than almost all of them put together - 10 for Henman, 11 for the rest.

Now the crux of the question - what's better, 1 Slam Final or 6 Slam SF's?

I'd say 6 Slam SF's in this case, why? Henman lost to Sampras (twice), Hewitt, Coria, Ivanisevic and Federer.

Losing to Sampras at Wimbledon? Most do.
Hewitt? At the time he was no1 in the world and was the dominant player.
Coria? He was the best on clay at that point, he had lost 1 match in 40 odd and that to Federer.
Federer? He was untouchable that day, and has been most days in the past couple of years.

Ivanisevic was the only match of his SF's that Henman was not an overwhelming underdog in.

If I recall correctly, all of these guys went on to win the respective slams bar Coria who ended up being short by one point.

For these reasons, Henman should be above those players. For example in the case of Baghdatis v Henman, you are saying that Baghdatis winning his Slam SF v Nalbandian is more impressive than 6 Slam SF's + 1 Masters title + an additional 9 singles titles that Henman has over Baghdatis.

As much as I like El Rey, I don't think one win over him is worth that much (unless it had been the final and made Baghdatis a Slam winner).

20. Jonas BJORKMAN, 35. 2 Slam SF. 9 Slam Doubles. 6 singles. 13 Masters Doubles. 27 other doubles titles. HR: #4.

Given that you are taking doubles into account, I'd say Bjorkman deserves to be higher up on your list. He has surely had a more impressive career than Verkerk, Schuettler, Clement and Baghdatis to date?

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 05:00 AM
Thanks for your thoughts, Jay Jay. I won't deter from the thought (albeit a hardheaded one) that 1 Slam final has greater weight than a host of SFs. Henman is indeed blocked by the fact that he had greater competition, as is the case with Nadal being behind Safin for not having the #1 rank.

Refer to the convo I have with Sjengster on this thread.

This is a thread primarily on singles play. Jonas' doubles victories serve as a tiebreak with others who has similar singles victories.

Hendu
10-15-2006, 05:03 AM
Stay serious! Olympic gold medal means much mure than an AMS title and is comparable to the Masters Cup.
AMS winners are forgotten after two days.
Gold medal winners write history.
Massu won a bigger thing than Coria and most other players.
Therefore Massu earns a good position among the players.
He's usually introduced as the Olympic champion and will stay in the books no matter what happens.

:lol:

Coria was #3 in the rankings, was an year-end top ten three years in a row, made the final of a Grand Slam, won 2 AMS events and other 7 titles.

And you think Massu winning 2 gold medals (one of them in doubles), 5 other titles and being a top ten for two weeks!!! is more important.

Who is not being serious?

:rolleyes:

About how important the Olympics are in tennis...

It was played 5 times, and these are the ones that will be "remembered forever" for their accomplishment.

Seoul 1988

GOLD: Miloslav Mecir (TCH)
SILVER: Timothy Mayotte (USA)
BRONZE: Stefan Edberg (SWE), Bradley Gilbert (USA)

Barcelona1992

GOLD: Marc Rosset (SUI)
SILVER: Jordi Arrese (ESP)
BRONZE: Andrei Cherkasov (EUN), Goran Ivanisevic (CRO)

Atlanta 1996

GOLD: Andre Agassi (USA)
SILVER: Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
BRONZE: Leander Paes (IND)

Sydney 2000

GOLD: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
SILVER: Tommy Haas (GER)
BRONZE: Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA)

Athens 2004

GOLD: Nicolas Massu (CHI)
SILVER: Mardy Fish (USA)
BRONZE: Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 05:05 AM
:lol:

Coria was #3 in the rankings, was an year-end top ten three years in a row, made the final of a Grand Slam, won 2 AMS events and other 7 titles.

And you think Massu winning 2 gold medals, 5 other titles and being a top ten for two weeks!!! is more important.

Who is not being serious?

:rolleyes:

About how important the Olympics are in tennis...

It was played 5 times, and these are the ones that will be "remembered forever" for their accomplishment.

Seoul 1988

GOLD: Miloslav Mecir (TCH)
SILVER: Timothy Mayotte (USA)
BRONZE: Stefan Edberg (SWE), Bradley Gilbert (USA)

Barcelona1992

GOLD: Marc Rosset (SUI)
SILVER: Jordi Arrese (ESP)
BRONZE: Andrei Cherkasov (EUN), Goran Ivanisevic (CRO)

Atlanta 1996

GOLD: Andre Agassi (USA)
SILVER: Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
BRONZE: Leander Paes (IND)

Sydney 2000

GOLD: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
SILVER: Tommy Haas (GER)
BRONZE: Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA)

Athens 2004

GOLD: Nicolas Massu (CHI)
SILVER: Mardy Fish (USA)
BRONZE: Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)

Wow, I totally agree with you... what's happening to the world??? :p

Hendu
10-15-2006, 05:08 AM
Wow, I totally agree with you... what's happening to the world??? :p

Yes, I'm worried too. :confused:

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 05:10 AM
Yes, I'm worried too. :confused:

We must be too right on this one... ;)

Hendu
10-15-2006, 05:13 AM
We must be too right on this one... ;)

Its just undisputable.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 05:16 AM
Its just undisputable.

I mean... olympic medals are worth for athletism... tennis is like football for that matter. Nobody cares about a gold in soccer, compared to a WC.

Hendu
10-15-2006, 05:22 AM
I mean... olympic medals are worth for athletism... tennis is like football for that matter. Nobody cares about a gold in soccer, compared to a WC.

I agree.

What Chileans accomplished was great, and those three medals may have been more important for their country than winning an AMS event, but for tennis history it is just not as relevant. As well as Argentina winning the football gold medal in the last Olympics.

In other sports like basketball, swimming and athletism, well thats different.

Tennis Fool
10-15-2006, 05:28 AM
but for tennis history it is just not as relevant. As well as Argentina winning the football gold medal in the last Olympics.

I still don't understand this. 1988 is known as Steffi's Golden Gram Slam year, meaning she won the Slam & the Olympic Gold Medal. Having that hardware was the icing on the cake and does have meaning.

BlakeorHenman
10-15-2006, 05:28 AM
Henman should be at #8 and he's at #19. This list is ridiculous.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 05:32 AM
I still don't understand this. 1988 is known as Steffi's Golden Gram Slam year, meaning she won the Slam & the Olympic Gold Medal. Having that hardware was the icing on the cake and does have meaning.

Olympics are worth nothing to the tennis world. That's a fact.

Hendu
10-15-2006, 05:56 AM
I still don't understand this. 1988 is known as Steffi's Golden Gram Slam year, meaning she won the Slam & the Olympic Gold Medal. Having that hardware was the icing on the cake and does have meaning.

There have been 17 medallists (Gold, Silver and Bronze).

Only five of those 17 won at least a Grand Slam, and only three were #1 at some point of their careers.

The Olympics are important. But not as important as GS, AMS or Masters Cup.

In women tennis is different, the big names show up (to win) at the Olympics.

JeNn
10-15-2006, 09:22 AM
6 GS SF and several other quarterfinals is clearly a higher level of accomplishment than one GS Final and basically nothing else. To contend otherwise is mere dogmatic assertion.

Winston's Human
10-15-2006, 11:31 AM
Moya's slam was better than Roddick's.

Therefore Moya should be above Roddick.


Roddick's overall slam record is better than Moya's record.

Moya: 1 Championship, 1 Final, 1 Semifinal, and 2 Quarterfinals.

Roddick: 1 Championship, 3 Finals, 3 Semifinals, and 4 Quarterfinals.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 02:52 PM
Seoul 1988

GOLD: Miloslav Mecir (TCH)
SILVER: Timothy Mayotte (USA)
BRONZE: Stefan Edberg (SWE), Bradley Gilbert (USA)

Barcelona1992

GOLD: Marc Rosset (SUI)
SILVER: Jordi Arrese (ESP)
BRONZE: Andrei Cherkasov (EUN), Goran Ivanisevic (CRO)

Atlanta 1996

GOLD: Andre Agassi (USA)
SILVER: Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
BRONZE: Leander Paes (IND)

Sydney 2000

GOLD: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
SILVER: Tommy Haas (GER)
BRONZE: Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA)

Athens 2004

GOLD: Nicolas Massu (CHI)
SILVER: Mardy Fish (USA)
BRONZE: Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)

Of course, Mecir is today known as Olympic champion, what do you think?
He reached some GS Finals, but his attribute is Olympic champion.
I think Mecir has won Key Biscayne one time.
But who knows it? it means nothing compared to the Gold.
Same with Rosset.
Who knows that he won Paris Bercy?

Even Kafelnikov is rather attributed as former Olympic champion instead of former French Open champion.

Please, AMS is nothing compared to Olympics.

Do you really think, Massu would change with an anonymous AMS title?
You can't believe that.

Vice versa, every player would change.
Example, Canas. Nobody knows what he has done in tennis. If he would be Olympic champion that would be different.

Hendu
10-15-2006, 03:16 PM
Do you really think, Massu would change with an anonymous AMS title?
You can't believe that.

No, I don't. Massu gave Chileans their first Olympic Gold medals, thats huge for him and his country.

But I think winning Monte Carlo, Miami or Rome would be more important than winning a medal, for almost all players.

Vice versa, every player would change.
Example, Canas. Nobody knows what he has done in tennis. If he would be Olympic champion that would be different.

Nice... bringing up the player in my username.

Cañas accomplishemnt of winning Toronto AMS beating Federer, Kafelnikov, Safin, Haas and Roddick in his road to the title, is more important than Massu's gold medal.

lavar78
10-15-2006, 03:18 PM
Even Kafelnikov is rather attributed as former Olympic champion instead of former French Open champion.
By the media at large? Possibly. However, I'm positive most tennis fans think of him as French Open and Australian Open champion before anything else.

According to this list, Massu is the best active player without a Slam! :haha: He can't even believe that himself.

Havok
10-15-2006, 03:24 PM
Haas should definitely be there over Bjorkman :help::retard:.

Havok
10-15-2006, 03:25 PM
Also, Hewitt only has 2 TMS shields??:haha::haha::lol::rolls:

Thought he had WAY more than that :help:.

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 03:51 PM
Also, Hewitt only has 2 TMS shields??:haha::haha::lol::rolls:

Thought he had WAY more than that :help:.
:rolleyes:
So what if Hewitt`s only got 2-TMS~~ btw he also has 2-SLAMS:angel: & 2-TMC:worship: & 2-Davis Cups;) & 25-titles total:cool: ...... Other than Federer who else has better credentials:confused:

PS, in a few years the ATP will abandon the TMS system ~ so those titles won`t have any legacy to them anyway:p .... However Slams, Masters Cup, Davis Cup & #1 will stay in the books:D

Sjengster
10-15-2006, 04:01 PM
TMS titles aren't that important when compared to Slams and the no. 1 ranking, anyhow. I always find it funny how many journalists and commentators derided Kafelnikov for his lack of a Masters Series shield ("Kafelnikov's long wait for a Masters title goes on, and ON", etc.), when the guy had two Slams, an Olympic gold medal and several weeks at no. 1. Whose career would you rather have, his or "5-time TMS champion" Rios?

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 04:04 PM
No, I don't. Massu gave Chileans their first Olympic Gold medals, thats huge for him and his country.

But I think winning Monte Carlo, Miami or Rome would be more important than winning a medal, for almost all players.



Nice... bringing up the player in my username.

Cañas accomplishemnt of winning Toronto AMS beating Federer, Kafelnikov, Safin, Haas and Roddick in his road to the title, is more important than Massu's gold medal.

You don't believe really that Canas would prefer this Toronto thing of which nearly nobody is aware of over an Olympic Gold Medal.

Sorry, most of the above is complete nonsense.

None of you _really_ thinks that Marc Rosset should be introduced as a former Paris Bercy- or AMS-winner instead as former Olympic champion.
And no serious writer or presenter would do that.
And you all know, why.

The players know it too and so it's no surprise that one of Federer's main goal was the Gold in 04 and Agassi's main goal was Gold in 96.


Please, nobody can think, that a player like Massu would prefer an AMS title.
He would be anonymous as Canas, Pavel and these guys.

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 04:06 PM
TMS titles aren't that important when compared to Slams and the no. 1 ranking, anyhow. I always find it funny how many journalists and commentators derided Kafelnikov for his lack of a Masters Series shield ("Kafelnikov's long wait for a Masters title goes on, and ON", etc.), when the guy had two Slams, an Olympic gold medal and several weeks at no. 1. Whose career would you rather have, his or "5-time TMS champion" Rios?
:wavey:
Thanks Sjeng mate:cool: ..~~Yeah the Kafelnekov analogy is a good one;) ..... Mind you Rios`s career is starting to look pretty impressive>> he just won his 6th tournament of the year on the senior tour:o ~~ we all know that the SENIORS was designed for drop out UNDERACHIEVERS to dominate at age 30/31yrs over their ~45yrs fellow former stars:p

Hendu
10-15-2006, 04:09 PM
You don't believe really that Canas would prefer this Toronto thing of which nearly nobody is aware of over an Olympic Gold Medal.

Sorry, most of the above is complete nonsense.

None of you _really_ thinks that Marc Rosset should be introduced as a former Paris Bercy- or AMS-winner instead as former Olympic champion.
And no serious writer or presenter would do that.
And you all know, why.

The players know it too and so it's no surprise that one of Federer's main goal was the Gold in 04 and Agassi's main goal was Gold in 96.


Please, nobody can think, that a player like Massu would prefer an AMS title.
He would be anonymous as Canas, Pavel and these guys.

Well, ok.

We already said what we think... and we won't agree.

It was a nice chat.

P.S. I was being serious and I really think in the way it is stated in the above messages.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 04:51 PM
By the media at large? Possibly. However, I'm positive most tennis fans think of him as French Open and Australian Open champion before anything else.

According to this list, Massu is the best active player without a Slam! :haha: He can't even believe that himself.

Fan opinions don't count. There are Canas fans who think that Canas' Canadian title is worthier than the Olympic Gold Medal.

To which list? Massu isn't the best.
Massu has won a bigger thing than Coria, Canas, Pavel, Rios. That's fact.
He is and was a worse player than Coria once was for sure. Same with Gaudio.
But these two won a bigger thing.

Hendu
10-15-2006, 05:49 PM
Fan opinions don't count. There are Canas fans who think that Canas' Canadian title is worthier than the Olympic Gold Medal.

Well, after all it seems I'm a homer. :rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing it up. In two years in MTF, nobody told me that. I know myself better now.

To which list? Massu isn't the best.
Massu has won a bigger thing than Coria, Canas, Pavel, Rios. That's fact.
He is and was a worse player than Coria once was for sure. Same with Gaudio.
But these two won a bigger thing.

:lol:

You are very funny. Ríos and Coria have had MUCH bigger accomplishments than Massu. Cañas is probably in the same level.

lavar78
10-15-2006, 06:24 PM
Fan opinions don't count.
...says the guy defending a fan's opinion.

Massu has won a bigger thing than Coria, Canas, Pavel, Rios. That's fact.
He is and was a worse player than Coria once was for sure. Same with Gaudio.
But these two won a bigger thing.
The entire problem with this list is that winning "a bigger thing" doesn't automatically make someone a more accomplished player. Saying a gold metal is a significantly greater accomplishment that winning a Masters title or reaching a Slam final is opinion, just like saying one Slam final is greater than, say, 6 Slam semifinals. There is no right answer.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 06:33 PM
Fan opinions don't count. There are Canas fans who think that Canas' Canadian title is worthier than the Olympic Gold Medal.

To which list? Massu isn't the best.
Massu has won a bigger thing than Coria, Canas, Pavel, Rios. That's fact.
He is and was a worse player than Coria once was for sure. Same with Gaudio.
But these two won a bigger thing.


You're way out of line. You're speaking a whole bunch of :bs:

ANY MS title is way more important than an Olympic title. The tennis circuit has more than a 100 years, and tennis in Olympics have what? about 20 years. That's nothing in tennis, a sport that measures titles by their tradition.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 06:45 PM
...says the guy defending a fan's opinion.


The entire problem with this list is that winning "a bigger thing" doesn't automatically make someone a more accomplished player. Saying a gold metal is a significantly greater accomplishment that winning a Masters title or reaching a Slam final is opinion, just like saying one Slam final is greater than, say, 6 Slam semifinals. There is no right answer.

Gold Medal> AMS title is a good opinion, AMS > gold medal is nonsense. There can't be any text about Rosset that emphasizes the Bercy title instead of/or more than the Gold Medal. That is so obvious, it's simply a fact, the Gold has a higher meaning.
Others are opinions, but reaching a Grand Slam final doesn't mean winning a title.
Gaudio, the little South American, is also only a player for smaller clay court tournaments and he randomly won the French Open.
He is ranked high for this one-slam-wonder.
No problem to rank Massu high for his Gold.
And he has two of them. He's even the only player in modern tennis who won two olympic gold medals.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 06:59 PM
You're way out of line. You're speaking a whole bunch of :bs:

ANY MS title is way more important than an Olympic title. The tennis circuit has more than a 100 years, and tennis in Olympics have what? about 20 years. That's nothing in tennis, a sport that measures titles by their tradition.

Nonsense.

Btw, MS has nearly no tradition and changes it's name every few years.

Please find any article about Marc Rosset that emphasizes that he's won a MS tournament and doesn't mention the Olympics. Only one article. Can't be too difficult.
If you find one, post the link.
If not, stop writing nonsense and accept the facts.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 07:01 PM
Gold Medal> AMS title is a good opinion, AMS > gold medal is nonsense. There can't be any text about Rosset that emphasizes the Bercy title instead of/or more than the Gold Medal. That is so obvious, it's simply a fact, the Gold has a higher meaning.
Others are opinions, but reaching a Grand Slam final doesn't mean winning a title.
Gaudio, the little South American, is also only a player for smaller clay court tournaments and he randomly won the French Open.
He is ranked high for this one-slam-wonder.
No problem to rank Massu high for his Gold.
And he has two of them. He's even the only player in modern tennis who won two olympic gold medals.

You're nonsensical. Some TMS are as old as GS tournaments.

GlennMirnyi
10-15-2006, 07:03 PM
Nonsense.

Btw, MS has nearly no tradition and changes it's name every few years.

Please find any article about Marc Rosset that emphasizes that he's won a MS tournament and doesn't mention the Olympics. Only one article. Can't be too difficult.
If you find one, post the link.
If not, stop writing nonsense and accept the facts.

What do I care about Marc Rosset?

Where's the Olympic medal in Borg's resumee? Is he less of a player?

lavar78
10-15-2006, 08:25 PM
Nonsense.

Btw, MS has nearly no tradition and changes it's name every few years.

Please find any article about Marc Rosset that emphasizes that he's won a MS tournament and doesn't mention the Olympics. Only one article. Can't be too difficult.
If you find one, post the link.
If not, stop writing nonsense and accept the facts.
Is this some kind of wild-goose chase? Rosset never won a MS tournament. He lost a Paris final to Agassi.

FWIW, here's a (very) brief article about his retirement that ignores his gold medal completely.
http://www.sportsline.com/tennis/players/playerpage/201585/2005

Hendu
10-15-2006, 08:42 PM
Is this some kind of wild-goose chase? Rosset never won a MS tournament. He lost a Paris final to Agassi.

FWIW, here's a (very) brief article about his retirement that ignores his gold medal completely.
http://www.sportsline.com/tennis/players/playerpage/201585/2005

And his only argument was Marc Rosset... :o

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 11:24 PM
Is this some kind of wild-goose chase? Rosset never won a MS tournament. He lost a Paris final to Agassi.

FWIW, here's a (very) brief article about his retirement that ignores his gold medal completely.
http://www.sportsline.com/tennis/players/playerpage/201585/2005

I didn't know that he never won one.
It's just too unimportant.
He only won Rome in doubles, but that doesn't count.
Nobody remembers MS winners or wether a player has won such a thing or not.
MS tournaments are detail knowledge, no surprise nobody recognized the error with Rosset.
Olympics of course is another thing.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 11:35 PM
What do I care about Marc Rosset?

Where's the Olympic medal in Borg's resumee? Is he less of a player?

Where's Borg's MS title?

Oh, he didn't win one.
It wouldn't have bettered his career if he'd won one or five or ten.
But an Olympic Gold Medal would be worth mentioning.
Ok, he had no chance to win one.

Hendu
10-15-2006, 11:43 PM
I didn't know that he never won one.
It's just too unimportant.
He only won Rome in doubles, but that doesn't count.
Nobody remembers MS winners or wether a player has won such a thing or not.
MS tournaments are detail knowledge, no surprise nobody recognized the error with Rosset.
Olympics of course is another thing.

You don't.

And the argument about who remembers Masters series winners is just ridiculous.
9 Masters Series are played every year, while there have been only 5 Olympics with tennis (as an official sport). Thats 5 tournaments in 20 years.

You think Olympics are more important than AMS events and GS finals. Well, thats fine.

I just don't agree, and I have given many reasons that support my position.

You can't expect everybody to think like you.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-15-2006, 11:50 PM
And his only argument was Marc Rosset... :o

Please....
this AMS>Gold opinion is complete nonsense...

Rosset was just an example.
We both didn't knew that Rosset didn't win such an MS thing. Shows, that wether you or me care about the history of the MS tournaments.

Another example would be Mecir...

"The highlight of Mečíř's career came in 1988 when he was selected to represent Czechoslovakia in the Seoul Olympics. In the men's singles semi-finals he beat the reigning Wimbledon champion, Stefan Edberg of Sweden, in an exciting five-set match 3-6, 6-0, 1-6, 6-4, 6-2. He then met Tim Mayotte of the USA in the men's singles final and won in four sets 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2 to claim the Gold Medal."

Of course the highlight.. what else? Any idea?
Key Biscayne? German Open? Grand Slam finals? please...
You won't find a single serious opinion who thinks that Key Biscayne was the highlight of Mecirs career.
One can dispute about the slam finals, but that's no title.

Hendu
10-16-2006, 12:13 AM
Please....
this AMS>Gold opinion is complete nonsense...

Rosset was just an example.
We both didn't knew that Rosset didn't win such an MS thing. Shows, that wether you or me care about the history of the MS tournaments.

Another example would be Mecir...

Already answered in the previous post. That argument is ridiculous.

"The highlight of Mečíř's career came in 1988 when he was selected to represent Czechoslovakia in the Seoul Olympics. In the men's singles semi-finals he beat the reigning Wimbledon champion, Stefan Edberg of Sweden, in an exciting five-set match 3-6, 6-0, 1-6, 6-4, 6-2. He then met Tim Mayotte of the USA in the men's singles final and won in four sets 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2 to claim the Gold Medal."

Of course the highlight.. what else? Any idea?
Key Biscayne? German Open? Grand Slam finals? please...
You won't find a single serious opinion who thinks that Key Biscayne was the highlight of Mecirs career.
One can dispute about the slam finals, but that's no title.

so what? a guy who wrote a bio thinks that the Olympics are more important than Key Biscayne... that won't make it a fact.

Timothy Mayotte, Jordi Arrese, Sergi Bruguera, Tommy Haas and Mardy Fish are the ones who reached the finals in the five Olympic tennis tournaments. That tells you something about the importance of the tournament.

Its a great tournament but,

GS
GS final
AMS
Olympics

Basically, thats how I rank them.

Historically, players haven't given too much importance to the Olympics. There are exceptions, of course. Especially the players from countries that win only a few medals in the Olympics. But the importance in that case, doesn't come from the prestige of the tourny but from being able to give a medal to their country. Also when the Olympics are played at home (Agassi in Atlanta).

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 12:20 AM
Where's Borg's MS title?

Oh, he didn't win one.
It wouldn't have bettered his career if he'd won one or five or ten.
But an Olympic Gold Medal would be worth mentioning.
Ok, he had no chance to win one.

Borg titles:
1974--Adelaide, Bastad, Boston, London WCT, Roland Garros, Rome, Sao Paulo WCT; 1975--Barcelona, Bologna WCT, Boston, Richmond-WCT, Roland Garros; 1976--Boston, Dallas WCT, Dusseldorf, Sao Paulo WCT, Toronto Indoor WCT, Wimbledon; 1977--Barcelona, Basel, Cologne, Denver, Madrid, Memphis, Monte Carlo WCT, Nice, Pepsi Grand Slam, Wembley, Wimbledon; 1978--Bastad, Birmingham WCT, Las Vegas, Milan WCT, Pepsi Grand Slam, Roland Garros, Rome, Tokyo Indoor, Wimbledon; 1979--Bastad, Las Vegas, Masters, Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Palermo, Pepsi Grand Slam, Richmond WCT, Roland Garros, Rotterdam, Tokyo Indoor, Wimbledon; 1980--Las Vegas, Masters, Monte Carlo, Nice, Pepsi Grand Slam, Roland Garros, Stockholm, Wimbledon; 1981--Geneva, Roland Garros, Stuttgart Outdoor FINALIST (24): 1973--Buenos Aires, Monte Carlo, San Francisco, Stockholm; 1974--Barcelona WCT, Dallas WCT, Houston, Indianapolis, Madrid; 1975--Barcelona WCT, Dallas WCT, Masters, Munich WCT; 1976--Philadelphia WCT, US Open; 1977--Masters; 1978--US Open; 1979--Dallas WCT; 1980--Basel, Montreal / Toronto, US Open; 1981--Milan, US Open, Wimbledon

I must have missed some, but there they are.
Suck it up that you're wrong.

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 12:21 AM
Already answered in the previous post. That argument is ridiculous.



so what? a guy who wrote a bio thinks that the Olympics are more important than Key Biscayne... that won't make it a fact.

Timothy Mayotte, Jordi Arrese, Sergi Bruguera, Tommy Haas and Mardy Fish are the ones who reached the finals in the five Olympic tennis tournaments. That tells you something about the importance of the tournament.

Its a great tournaments but,

GS
GS final
AMS
Olympics

Basically, thats how I rank them.

Leander Paes has a bronze medal IN SINGLES. :rolleyes:

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 02:13 AM
Leander Paes has a bronze medal IN SINGLES. :rolleyes:

Well, the Olympic games in 2004 brought out all of the major players--Federer (who intends to play in 2008 and 2012), Roddick, Safin, etc. It's not Massu's fault that those guys failed to win a medal.

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 02:17 AM
Haas should definitely be there over Bjorkman :help::retard:.

Believe it or not, Haas (another underachiever) and Bjorkman have similar singles accomplishments. Bjorkman's doubles achievements served as the tiebreaker. If Haas had won or gotten to the finals of a Doubles or Mixed Doubles Slam final, he would have prevailed over Bjorkman since he had the No. 2 ranking.

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 02:20 AM
TMS titles aren't that important when compared to Slams and the no. 1 ranking, anyhow. I always find it funny how many journalists and commentators derided Kafelnikov for his lack of a Masters Series shield ("Kafelnikov's long wait for a Masters title goes on, and ON", etc.),
This must be the British media. Over here, no one has any idea what a Masters tournament is.

World Beater
10-16-2006, 02:21 AM
to people who are unfaimiliar with tennis, an olympic gold is far more prestigious. an ams tournament to the general public by and large is just like a regular tournament...its only people who are involved with the game and/or have some understanding of the organization of the tour that know the importance of an ams.
so in an mtf forum with fans who know the basics of the tour, people will most likely gravitate towards an ams...but pick somebody off the street, people are more likely to remember the gold medal winners.

Sjengster
10-16-2006, 02:25 AM
This must be the British media. Over here, no one has any idea what a Masters tournament is.

What, you mean American journalists or broadcasters who cover the sport have no idea what a Masters tournament is? I'm not talking about a layman's opinion here. But yes, that quote was from a British commentator, it's actually on the highlights from Miami 2002 on the ATP broadband site when Kafelnikov lost to Rios. ;)

+alonso
10-16-2006, 03:01 AM
i think both points of view are right , even if it sounds crazy :lol:

well it's easy, for a player like massu, it's far more important the olympics, and he would never change his medals for a tms event of so, anyway, the way nicolas won and winning the 1st gold medals for chile make the difference, of course, for a player living in a country who produces gold medals like crazy it won't be too much, not the meaning it was for massu.
anyway given that, technically a tms event it's more important than winning the olympics 'cause a tms event has more history related to tennis and blah blah; someone said for the common ppl who don't watch tennis, olympics are important than a tms event, well that is another proven point so, at the end everyone has a % of truth in the statements that claim.

+alonso
10-16-2006, 03:02 AM
although nico's position seems higher than it should, i like it! :p :lol:

Hendu
10-16-2006, 04:08 AM
i think both points of view are right , even if it sounds crazy :lol:

well it's easy, for a player like massu, it's far more important the olympics, and he would never change his medals for a tms event of so, anyway, the way nicolas won and winning the 1st gold medals for chile make the difference, of course, for a player living in a country who produces gold medals like crazy it won't be too much, not the meaning it was for massu.
anyway given that, technically a tms event it's more important than winning the olympics 'cause a tms event has more history related to tennis and blah blah; someone said for the common ppl who don't watch tennis, olympics are important than a tms event, well that is another proven point so, at the end everyone has a % of truth in the statements that claim.

Fair enough.

Hendu
10-16-2006, 04:12 AM
This must be the British media. Over here, no one has any idea what a Masters tournament is.

Do you live in Antartica? :confused:

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 04:23 AM
It's simple, look at this: http://stevegtennis.com/entrypoints.txt

Event: Points for the champion:
GS 1000
MS 500
Olympics 400

Subject closed.

Hendu
10-16-2006, 04:41 AM
It's simple, look at this: http://stevegtennis.com/entrypoints.txt

Event: Points for the champion:
GS 1000
MS 500
Olympics 400

Subject closed.

Good find. This information is decisive in this discussion.

AMS are bigger in history/tradition, quality of the winners and in points awarded. And this is recognized by most tennis fans.

Olympics are more important for players when national pride is involved. And for the regular sports fan (who are not much into tennis).

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 04:47 AM
That's the point, Willy, you got it right.
Olympics may be more important for general sport, but FOR TENNIS, MS are more important and the ranking points are greater to reflect that.

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 04:50 AM
[QUOTE=WillyCañas;4283313]Good find. This information is decisive in this discussion.

AMS are bigger in history/tradition, quality of the winners and in points awarded.

Not by much. By the way you're going on, you'd think the MS would be worth more than 100 points extra.

Hendu
10-16-2006, 04:56 AM
Not by much. By the way you're going on, you'd think the MS would be worth more than 100 points extra.

Well, I think the margin between AMS events and Olympics is bigger in tradition (importance given by players) and quality of players who get to final stances than what the difference in points awarded reflect.

Anyway, this information (the ranking points) just support the idea that Masters Series are more important than the Olympic tennis tournament.

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 05:08 AM
Well, I think the margin between AMS events and Olympics is bigger in tradition (importance given by players) and quality of players who get to final stances than what the difference in points awarded reflect.
Like I said, how do you explain 2000 & 2004 Olympics which had top players?

Anyway, this information (the ranking points) just support the idea that Masters Series are more important than the Olympic tennis tournament.
I already offered my opinion. Nothing more to say :)

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 05:11 AM
Like I said, how do you explain 2000 & 2004 Olympics which had top players?

I already offered my opinion. Nothing more to say :)

The field doesn't matter. If one day Newport supports a field with all top 10 players, will it make the tournament bigger than it is?

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 05:17 AM
The field doesn't matter. If one day Newport supports a field with all top 10 players, will it make the tournament bigger than it is?

Is this a trick question :eek:

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 05:21 AM
Is this a trick question :eek:

No, my friend.

You said that the "good" field in the last two olympic events prove it's a big tournament.
Following your logic, if Newport had an all-star field, with all top 20 or something, it would mean it's a greater tournament than it's ranked.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-16-2006, 09:34 AM
Borg titles:
1974--Adelaide, Bastad, Boston, London WCT, Roland Garros, Rome, Sao Paulo WCT; 1975--Barcelona, Bologna WCT, Boston, Richmond-WCT, Roland Garros; 1976--Boston, Dallas WCT, Dusseldorf, Sao Paulo WCT, Toronto Indoor WCT, Wimbledon; 1977--Barcelona, Basel, Cologne, Denver, Madrid, Memphis, Monte Carlo WCT, Nice, Pepsi Grand Slam, Wembley, Wimbledon; 1978--Bastad, Birmingham WCT, Las Vegas, Milan WCT, Pepsi Grand Slam, Roland Garros, Rome, Tokyo Indoor, Wimbledon; 1979--Bastad, Las Vegas, Masters, Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Palermo, Pepsi Grand Slam, Richmond WCT, Roland Garros, Rotterdam, Tokyo Indoor, Wimbledon; 1980--Las Vegas, Masters, Monte Carlo, Nice, Pepsi Grand Slam, Roland Garros, Stockholm, Wimbledon; 1981--Geneva, Roland Garros, Stuttgart Outdoor FINALIST (24): 1973--Buenos Aires, Monte Carlo, San Francisco, Stockholm; 1974--Barcelona WCT, Dallas WCT, Houston, Indianapolis, Madrid; 1975--Barcelona WCT, Dallas WCT, Masters, Munich WCT; 1976--Philadelphia WCT, US Open; 1977--Masters; 1978--US Open; 1979--Dallas WCT; 1980--Basel, Montreal / Toronto, US Open; 1981--Milan, US Open, Wimbledon

I must have missed some, but there they are.
Suck it up that you're wrong.

No MS titles. You should know that MS tournaments didn't exist prior to the 90ies.

oz_boz
10-16-2006, 10:38 AM
I agree with the general sentiment that Olympics Gold are way overrated in TF's list. Hence I'd never put Massu in top 20. Also agree that Verkerk Clement Schuettler are a bit overrated with their lack of titles.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-16-2006, 10:49 AM
No, my friend.

You said that the "good" field in the last two olympic events prove it's a big tournament.
Following your logic, if Newport had an all-star field, with all top 20 or something, it would mean it's a greater tournament than it's ranked.

Field... is irrelevant.
They're comparable for AMS tournaments and Olympics. Olympics have the best doubles field among all tournaments, because players know the chances are rare to get a gold medal.
But field isn't relevant, importance is a product of multiple things an not much to find that would lead to another conclusion than Olympics is the far bigger thing.

For what thing Massu, Canas, Grosjean or Pavel are remebered as tennis players?
If you know the answer, you know what tournament is more important.
Let's guess:
Massu: Gold Medal, of course.
Pavel: ???
Canas: ???, reaching quarter finals in Paris?, taking drugs?, ???
Grosjean: reaching multiple Grand Slam semi finals.


Some other points
Quality of players:
Mecir, Kafelnikov, Massu, Agassi <-> Carretero,Pioline, Pavel, Canas, Haas, Grosjean, Federer, Sampras, Agassi...
Massu was surely the weakest Olympic champion, but he's not much weaker than Gaudio. There are weaker winners of AMS titles.
Federer won a lot of AMS titles.
Federer, the guy who said one of his main goals in 04 were the Olympics.
He would never say such things about an AMS title. That's clearly one or two tiers below Olympics and he knows it.

Tradition: AMS system since 1990, Olympics since 1988, even longer.

Ranking points: Olympics didn't get any until 04. But does anyone really think, Canas is happy about this 100 points and prefers his anonymous and historically irrelevant title?
If only counting the points, two AMS would equal an Grand Slam title and Rios would be a legend.
Btw., it's of course nonsense that ATP gives 400 points for Olympics.


Money: Olympics is commercially ten times more interesting than AMS title, easily, although the official prize money is zero.
Canadian Open champion.. Indian Sthg. Champion ..., AMS-champion... Olympic Champion.. no problem to decide what marketing guys would prefer.
They needn't to think 2 seconds about that.

Prestige: Hm.. Canadian Champion.. Olympic Champion.. Let's think about it

oz_boz
10-16-2006, 10:57 AM
I have the impression that an Olympic Gold in tennis is considered a bonus thing legacywise, a player is happy if he wins it but not particularly sorry if he doesn't. That and the fact that Olympic Gold gives you fewer ranking points than AMS titles does it for me.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-16-2006, 12:58 PM
I have the impression that an Olympic Gold in tennis is considered a bonus thing legacywise, a player is happy if he wins it but not particularly sorry if he doesn't. That and the fact that Olympic Gold gives you fewer ranking points than AMS titles does it for me.

Sorry, no way.

It's ok to have an opinion, but this AMS > Gold Medal is just nonsense as all the examples show and you'll never find a single source that supports this.

oz_boz
10-16-2006, 01:09 PM
Sorry, no way.

It's ok to have an opinion, but this AMS > Gold Medal is just nonsense as all the examples show and you'll never find a single source that supports this.

:lol:

You say that it is OK to have an opinion and the next moment you say that any opinion other than yours is nonsense (your examples are not good enough to prove that the question at hand is not debatable).

Make up your mind ;)

MariaV
10-16-2006, 01:13 PM
I'm not getting into the debate but the first Olympic medals ever for Croatia and Chile were certainly great achievements for these (realtively) small nations and will be remembered forever.
For the US Olympic medals don't mean that much.

ezekiel
10-16-2006, 01:38 PM
I have the impression that an Olympic Gold in tennis is considered a bonus thing legacywise, a player is happy if he wins it but not particularly sorry if he doesn't. That and the fact that Olympic Gold gives you fewer ranking points than AMS titles does it for me.


Have you ever seen tennis during olympics?
I sure as hell didn't . If no one saw it, does it matter ?

Melekhin
10-16-2006, 02:51 PM
schalken, verkerk, baghdatis, schüttler, clement in this list :eek:

:confused:

GS final mean so much for you???

Hendu
10-16-2006, 03:08 PM
For what thing Massu, Canas, Grosjean or Pavel are remebered as tennis players?
If you know the answer, you know what tournament is more important.
Let's guess:
Massu: Gold Medal, of course.
Pavel: ???
Canas: ???, reaching quarter finals in Paris?, taking drugs?, ???
Grosjean: reaching multiple Grand Slam semi finals.

Thats how you remember those players. There are other opinions you know... yes you read well, other people have other opinions :eek: isn't it crazy?


Some other points
Quality of players:
Mecir, Kafelnikov, Massu, Agassi <-> Carretero,Pioline, Pavel, Canas, Haas, Grosjean, Federer, Sampras, Agassi...
Massu was surely the weakest Olympic champion, but he's not much weaker than Gaudio. There are weaker winners of AMS titles.
Federer won a lot of AMS titles.
Federer, the guy who said one of his main goals in 04 were the Olympics.
He would never say such things about an AMS title. That's clearly one or two tiers below Olympics and he knows it.

Historically most players haven't paid much attention to Olympics. They do when national pride is invoved (thats when the players are from countries that win only a few medals) or when the Olympics are played in their home country.

Tradition: AMS system since 1990, Olympics since 1988, even longer.

Absurd. Most Masters Series have huge history (even if they were called with another name).

Only 5 Olympic tennis tournaments have been played!!!!

There have been 17 medallists in history, only 3 of them have been #1 in some moment of their careers.

Ranking points: Olympics didn't get any until 04. But does anyone really think, Canas is happy about this 100 points and prefers his anonymous and historically irrelevant title?.

I'm sure Cañas is happy with his AMS title. ;)

If only counting the points, two AMS would equal an Grand Slam title and Rios would be a legend.
Btw., it's of course nonsense that ATP gives 400 points for Olympics.

You think thats nonsense. I think its nonsense that the ATP gives so many points to the Olympics in an attempt to catch players attention. They hope the top players will care now.

Historically, most of them didn't.

Money: Olympics is commercially ten times more interesting than AMS title, easily, although the official prize money is zero.
Canadian Open champion.. Indian Sthg. Champion ..., AMS-champion... Olympic Champion.. no problem to decide what marketing guys would prefer.
They needn't to think 2 seconds about that.

You should be a players representative.


Prestige: Hm.. Canadian Champion.. Olympic Champion.. Let's think about it

Well, thats the same way of thinking the regular sports fan who are not much into tennis has (I'm not saying you are one). They don't take into account:

History/Tradition + importance given by most players + ranking points awarded = AMS events are more important than the Olympics.


:lol:

You say that it is OK to have an opinion and the next moment you say that any opinion other than yours is nonsense (your examples are not good enough to prove that the question at hand is not debatable).

Make up your mind ;)

Thats his attitude in every discussion.

Hendu
10-16-2006, 03:15 PM
I'm not getting into the debate but the first Olympic medals ever for Croatia and Chile were certainly great achievements for these (realtively) small nations and will be remembered forever.
For the US Olympic medals don't mean that much.

Thats true and it has already been said:

No, I don't. Massu gave Chileans their first Olympic Gold medals, thats huge for him and his country.

But I think winning Monte Carlo, Miami or Rome would be more important than winning a medal, for almost all players.

i think both points of view are right , even if it sounds crazy :lol:

well it's easy, for a player like massu, it's far more important the olympics, and he would never change his medals for a tms event of so, anyway, the way nicolas won and winning the 1st gold medals for chile make the difference, of course, for a player living in a country who produces gold medals like crazy it won't be too much, not the meaning it was for massu.

The value of the Olympics comes from the national pride and not from tennis prestige.

We are talking about tournaments category, AMS events are more important than the Olympics. And historically players have thought in this way.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-16-2006, 03:16 PM
:lol:

You say that it is OK to have an opinion and the next moment you say that any opinion other than yours is nonsense (your examples are not good enough to prove that the question at hand is not debatable).

Make up your mind ;)


I have examples and they work perfectly.
Some opinions are so strong that they became basic knowledge, overtaken by public, media, players... by everyone. Strange exceptions doesn't change anything.
This thing isn't really disputable.

It's no problem that somebody thinks otherwise but it's nonsense.
Massu knows that. And believe it, Canas, Carretero and Pavel know that too. And their fans.

Did you see the pictures of Athens 04? You won't see such pictures in a normal MS tournament. You know, the prestige, the importance is on a completely different level. There are dozens forgotten AMS champions, but Olympic Gold is something special.
Schuettler, poor guy, cried when losing the Gold (doubles).
That was perhaps the biggest chance of his career.
No problem for him to lose on AMS level final.
Schuettler knew the public wouldn't really have registerred one (or three) MS titles but Olympic Gold was his big chance.

Hendu
10-16-2006, 03:48 PM
I have examples and they work perfectly.
Some opinions are so strong that they became basic knowledge, overtaken by public, media, players... by everyone. Strange exceptions doesn't change anything.
This thing isn't really disputable.

It's no problem that somebody thinks otherwise but it's nonsense.
Massu knows that. And believe it, Canas, Carretero and Pavel know that too. And their fans.

Did you see the pictures of Athens 04? You won't see such pictures in a normal MS tournament. You know, the prestige, the importance is on a completely different level. There are dozens forgotten AMS champions, but Olympic Gold is something special.
Schuettler, poor guy, cried when losing the Gold (doubles).
That was perhaps the biggest chance of his career.
No problem for him to lose on AMS level final.
Schuettler knew the public wouldn't really have registerred one (or three) MS titles but Olympic Gold was his big chance.

I'm sorry to tell you that your opinions are facts only in your head.

Jimnik
10-16-2006, 04:10 PM
:lol: The title of this thread should be changed to

"TMS vs Olympics - Which is more important?"

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 04:25 PM
No MS titles. You should know that MS tournaments didn't exist prior to the 90ies.

Are you dumn or what??? :retard:
As you probably can't get it, I'll explain: these tournaments exist for so long, as long as GS. They were just united with the name super 9 and then MS to make it a standard in their points value.

How can you discuss after the information about the points came up? It's no use, you're wrong. Your opinion is :bs: as the ATP doesn't care about what you think the points should be for those joke olympic tournaments.

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 04:27 PM
I'm sorry to tell you that your opinions are facts only in your head.

Let him talk to himself. When someone simply ignores facts, what can you do?

Hendu
10-16-2006, 05:03 PM
:lol: The title of this thread should be changed to

"TMS vs Olympics - Which is more important?"

The subject came up because Boris Franz Ecker ranks Massu over Coria in accomplishments. For him, Olympic gold is more important than GS finals and AMS events...

I think everybody gave their opinions. For me, this is over.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the topic.

the difficult thing when making these lists (The 20 Most Accomplished Active Players) is taking into account the consistency of the players. Staying in the top ten (or top five) for many years, or consistently having good results in big tournaments, even if they don't win them, is very important to figure out who has had the better career.

To make these kind of lists, a system that aknowledges these situations has to be created.

Something like:

x points for GS win.
x points for GS final.
x points for ams events win
x points for Olympics
x points for # of tournies won
x points for best ranking
x points for weeks at top ten
...........
...........

It would be a very complicated thing. The most difficult being setting the points for every accomplishment. Questions like TMS vs Olympics - Which is more important?" would have to be aswered.

The good thing is that as all players are active, they have all played in the same ATP calendar structure, so that simplifies the job.

LaTenista
10-16-2006, 05:47 PM
Safin had the #1 ranking. Debatable if Nadal ever will get there. Probably the greatest No. 2 of all time.

I think I would rather been known as a top 5 player than having a random Masters title.

Let's see there are a lot of people who think Nadal will not only be No 1 but the NEXT No 1, including Moya, Ferrer, and oh yeah, Federer the current No 1 who should know what he's talking about.

The only thing that could stop Nadal from achieving it is a career-ending injury.

I thought he did, but I might be confusing him with Scheuttler :o :o

I had to giggle when Moya was asked a question about Sluiter in a press conference and answered it by talking about Schuettler. :tape:


Nadal is far from being an accomplished player. Never got to #1 is enough for me. As I said, however, he can still make it (if some miracle happens, of course) and when he retires we'll have a significant point of view on that matter.

Yeah, Rafa is so awful he needs a miracle to become No 1. :rolleyes: See above. ^


Btw, MS has nearly no tradition and changes it's name every few years.


One can argue that the Masters Series tradition is stronger because there have been 9 a year since 1990 while only 5 Olympics since 1988. Also, the individual tournaments of the Masters Series have very strong traditions, for example the Cincinnati tournament has been around since 1899, and these tournaments were important ones even before 1990. On the other hand, since there was no tennis in the Olympics before 1988, both fans and players alike sometimes view it as an ugly stepchild. And it's true there's no money (which is a strong driving point) and no ranking points until the last one in 2004. But you have to look at what it brought to the sport of tennis. Russia put a lot of money into developing tennis players when tennis became an Olympic sport. Now we have Safin, Davydenko, Myskina, Dementieva, Safina, etc. as champions. I think ranking points were introduced to give players who don't care about the Olympics a reason to play besides for their country. It's like comparing apples and oranges really - a more apt comparison would be between the Olympics and Davis Cup/Fed Cup.

This must be the British media. Over here, no one has any idea what a Masters tournament is.

:shrug: All the advertising for Cincinnati - print and in the media - all clearly highlights it is a Masters Series event and one of the top 13 tournaments in the world.

Have you ever seen tennis during olympics?
I sure as hell didn't . If no one saw it, does it matter ?

I saw the Athens tennis tournament on TV in 2004 - it was mainly shown on Bravo in the middle of the night and in the mornings.

How can you discuss after the information about the points came up? It's no use, you're wrong. Your opinion is :bs: as the ATP doesn't care about what you think the points should be for those joke olympic tournaments.

If the Olympics are a joke surely no country including your own should bother to train and send athletes to compete every 4 years.

Personally I'm glad tennis is part of the Olympics now. It gives our sport more depth and opportunities for other athletes to see how great tennis is.

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 11:42 PM
:lol: The title of this thread should be changed to

"TMS vs Olympics - Which is more important?"

It's funny how some threads take on a life of their own. Willy & Glenn remind me of the two, with Boris right behind them :lol:


http://muppet.wikia.com/images/6/6e/Bigmama.jpg

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 11:51 PM
If the Olympics are a joke surely no country including your own should bother to train and send athletes to compete every 4 years.

Personally I'm glad tennis is part of the Olympics now. It gives our sport more depth and opportunities for other athletes to see how great tennis is.

The olympics aren't a joke. Tennis tournaments in olympics are.

Tennis Fool
10-16-2006, 11:55 PM
:shrug: All the advertising for Cincinnati - print and in the media - all clearly highlights it is a Masters Series event and one of the top 13 tournaments in the world.


My response was to Sjengster's post that Kafelnikov was given grief about never having won a Masters title. Here, no sports journalist would have cared if he'd won one or not.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-17-2006, 01:00 AM
One can argue that the Masters Series tradition is stronger because there have been 9 a year since 1990 while only 5 Olympics since 1988. Also, the individual tournaments of the Masters Series have very strong traditions, for example the Cincinnati tournament has been around since 1899, and these tournaments were important ones even before 1990. On the other hand, since there was no tennis in the Olympics before 1988, both fans and players alike sometimes view it as an ugly stepchild.


All the advertising for Cincinnati - print and in the media - all clearly highlights it is a Masters Series event and one of the top 13 tournaments in the world.



That makes Olympic Gold a very special thing. One can't say that about an MS title.
Yes, some of the MS tournaments have tradition, some of them have nearly no tradition (that would mean, Cincinnati >> Key Biscayne)
But Masters Series was introduced in 90 and Masters Series titles have a shorter history than Olympics, that's sure.

Cincinnati is nothing compared to Olympics.
Nobody really remembers Cincinnati winners.

Ok, therefore Massu would like to be a forgotten Cincinnati champ...
There are dozens of already forgotten AMS champions and Massu is none of them, he must be sad.
How would that sound.. "Cincinnati champion" (what's the official name of that famous tournament?) instead of this "Olympic champion". Great!

No, just a joke.

It's just too obvious and I never really wanted to discuss what has a higher meaning. We could rather discuss what's the biggest clay court tournament.
I just wanted to explain some guys why they're wrong.
You can only discuss things that are disputable. That's not the case.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 04:06 AM
What Cincinatti, the Canadian Open, German, Italian and Monte Carlo Opens don't have long histories, they are among the oldest events. This whole TMS thing is just a marketing thing and the reason those 5 above events were chosen were mainly cause they were prestigious events in their own way, more so than the other 4.

As for the Olympics, well winning the gold medal is something that will never be taken away and the irony is that some of the best matches have been played at the Olympics. Rosset with his 5hr battle and he lost 3kgs in his match for all of that, he'd have rather won a Slam and it's not about the money for these players and in Barcelona it was a strong field.

The thing with tennis in the Olympics which is problematic, is that in most sports it's the pinnacle of their respective events and that's definitely not the way with football (the World Cup) or tennis with the Slams, hence that takes something away from winning it.

It just depends on what people value more an Olympic gold medal or a TMS title.

CmonAussie
10-17-2006, 04:59 AM
What Cincinatti, the Canadian Open, German, Italian and Monte Carlo Opens don't have long histories, they are among the oldest events. This whole TMS thing is just a marketing thing and the reason those 5 above events were chosen were mainly cause they were prestigious events in their own way, more so than the other 4.

As for the Olympics, well winning the gold medal is something that will never be taken away and the irony is that some of the best matches have been played at the Olympics. Rosset with his 5hr battle and he lost 3kgs in his match for all of that, he'd have rather won a Slam and it's not about the money for these players and in Barcelona it was a strong field.

The thing with tennis in the Olympics which is problematic, is that in most sports it's the pinnacle of their respective events and that's definitely not the way with football (the World Cup) or tennis with the Slams, hence that takes something away from winning it.

It just depends on what people value more an Olympic gold medal or a TMS title.
:wavey:
Also it depends on what the player has already achieved:cool:
For instance I`m sure Federer would treasure a Davis Cup or Olypic Gold over another TMS title [he already has 11 of those].... For a guy like Roger who`s already achieved so much as an individual he`d surely like to do something for his country;)
However a guy like Massu-->> who has a couple of Gold Medals but no other significant tennis trophies~~ then he`s going to value a TMS over another Olympic medal I`m sure:cool:

PS,~ regarding the TMS events & how they were selected, did you know that the Sydney Indoor event was very close to be granted Super 9/TMS status in the early 1990s, but as that fell though so two did the tournament altogether. Sydney Indoor had a more impressive list of former champions than half of the current TMS events:sad:

Hendu
10-17-2006, 05:00 AM
What Cincinatti, the Canadian Open, German, Italian and Monte Carlo Opens don't have long histories, they are among the oldest events. This whole TMS thing is just a marketing thing and the reason those 5 above events were chosen were mainly cause they were prestigious events in their own way, more so than the other 4.

As for the Olympics, well winning the gold medal is something that will never be taken away and the irony is that some of the best matches have been played at the Olympics. Rosset with his 5hr battle and he lost 3kgs in his match for all of that, he'd have rather won a Slam and it's not about the money for these players and in Barcelona it was a strong field.

The thing with tennis in the Olympics which is problematic, is that in most sports it's the pinnacle of their respective events and that's definitely not the way with football (the World Cup) or tennis with the Slams, hence that takes something away from winning it.

It just depends on what people value more an Olympic gold medal or a TMS title.

What do you value more?

What would you rather win? Rome/Monte Carlo or Beijing Olympic Gold?

El Legenda
10-17-2006, 05:07 AM
Baghdatis, Shitler, Massu, Clement on list and no Ljubicic :haha: :haha:

closing on 300 wins
6 titles
1 Davis Cup
1 World Team Cup
1 Olympic Medal
1 GS SF
HR #3, Pretty much a whole year in the Top5
15 finals
4 doubles finals
Beat the #1 player..Guga(2001)
3 TMS Finals
MAde it to QF or better at all 3 Clay TMS and French

:wavey:

putting players on the list with 1 lucky GS final run....priceless :)

CmonAussie
10-17-2006, 05:13 AM
Baghdatis, Shitler, Massu, Clement on list and no Ljubicic :haha: :haha:

280 WINS
6 titles
1 Davis Cup
1 World Team Cup
1 Olympic Medal
1 GS SF
HR #3, Pretty much a whole year in the Top5
15 finals
4 doubles finals
Beat the #1 player..Guga(2001)
3 TMS Finals
MAde it to QF or better at all 3 Clay TMS and French

:wavey:

putting players on the list with 1 lucky GS final run....priceless :)
:wavey:
You`d think there was discrimination against bald men or something:sad: :devil: ...........>>> Then again Agassi made the list:worship::p..........Oops Andre`s no longer active is he><

Hendu
10-17-2006, 05:16 AM
Baghdatis, Shitler, Massu, Clement on list and no Ljubicic :haha: :haha:

280 WINS
6 titles
1 Davis Cup
1 World Team Cup
1 Olympic Medal
1 GS SF
HR #3, Pretty much a whole year in the Top5
15 finals
4 doubles finals
Beat the #1 player..Guga(2001)
3 TMS Finals
MAde it to QF or better at all 3 Clay TMS and French

:wavey:

He could be in that list, but:

Davis Cup and World Team Cup, are team competitions.

The Olympic Medal is a bronze in doubles, right?

If thats the case, I don't think they are taking doubles into account. Even if it is considered, a bronze in the Olympics is like getting to semis of an AMS event.

I think these are his main accomplishments:

#3
1 GS SF
3 TMS Finals
6 titles

El Legenda
10-17-2006, 05:27 AM
He could be in that list, but:

Davis Cup and World Team Cup, are team competitions.

The Olympic Medal is a bronze in doubles, right?

If thats the case, I don't think they are taking doubles into account. Even if it is considered, a bronze in the Olympics is like getting to semis of an AMS event.

I think these are his main accomplishments:

#3
1 GS SF
3 TMS Finals
6 titles


well Davis Cup win was not much of team work until the end :lol:
and few players have their doubles on there :wavey:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-17-2006, 08:52 AM
However a guy like Massu-->> who has a couple of Gold Medals but no other significant tennis trophies~~ then he`s going to value a TMS over another Olympic medal I`m sure:cool:
[/COLOR][/B]

Of course, and Gaudio would prefer an TMS title over another Grand Slam-title.:)

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 08:56 AM
What do you value more?

What would you rather win? Rome/Monte Carlo or Beijing Olympic Gold?

Does it matter?

Tell you the truth I'd rather win the Davis Cup than any tour event with the exception of a Slam.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-17-2006, 08:58 AM
Baghdatis, Shitler, Massu, Clement on list and no Ljubicic :haha: :haha:



Massu won as much titles as Ljubicic, of course one major title.

Ljubicic is at the moment a better player than Massu and Gaudio ever were.
But he should win some on relevant thing on his own to make the list.
And no, a TMS title wouldn't be enough.
Olympic gold in 2008 would easily promote him above Coria and Massu.
Gaudio is another case.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-17-2006, 09:16 AM
The thing with tennis in the Olympics which is problematic, is that in most sports it's the pinnacle of their respective events and that's definitely not the way with football (the World Cup) or tennis with the Slams, hence that takes something away from winning it.


Football is another case, because the best players usually aren't allowed to play Olympics.
And nobody thinks that winning the Gold Medal is the biggest thing in tennis.
It's for sure bigger than an AMS tournament which is undisputable.

Hendu
10-17-2006, 02:48 PM
Does it matter?

If I thought it didn't matter I wouldn't have asked.

As this is a matter of opinions, I just asked yours.

:shrug:

Tell you the truth I'd rather win the Davis Cup than any tour event with the exception of a Slam.

Well, me too... but for the record, you didn't answer the question. :)

Football is another case, because the best players usually aren't allowed to play Olympics.
And nobody thinks that winning the Gold Medal is the biggest thing in tennis.
It's for sure bigger than an AMS tournament which is undisputable.

Is it that difficult for you to understand that the others opinions are as respectable as yours?

There are players who think the Olympics give them the unique opportunity to give their countries medals, that would be huge their sports history. And other players see the Olympics as a minor tournament, and their main reason to go is to experience the life inside that big event.

Just realizing that, becomes evident that "Olympics > AMS" is disputable.

As you arleady know, for me: AMS > Olympics.

And I already told you why I think that way.

You can disagree.

ezekiel
10-17-2006, 02:56 PM
What Cincinatti, the Canadian Open, German, Italian and Monte Carlo Opens don't have long histories, they are among the oldest events. This whole TMS thing is just a marketing thing and the reason those 5 above events were chosen were mainly cause they were prestigious events in their own way, more so than the other 4.

As for the Olympics, well winning the gold medal is something that will never be taken away and the irony is that some of the best matches have been played at the Olympics. Rosset with his 5hr battle and he lost 3kgs in his match for all of that, he'd have rather won a Slam and it's not about the money for these players and in Barcelona it was a strong field.

The thing with tennis in the Olympics which is problematic, is that in most sports it's the pinnacle of their respective events and that's definitely not the way with football (the World Cup) or tennis with the Slams, hence that takes something away from winning it.

It just depends on what people value more an Olympic gold medal or a TMS title.


Correct , as olympics are made for amateur sports and only with recent commercialisation they have tried to pile on as many events as possible, next up poker :rolleyes:
Anyway another thing is that tennis has no tv exposure during olympics either and why would anyone watch it then when tennis is always on

Boris Franz Ecker
10-17-2006, 03:04 PM
Correct , as olympics are made for amateur sports and only with recent commercialisation ...

Did you ever hear something about the open era?

Havok
10-17-2006, 03:09 PM
Believe it or not, Haas (another underachiever) and Bjorkman have similar singles accomplishments. Bjorkman's doubles achievements served as the tiebreaker. If Haas had won or gotten to the finals of a Doubles or Mixed Doubles Slam final, he would have prevailed over Bjorkman since he had the No. 2 ranking.

Bjorkman won a TMS singles event?:scared:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-17-2006, 03:57 PM
Just realizing that, becomes evident that "Olympics > AMS" is disputable.

As you arleady know, for me: AMS > Olympics.


If you think so, you can even dispute wether AMS > Grand Slam.

Even you forget AMS winners instantly.
Look at your list of Olympic Medal winners above and see what these players did at AMS level.
You wanted to show the 'bad' quality of Olympic Medal winners and you listed AMS winners, finalists etc...
Forgot the results?
Ok, no problem.
Just a proof how unimportant AMS success is.

Hendu
10-17-2006, 05:31 PM
If you think so, you can even dispute wether AMS > Grand Slam.

Even you forget AMS winners instantly.
Look at your list of Olympic Medal winners above and see what these players did at AMS level.
You wanted to show the 'bad' quality of Olympic Medal winners and you listed AMS winners, finalists etc...

I only posted medallists to show that the top players historically haven't paid to much attention to the Olympics.

I never said the players were bad.



Seoul 1988

GOLD:
Miloslav Mecir (TCH) - (3) Key Biscayne, Indian Wells, Hamburg
SILVER:
Timothy Mayotte (USA) - (0)
BRONZE:
Stefan Edberg (SWE) - 5 GS - (4) Cincinnati, Indian Wells, Paris Indoor, Hamburg
Bradley Gilbert (USA) - (1) Cincinnati

Barcelona1992

GOLD:
Marc Rosset (SUI) - (0)
SILVER:
Jordi Arrese (ESP) - (0)
BRONZE:
Andrei Cherkasov (EUN) - (0)
Goran Ivanisevic (CRO) - 1 GS - (2 MS) Stockholm, Paris Indoor

Atlanta 1996

GOLD:
Andre Agassi (USA) - 8 GS (17 MS) Key Biscayne, Montreal / Toronto, Montreal / Toronto, Paris Indoor, Cincinnati, Key Biscayne, Montreal / Toronto, Cincinnati, Key Biscayne, Paris Indoor, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Miami, Rome, Miami, Cincinnati
SILVER:
Sergi Bruguera (ESP) - 2 GS (2 MS) Monte Carlo, Monte Carlo
BRONZE:
Leander Paes (IND) (0)

Sydney 2000

GOLD:
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) - 2 GS (0 MS)
SILVER:
Tommy Haas (GER) - (1 MS) Stuttgart
BRONZE:
Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA) (0)

Athens 2004

GOLD:
Nicolas Massu (CHI) (0)
SILVER:
Mardy Fish (USA) (0)
BRONZE:
Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) (0)


Forgot the results?
Ok, no problem.
Just a proof how unimportant AMS success is.

Nobody said there weren't AMS winners between those players. :confused:

What is funny is that you expect people to remember more than 100 AMS winners!!!

Tennis Fool
10-17-2006, 11:52 PM
Sydney 2000

GOLD:
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) - 2 GS (0 MS)
SILVER:
Tommy Haas (GER) - (1 MS) Stuttgart
BRONZE:
Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA) (0)

Athens 2004

GOLD:
Nicolas Massu (CHI) (0)
SILVER:
Mardy Fish (USA) (0)
BRONZE:
Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) (0)
Why do you keep skipping that Federer, Agassi, Roddick, et al played in 2004 but lost :confused:

Also, 2000 looks like quality finishers to me :scratch:

Tennis Fool
10-18-2006, 12:06 AM
Bjorkman won a TMS singles event?:scared:

No. But he was a finalist in Paris in 1997.



For everyone: I've added a current rank to show where everyone stands at the time of update. This is a live thread, and the Australian Open (if not won by Federer or Nadal) will most certainly bring movement.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-18-2006, 03:11 AM
What is funny is that you expect people to remember more than 100 AMS winners!!!

I don't expect that anyone remembers them. I already wrote these AMS titles are 'anonymous' titles with limited historical value.
How different this is with Olympic Champions as they are something special.
One strong reason for the much higher importance of the Gold Medal.
Nobody can tell me that Coria is happier with his Rome title.
Do you think anyone remembers Canas for an AMS title?
A minority, nearly nobody.

Btw. Mayotte won first edition Key Biscayne.
Fish, Olympic finalist, was finalist at AMS level, and he won Stockholm.. an AMS event for some years... a true legend.
Gonzalez reached semi final at Olympics.. How often he did that at MS level? nobody knows.
Apart from his official MS titles Ivanisevic won also Stuttgart which was in the earlier 90ies comparable as a tournament with the MS tournaments (equal ranking points, even higher prize money) but only received the status some years later, just to lose it again. Who knows such details?

You see.. most things are forgotten.
And all these players would exchange their biggest AMS success with the Gold Medal in 2 seconds. Who would doubt that?

njnetswill
10-18-2006, 03:15 AM
I think this way of ranking players is very questionable. Does 1 runner-up finish at a GS outway 100 semis?

Boris Franz Ecker
10-18-2006, 03:21 AM
For everyone: I've added a current rank to show where everyone stands at the time of update. This is a live thread, and the Australian Open (if not won by Federer or Nadal) will most certainly bring movement.

Your list is of course wrong.
Verkerk, Schuettler...
Even Kiefer/Haas are clearly ahead of them.
Someone as Henman is way ahead of Schuettler. No surprise that Henman got a Wild Card at Madrid. Schuettler wouldn't get one out of Germany.

El Legenda
10-18-2006, 03:21 AM
I think this way of ranking players is very questionable. Does 1 runner-up finish at a GS outway 100 semis?

:lol: Verkerk has a 59-58 career record :lol: he is on the list for 1 lucky run

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 04:38 AM
If I thought it didn't matter I wouldn't have asked.

As this is a matter of opinions, I just asked yours.

:shrug:

Well, me too... but for the record, you didn't answer the question. :)

I have already given my view on this. Winning an Olympic gold medal for your country is very special and it doesn't come around very often, however cause of the problems I stated earlier with the way tennis is at the moment, it's not the pinnacle of the sport, as to answer your question well I'd probably want win an Olympic medal more cause TMS events are every year.

Whether I would put that in front of an TMS event when judging player, well I am not sure, it's not something I have really thought about.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-18-2006, 10:38 AM
Whether I would put that in front of an TMS event when judging player, well I am not sure, it's not something I have really thought about.

Since a Gold Medal has a much higher meaning, there's nothing to think about. It has nothing to do with the difficulty to win such things.

One can dispute wether another medal has a higher meaning.
I would say, Silver is at least equal to an AMS title, because Silver means playing the final. And Silver stays in the history books cause Olympic history respects the first three. An AMS title is rather forgotten.
Although, Bronze doesn't have the big meaning.

Gold >> AMS title, that's obvious
Silver ~ AMS title
Bronze < AMS title

That's fair.

Hendu
10-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Why do you keep skipping that Federer, Agassi, Roddick, et al played in 2004 but lost :confused:

I don't.

Just saying that historically players haven't paid too much attention to Olympics, despite being part of the tournaments.

Also, 2000 looks like quality finishers to me :scratch:

yes.

I have already given my view on this. Winning an Olympic gold medal for your country is very special and it doesn't come around very often, however cause of the problems I stated earlier with the way tennis is at the moment, it's not the pinnacle of the sport, as to answer your question well I'd probably want win an Olympic medal more cause TMS events are every year.

Whether I would put that in front of an TMS event when judging player, well I am not sure, it's not something I have really thought about.

Fair enough.

I don't expect that anyone remembers them. I already wrote these AMS titles are 'anonymous' titles with limited historical value.

Little historical value?

based on what?

Most of the tournaments that since 1990 are considered Masters Series have huge history.

The Olympic tennis tournaments is the one that doesn't have tradition.


How different this is with Olympic Champions as they are something special.


"Olympic Champions as they are something special"

why do you state that as a fact?

Thats just your opinion.

For me the Olympics are very important, but in tennis not as important as an AMS title.

One strong reason for the much higher importance of the Gold Medal.
Nobody can tell me that Coria is happier with his Rome title.
Do you think anyone remembers Canas for an AMS title?
A minority, nearly nobody.

Don't come with the "undisputable" thing, when the only you have to support your position is your very subjective opinion about Coria's happiness, and Cañas status in history.

Btw. Mayotte won first edition Key Biscayne.
Fish, Olympic finalist, was finalist at AMS level, and he won Stockholm.. an AMS event for some years... a true legend.
Gonzalez reached semi final at Olympics.. How often he did that at MS level? nobody knows.
Apart from his official MS titles Ivanisevic won also Stuttgart which was in the earlier 90ies comparable as a tournament with the MS tournaments (equal ranking points, even higher prize money) but only received the status some years later, just to lose it again. Who knows such details?

You see.. most things are forgotten.

Mayotte did win it in 1985.

Fish won Stockholm almost 10 years after it stopped being a Masters Series.

Oh with Ivanisevic (who won Stuttgart six years before it had MS status), now you are giving importance to ranking points?

Because thats one of the reasons AMS tournaments are on a higher category.


And all these players would exchange their biggest AMS success with the Gold Medal in 2 seconds. Who would doubt that?

I would.

Tennis Fool
10-18-2006, 11:30 PM
Your list is of course wrong.
Verkerk, Schuettler...
Even Kiefer/Haas are clearly ahead of them.
Someone as Henman is way ahead of Schuettler. No surprise that Henman got a Wild Card at Madrid. Schuettler wouldn't get one out of Germany.

:lol: Took you this long to post your own comment?

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 02:30 AM
Since a Gold Medal has a much higher meaning, there's nothing to think about. It has nothing to do with the difficulty to win such things.

One can dispute wether another medal has a higher meaning.
I would say, Silver is at least equal to an AMS title, because Silver means playing the final. And Silver stays in the history books cause Olympic history respects the first three. An AMS title is rather forgotten.
Although, Bronze doesn't have the big meaning.

Gold >> AMS title, that's obvious
Silver ~ AMS title
Bronze < AMS title

That's fair.

You missed my point and why was Willy able to get it. He asked me a question from a personal point of view, as I am not a professional player, these things differ among players.

It's like your view everybody wants to win Wimbledon and it's not the case. Noah and Muster wouldn't trade their RG titles for a Wimbledon crown and have said that, therefore it means different things to different people.

oz_boz
10-19-2006, 08:22 AM
OK, another take on this, Boris Franz Ecker, since the thread is still active.

1. You say that since Olympic Gold medallists are remembered by more people than AMS winners, they have accomplished more. Which are the people you refer to? Common people or knowledgeable tennis experts? And should fame be a factor in this case? A majority of common people would probably say that Federer is the GOAT, since memory is often short in that type of polls. Would that make Federer the greatest in history just because most people say so?

2. The obvious thing that there are 36 AMS tournies per Olympic has something to do with that the champs are more easily remembered, doesn't it? And I don't think that fact itself makes AMS titles less valuable. As some have already pointed out, there are AMS titles that have far more tradition than the Olympics in tennis and are valued highly by a huge number of players: MC, Rome, Miami.

3. There were good players parttaking in the last Olympics but a less known guy won it. You can say that contributes to the fact that Massu's achievement should be highly regarded, some people say that the fact that he won it is due to that few of the top players actually made a real effort to win, since they don't value Olympic gold that high.

At least try to understand that this is a matter of opinion and open for debate. Your opinion is no better than WillyCanas, GWH's or mine for that matter. You haven't proved anything or ended the discussion with any of your arguments.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-19-2006, 12:24 PM
Oh with Ivanisevic (who won Stuttgart six years before it had MS status), now you are giving importance to ranking points?


Only an example, why ranking points are no deciding factor, because it's another detail that's easily forgotten.

Or do you think, Daviscup and Olympics mean nothing in tennis because no ranking points?
Were you one of the guys who thought Vilas would be the real no 1 in 77? He didn't get the ranking points for French Open and such things.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-19-2006, 01:19 PM
At least try to understand that this is a matter of opinion and open for debate. Your opinion is no better than WillyCanas, GWH's or mine for that matter. You haven't proved anything or ended the discussion with any of your arguments.

With your arguments you can also state that it's a matter of opinion wether the China Open or Wimbledon is more important, because Xin Han's biggest wish is to win the China Open.

I already showed that no-one remembers the details of AMS nor the winners.
Answer: oh, there are too much...

Sorry, what else do you want?

Boris Franz Ecker
10-19-2006, 01:21 PM
It's like your view everybody wants to win Wimbledon and it's not the case. Noah and Muster wouldn't trade their RG titles for a Wimbledon crown and have said that, therefore it means different things to different people.

Never wrote that.
I wrote that Wimbledon is the most important tournament. And that is not my 'opinion', that's accepted knowledge.

Btw... Muster is a great example in this case. What did he at Wimbledon?


Has anyone a single example of a player who said that he would prefer an AMS title of Olympic Gold Medal?
No? no surprise.

oz_boz
10-19-2006, 01:38 PM
With your arguments you can also state that it's a matter of opinion wether the China Open or Wimbledon is more important, because Xin Han's biggest wish is to win the China Open.
Both of us use that kind of argument, but we use it to back up different opinions.

I already showed that no-one remembers the details of AMS nor the winners. Answer: oh, there are too much...
That and tradition, but you don't seem to want to take either into account.

Sorry, what else do you want?
For you to acknowledge that the whole importance thing is up for debate. It ought not be so hard for you. But I understand it must be when you just state that valid arguments from me and others have nothing to do with the question at hand (tradition and ranking points e.g.)

Boris Franz Ecker
10-19-2006, 02:11 PM
Both of us use that kind of argument, but we use it to back up different opinions.


That and tradition, but you don't seem to want to take either into account.


For you to acknowledge that the whole importance thing is up for debate. It ought not be so hard for you. But I understand it must be when you just state that valid arguments from me and others have nothing to do with the question at hand (tradition and ranking points e.g.)

Olympics are not a regular tour event. I don't get what ranking points should show.
To repeat...:
Davis Cup? Counts nothing in tennis, no ranking points? Zero importance?
Masters until 90? Counts nothing?
I can only repeat... there were no ranking points for Olympics until 04.
Just forget this ranking points thing.
2 AMS titles and China Open.. counts more than a Grand Slam-Title because of more ranking points?
Australian Open until the mid-80ies? Kriek won them twice and never finished in Top 10. Where's the tradition when this tournament did nearly count anything in the ranking system 20 years ago?
Sorry, forget this ranking points thing.

Tradition.
I already wrote and just to repeat:
Some of AMS tournament have great tradition.. some of them have nearly zero tradition.
Madrid, Indian Wells, Key Biscayne, Paris Bercy, 4 out of 9 with a short history.
Olympic tennis is there since 1896. Try to top that.


That argument with China Open...
I'm sure as you that media prefers to write about an Olympic Champion, but how to proof that?
I've already linked articles about Mecir's biggest success.

Imagine the situation.
Massu wins Canadian Open and in 5 years someone writes about Massu.
What would he rather write?
"Former Olympic Champion Massu..."
or
"Former Canadian Open Champion Massu..."

In 192 out of 191 countries of the World, Olympic Champion without discussion.
If someone writes about Mecir, he's the former Olympic Champion in every case. I didn't even know - as most of you - that he won the Hamburg, Key Biscayne and such things. It's never mentioned. Detail knowledge.
I asked already for what Canas will be remembered.. no one answered because no one really thinks that anybody remembers him for winning a tournament in Canada.
Be honest.

How to proof that the Gold Medal has a higher value?
It's so obvious.

Hendu
10-19-2006, 04:16 PM
Olympics are not a regular tour event. I don't get what ranking points should show.
To repeat...:
Davis Cup? Counts nothing in tennis, no ranking points? Zero importance?
Masters until 90? Counts nothing?
I can only repeat... there were no ranking points for Olympics until 04.
Just forget this ranking points thing.
2 AMS titles and China Open.. counts more than a Grand Slam-Title because of more ranking points?
Australian Open until the mid-80ies? Kriek won them twice and never finished in Top 10. Where's the tradition when this tournament did nearly count anything in the ranking system 20 years ago?
Sorry, forget this ranking points thing.

All these are extracts from different articles.

"Medals and tour points will be up for grabs in the Sydney 2000 Olympics men's tennis under a new deal which could extend to the women's event." (...)
"ITF president Francesco Ricci Bitti said: "This agreement is a major breakthrough for Olympic tennis and highlights that the Olympic tennis event has an important position on the tennis calendar."
"The gold medal will earn a player 80 points - 20 less than allocated for winning a Tennis Master Series tournament. Silver wins 56 points and bronze 41."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sport/tennis/601868.stm

"As part of an effort to attract the top tennis players to the Olympics, ranking points are likely to be offered for victories, the president of the International Tennis Federation said Saturday.
The women players have supported the Olympics wholeheartedly and in the 1996 games, "only two or three of the men you might want to play" didn't enter, Brian Tobin said. He mentioned Pete Sampras and Boris Becker.
"If players are not in their own mind convinced that an Olympic gold medal is a big deal, then that's their decision," he said during a news conference.
"But we have tried to take every opportunity to make it easier for the players," Tobin added."

"I don't think that ranking points themselves are going to attract Pete Sampras, for example, to play in the Olympics. But I think it's fair for all the other players who perhaps give up a tournament or two to play in the Olympics, or Davis Cup, that they don't suffer at the hands of other players who are winning points somewhere else," he said.

"The Olympics are important to giving tennis a wider audience, and also bringing in revenue to help develop the sport, he added."

"The recent surveys we have done are very encouraging," Tobin said. "All of the players said that representing their country and winning a gold medal is very appealing to them."

:D

http://www.caller2.com/autoconv/sportsworld99/sportsworld27.html


"These approaches have been noted since the first games after the 1988 big return and present a glitch in the games participation. In a Shakespearean way, this problem can be labeled: Olympic tennis; is it or is it not worth the effort? .The top tennis pros are split on whether the Olympics is worth playing.. (Olympic Tennis: Not Worth the Trouble) What are the decisions that some of the big starts made about the 2000 Olympics? .Gustavo Kuerten, Monika Seles, Lindsay Davenport, and the Williams sisters look forward to it enthusiastically but opting to skip the Olympics are many of tennis other big stars, including Pete Sampras, Martina Hingis, Anna Kournikova, Mary Pierce, and rising star Jan-Michael Gambill.. (Olympic tennis: Not worth the trouble)"
(...)
"One of the biggest reasons of this problem is the personal gain issue, which is very important for the millionaire athletes. Since the 1988 return, income has been a high fence that kept players out of the Olympics. .Tennis players, in a particular way, were to be unique: they would be sacrificing substantial income elsewhere simply for the honors of taking part.. (Olympic feature) Unlike the other Olympic sports, tennis is a professional competition environment. According to Higdon, . .Tennis is the only sport where the players come strictly from the professional ranks."
(...)
"Ranking points are indicators of every player.s level of success. These ranking points that players earn for every match they win, determine their incomes. Big sporting goods companies choose the highest ranked players to use for advertisement of their products. The Olympic medallists did not earn ranking points until the 2000 Sydney games when things changed. .Top male players didn.t want to further cram a hectic summer schedule with a 10 event offering neither prize money nor ranking points.. (Engquist 14) The authorities felt that some changes were needed this year in order to draw the attention of the players."

http://www2.uic.edu/~slluri1/slluri1-p_a/olyten.html



Tradition.
I already wrote and just to repeat:
Some of AMS tournament have great tradition.. some of them have nearly zero tradition.
Madrid, Indian Wells, Key Biscayne, Paris Bercy, 4 out of 9 with a short history.
Olympic tennis is there since 1896. Try to top that.

yeah, right. :rolleyes:

These are the winners of the Masters Series with "nearly zero" tradition.

Indian Wells winners:

2006 Roger Federer
2005 Roger Federer
2004 Roger Federer
2003 Lleyton Hewitt
2002 Lleyton Hewitt
2001 Andre Agassi
2000 Alex Corretja
1999 Mark Philippoussis
1998 Marcelo Rios
1997 Michael Chang
1996 Michael Chang
1995 Pete Sampras
1994 Pete Sampras
1993 Jim Courier
1992 Michael Chang
1991 Jim Courier
1990 Stefan Edberg
1989 Miloslav Mecir
1988 Boris Becker
1987 Boris Becker

Key Biscayne winners:

2006 Roger Federer
2005 Roger Federer
2004 Andy Roddick
2003 Andre Agassi
2002 Andre Agassi
2001 Andre Agassi
2000 Pete Sampras
1999 Richard Krajicek
1998 Marcelo Rios
1997 Thomas Muster
1996 Andre Agassi
1995 Andre Agassi
1994 Pete Sampras
1993 Pete Sampras
1992 Michael Chang
1991 Jim Courier
1990 Andre Agassi
1989 Ivan Lendl
1988 Mats Wilander
1987 Miloslav Mecir
1986 Ivan Lendl
1985 Tim Mayotte

Paris Bercy winners:

2005 Tomas Berdych
2004 Marat Safin
2003 Tim Henman
2002 Marat Safin
2001 Sebastien Grosjean
2000 Marat Safin
1999 Andre Agassi
1998 Greg Rusedski
1997 Pete Sampras
1996 Thomas Enqvist
1995 Pete Sampras
1994 Andre Agassi
1993 Goran Ivanisevic
1992 Boris Becker
1991 Guy Forget
1990 Stefan Edberg
1989 Boris Becker
1988 Amos Mansdorf
1987 Tim Mayotte
1986 Boris Becker

Madrid AMS winners:

2005 Rafael Nadal
2004 Marat Safin
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero
2002 Andre Agassi



That argument with China Open...
I'm sure as you that media prefers to write about an Olympic Champion, but how to proof that?
I've already linked articles about Mecir's biggest success.

Imagine the situation.
Massu wins Canadian Open and in 5 years someone writes about Massu.
What would he rather write?
"Former Olympic Champion Massu..."
or
"Former Canadian Open Champion Massu..."

In 192 out of 191 countries of the World, Olympic Champion without discussion.
If someone writes about Mecir, he's the former Olympic Champion in every case. I didn't even know - as most of you - that he won the Hamburg, Key Biscayne and such things. It's never mentioned. Detail knowledge.
I asked already for what Canas will be remembered.. no one answered because no one really thinks that anybody remembers him for winning a tournament in Canada.
Be honest.

How to proof that the Gold Medal has a higher value?
It's so obvious.

Historically many players haven't considered the Olympics an important tournament in the tennis calendar.

Olympics are the most important events for many sports, and winning a medal has a value per se. No matter what the sport is. And the recognitions come from there, not from the tennis accomplishment.

The Olympics don't have the prestige and importance of the other tournaments (GS, MS) to judge the career of a player.

For the regular sports fan, the Olympics are bigger than anything. But they are not aware of the history of Olympics in tennis, the attitude of players toward that tournament and the category they have in ranking points awarded.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-19-2006, 11:42 PM
...


The Olympics don't have the prestige and importance of the other tournaments (GS, MS) to judge the career of a player.

...

GS is OK, MS is simply nonsense.

Ranking points already in 2000? surprise but doesn't change anything.
In your text there are some wrong and misleading informations, I don't want to go into details.

At the end it's irrelevant.

We could write it like that:
Massu is Olympic Champion. He has a place in the history of the sport even if he retires today.
Multiple AMS players and long-year top ten players as Coria may have a place and will be remembered for some years.
Long-year top ten players who've won a lot of minor titles may have a place.
A one-time AMS winner who's done nothing else has no place and is forgotten two weeks after he's retired.
This is the only realistic scenario.
Yes... Massu will stay in the books.. even he was never as good as Coria... that's the same thing with Gaudio. Both were lucky one-hit-wonders.
Everything else is wishful thinking. Canadian Open.. Italian Open.. Miami... nice, but nothing to be mentioned in ten years. Sad as it is.

And therefore, the Gold Medal needs to be valued more than one anonymous title.

I've to quit at this stage. What I wrote is the sad truth for some, but the only realistic point of view. No reason to repeat it over and over again.

Hendu
10-20-2006, 12:39 AM
GS is OK, MS is simply nonsense.

Ranking points already in 2000? surprise but doesn't change anything.
In your text there are some wrong and misleading informations, I don't want to go into details.

At the end it's irrelevant.

We could write it like that:
Massu is Olympic Champion. He has a place in the history of the sport even if he retires today.
Multiple AMS players and long-year top ten players as Coria may have a place and will be remembered for some years.
Long-year top ten players who've won a lot of minor titles may have a place.
A one-time AMS winner who's done nothing else has no place and is forgotten two weeks after he's retired.
This is the only realistic scenario.
Yes... Massu will stay in the books.. even he was never as good as Coria... that's the same thing with Gaudio. Both were lucky one-hit-wonders.
Everything else is wishful thinking. Canadian Open.. Italian Open.. Miami... nice, but nothing to be mentioned in ten years. Sad as it is.

And therefore, the Gold Medal needs to be valued more than one anonymous title.

I've to quit at this stage. What I wrote is the sad truth for some, but the only realistic point of view. No reason to repeat it over and over again.

I agree to put an end to this.

But I still don't share your opinion on the Olympic and AMS titles.

Tennis Fool
10-20-2006, 01:07 AM
I just want to add that the Olympic tennis has a history before 1988--it went on a 64 year hiatus after 1924.

Here are the pre-Open list of winners on both the men's and women's sides:

PARIS 1924:

Men's

Gold - Vincent Richards, United States (HOF 1959)
Silver - Henri Cochet, France (HOF 1978, 4F, 2W, 2US)
Bronze - Umberto Luigi de Morpurgo, Italy


ANTWERP 1920:

Gold - Louis Raymond, South Africa
Silver - Ichiya Kumagae, Japan
Bronze - Charles Winslow, South Africa


STOCKHOLM 1912:
(Indoor Courts)

Gold - Andre Gobert, France
Silver - Charles Dixon, Great Britain
Bronze - Anthony Wilding, New Zealand (HOF 1978, 2A, 4W)


STOCKHOLM 1912:

Gold - Charles Winslow, South Africa
Silver - Harold Kitson, South Africa
Bronze - Oscar Kreuzer, West Germany


LONDON 1908
(Indoor Courts)

Gold - Arthur Gore, Great Britain (HOF 2006, 3W)
Silver - George Caridia, Great Britain
Bronze - Josiah Ritchie, Great Britain


LONDON 1908:

Gold - Josiah Ritchie, Great Britain
Silver - Otto Froitzheim, West Germany
Bronze - Wilberforce Vaughan Eaves, Great Britain


ATHENS 1906:

Gold - Max Decugis, France
Silver - Maurice Germot, France
Bronze - Zdenek "Jansky" Zemia, Bohemia


ST. LOUIS 1904:

Gold - Beals Wright, United States (HOF 1956, 1US)
Silver - Robert LeRoy, United States
Bronze - Alonzo Bell, United States
Bronze - Edgar Leonard, United States


PARIS 1900:

Gold - Hugh "Laurie" Doherty, Great Britain (HOF 1980, 8W, 1US)
Silver - Harold Mahony, Great Britain/Ireland
Bronze - Reginald Doherty, Great Britain (HOF 1980, 4W, 2US)
Bronze - A.B.J. Norris, Great Britain (HOF 1956, 2US)


ATHENS 1896:

Gold - John Pius Boland, Great Britain/Ireland
Silver - Dionysios Kasdaglis, Egypt
Bronze - Momcsillo Topavicza, Hungary
Bronze - K. Paspatos, Greece

Women's

PARIS 1924:

Gold - Helen Wills, United States (HOF 1969, 3FO, 3W, 3US)
Silver - Julie "Didi" Vlasto, France
Bronze - Kathleen "Kitty" McKane, Great Britain (HOF 1978, 2W)


ANTWERP 1920:

Gold - Suzanne Lenglen, France (HOF 1978; 2FO; 5W)
Silver - E. Dorothy Holman, Great Britain
Bronze - Kathleen "Kitty" McKane, Great Britain (HOF 1978, 2W)


STOCKHOLM 1912:
(Indoor Courts)

Gold - Edith Hannam, Great Britain
Silver - Thora Gerda Sophy Castenschiold, Denmark
Bronze - Mabel Parton, Great Britain


STOCKHOLM 1912:

Gold - Marguerite Broquedis, France
Silver - Dora Koring, Germany
Bronze - Molla Bjurstedt, Norway (HOF 1958, 6US)


LONDON 1908:
(Indoor Courts)

Gold - Gwendoline Eastlake-Smith, Great Britain
Silver - Angela Greene, Great Britain
Bronze - Martha Adlerstrahle, Sweden


LONDON 1908:

Gold - Dorothea Chambers, Great Britain (HOF 1961, 7W)
Silver - Dorothy Boothby, Great Britain
Bronze - Joan Winch, Great Britain


ATHENS 1906:

Gold - Esmee Simiriotou, Greece
Silver - Sophia Marinou, Greece
Bronze - Euphrosine Paspati, Greece


ST. LOUIS 1904:

Not Held


PARIS 1900:

Gold - Charlotte Cooper, Great Britain
Silver - Helene Prevost, France
Bronze - Marion Jones, United States


1896:

Not Held

HOF: Hall of Fame
F: French Open
A: Australian Open
W: Wimbledon
US: US Open

oz_boz
10-20-2006, 08:56 AM
OK, I end the argument too:

Achievements and fame are different things. Massu may be remembered BY MORE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE TENNIS EXPERT CIRCLE in the history of the sport for his Gold medal but that doesn't mean he achieved more as a player than e.g. Coria, for all the reasons given (not every player cares about winning Ol. Gold because of the lesser significance of the event wrt tennis, tradition etc etc). If fame was the decider for achievements, McEnroe would have achieved far more than Lendl, which everyone with a certain knowledge of the sport knows isn't true at all.

So BFE, your opinion isn't the only realistic one.

Period.

Tennis Fool
10-22-2006, 05:00 PM
Added Madrid Masters to Roger's total and rankings.

Tennis Fool
10-30-2006, 02:16 AM
Another week, another title for Federer. Also of note is Arnaud Clement's nice rise up 9 points to 41. :)

Tennis Fool
01-13-2007, 03:47 AM
Here we go with a new year. Will the Aussie Open bring a change to the stats?

shonami slam
01-25-2007, 01:54 PM
so it's between Haas and Gonzo to reach the list based on one good performance and a complete career that was more or less "nice".
this list is horribly dull in comparsion with the women's side of things IMO.

Golfnduck
01-25-2007, 02:01 PM
Good list Tennis Fool :yeah:

chloe
01-25-2007, 05:17 PM
I like the list

sylacauga
01-25-2007, 05:46 PM
1. Roger FEDERER, 25. 9 Slams, 12 Masters, 2 Master Cups, 21 other singles. 7 doubles. #1 for 157 weeks. Year end #1: 2004-2006. Current rank: 1


Fed has 3 Masters Cups now.

Thanks for taking the time to compile the list. It was an interesting read.:)

El Legenda
01-25-2007, 05:55 PM
:lol:

verkerk? :haha:

Tennis Fool
01-25-2007, 11:55 PM
so it's between Haas and Gonzo to reach the list based on one good performance and a complete career that was more or less "nice". Yes, either would rate somewhere in the teens. List would shift if Guga makes a credible comeback (ie more than 1 day of play per season). Jonas would get bumped.

this list is horribly dull in comparsion with the women's side of things IMO.

Blame it on the Baby Balls :rolleyes:

Tennis Fool
01-29-2007, 05:21 AM
AO update: Gonzo added, #15. Jonas falls from the list.

Tennis Fool
02-04-2007, 07:28 PM
Added a title for Marcos.

stebs
02-04-2007, 07:43 PM
The list has some problems, I mean no disrespect as it looks like you worked hard on it but I think this is a fairly narrow minded way of looking at things. It's much better to allocate points for each acheivement. You can still stagger the points of course but actually basing your rankings on the scale of aceivement, one after another doesn't work.

It throws up oddballs. Is Verkerk or Schuettler more accomplished than Henman? Of course not, your list should show that by giving points points for each thing and then adding them together. It is a far better way of doing things and will give less anomolies.

Purple Rainbow
02-04-2007, 08:28 PM
Hey TF, I like your initiative! I've tried doing the same thing, posted a thread in the statistics forum, http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043
here's the top 20 according to my rankings.



1) Federer, Roger.............2711
2) Hewitt, Lleyton.............1722
3) Roddick, Andy.............1420
4) Kuerten, Gustavo.........1333
5) Safin, Marat................1264
6) Moya, Carlos...............1195
7) Ferrero, Juan Carlos.....1113
8) Nadal, Rafael..............875
9) Nalbandian, David........852
10) Haas, Tommy..............789

11) Grosjean, Sebastian.....774
12) Philippoussis, Mark.......732
13) Coria, Guillermo...........713
14) Rusedski, Greg............642
15) Björkman, Jonas..........633
16) Johansson, Thomas.....556
17) Robredo, Tommy.........540
18) Gonzalez, Fernando.....533
19) Kiefer, Nicolas.............517
20) Santoro, Fabrice..........516

Gaston Gaudio is the only slam holder not to make it to the top 20, being ranked # 24.

Tennis Fool
02-04-2007, 10:56 PM
The list has some problems, I mean no disrespect as it looks like you worked hard on it but I think this is a fairly narrow minded way of looking at things. It's much better to allocate points for each acheivement. You can still stagger the points of course but actually basing your rankings on the scale of aceivement, one after another doesn't work.

It throws up oddballs. Is Verkerk or Schuettler more accomplished than Henman? Of course not, your list should show that by giving points points for each thing and then adding them together. It is a far better way of doing things and will give less anomolies.
Yes, I understand you, but giving points does not necessarily do away with prejudice as you subjectively give value to points. Henman never got to a Slam final for all of his accomplishments, thus why he is lower on the list.

BlakeorHenman
02-05-2007, 04:56 AM
Yeah... the list on the other thread is better.

CmonAussie
02-05-2007, 05:53 AM
Hey TF, I like your initiative! I've tried doing the same thing, posted a thread in the statistics forum, http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043
here's the top 20 according to my rankings.



1) Federer, Roger.............2711
2) Hewitt, Lleyton.............1722
3) Roddick, Andy.............1420
4) Kuerten, Gustavo.........1333
5) Safin, Marat................1264
6) Moya, Carlos...............1195
7) Ferrero, Juan Carlos.....1113
8) Nadal, Rafael..............875
9) Nalbandian, David........852
10) Haas, Tommy..............789

Gaston Gaudio is the only slam holder not to make it to the top 20, being ranked # 24.

The rankings from #3 to #8 don`t look right:eek:
Nadal is definitely ahead of Ferrero for instance;)

#3 Kuerten
#4 Nadal
#5 Safin
#6 Roddick
#7 Moya
#8 Ferrero

I think you`ll find that most people would agree with me on this;)

stebs
02-05-2007, 08:15 AM
Yes, I understand you, but giving points does not necessarily do away with prejudice as you subjectively give value to points. Henman never got to a Slam final for all of his accomplishments, thus why he is lower on the list.

Of course it will always be subjective but you can still give big results a much greater value but not make them definitive.

stebs
02-05-2007, 08:16 AM
The rankings from #3 to #8 don`t look right:eek:
Nadal is definitely ahead of Ferrero for instance;)

#3 Kuerten
#4 Nadal
#5 Safin
#6 Roddick
#7 Moya
#8 Ferrero

I think you`ll find that most people would agree with me on this;)

Nadal ahead of Safin is a bit iffy. I'd say those two are pretty much level.

Tennis Fool
02-05-2007, 12:46 PM
Yeah... the list on the other thread is better.
Thanks :rolleyes:

Sjengster
02-05-2007, 02:20 PM
No need to roll your eyes at superior reasoning, TF. Verkerk and Clement will never be remembered as having more accomplished careers overall than Henman.

Tennis Fool
02-05-2007, 04:01 PM
No need to roll your eyes at superior reasoning, TF.
Why would I roll my eyes at my own thread? :p Look, anyone who comes aboard with "the other [copy] thread is better" without anything else to add is singled out for special treatment.

Verkerk and Clement will never be remembered as having more accomplished careers overall than Henman.
But he, like you, are Henman fans, so I understand your ire. Still, Verkerk & Clement will be remembered for getting to those Slam finals and Henman for being a perennial underachiever.


One other thing to add to the naysayers: Yes, AnnaK has a nice list, I won't begrudge him that. Still, what's a good thread if all the posts are of the "great list!" variety. Controversy is more fun. Plus, if I did add a point system a Slam final would be rated so high that Tim would still fall where he does.

I'm at work, Stebs and others, so I'll get back to your comments later :)

Burrow
02-05-2007, 05:03 PM
verkerk could have done so much in his career :( Henman should be alot higher than that, top 10 player for several years. 6 semi finals in grand slam and a masters. with atp titles on top. hmm so verkerk is ahead of him because of a slam final?

stebs
02-05-2007, 06:08 PM
But he, like you, are Henman fans, so I understand your ire. Still, Verkerk & Clement will be remembered for getting to those Slam finals and Henman for being a perennial underachiever.


One other thing to add to the naysayers: Yes, AnnaK has a nice list, I won't begrudge him that. Still, what's a good thread if all the posts are of the "great list!" variety. Controversy is more fun. Plus, if I did add a point system a Slam final would be rated so high that Tim would still fall where he does.


Disagree. Six GS Semi-Finals along with some QF's and good results elsewhere is a far better acconmplishment than one GS final with nothing else acheived.

Whistleway
02-05-2007, 09:32 PM
Disagree. Six GS Semi-Finals along with some QF's and good results elsewhere is a far better acconmplishment than one GS final with nothing else acheived.

Really?

Ask Henman if "he would trade all these six GS semi-finals for a one shot at winning Wimby in the finals?"

Chances are he would say 'yes'. Finals give you a shot at the trophy. Whether he wins or not, anyone would love to have a shot at it.

And, losing at SF gives you NOTHING.

BlakeorHenman
02-05-2007, 10:22 PM
He might, but that doesn't mean anything. To most knowledgable tennis fans, Henman will always be considered more accomplished. You're not gonna win this one, why try?

GlennMirnyi
02-05-2007, 10:29 PM
Disagree. Six GS Semi-Finals along with some QF's and good results elsewhere is a far better acconmplishment than one GS final with nothing else acheived.

I agree. Not many players have this kind of consistency. Henman should be more accomplished than lucky strikers that got only to one final or something like that.

Tennis Fool
02-05-2007, 11:49 PM
Hey TF, I like your initiative! I've tried doing the same thing, posted a thread in the statistics forum, http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043
here's the top 20 according to my rankings.



1) Federer, Roger.............2711
2) Hewitt, Lleyton.............1722
3) Roddick, Andy.............1420
4) Kuerten, Gustavo.........1333
5) Safin, Marat................1264
6) Moya, Carlos...............1195
7) Ferrero, Juan Carlos.....1113
8) Nadal, Rafael..............875
9) Nalbandian, David........852
10) Haas, Tommy..............789

11) Grosjean, Sebastian.....774
12) Philippoussis, Mark.......732
13) Coria, Guillermo...........713
14) Rusedski, Greg............642
15) Björkman, Jonas..........633
16) Johansson, Thomas.....556
17) Robredo, Tommy.........540
18) Gonzalez, Fernando.....533
19) Kiefer, Nicolas.............517
20) Santoro, Fabrice..........516

Gaston Gaudio is the only slam holder not to make it to the top 20, being ranked # 24.
Hey :wavey:

Thanks for your list. I see that with you, AnnaK and me the same names come up, just in a slightly different order.

Tennis Fool
02-05-2007, 11:54 PM
The rankings from #3 to #8 don`t look right:eek:
Nadal is definitely ahead of Ferrero for instance;)

#3 Kuerten
#4 Nadal
#5 Safin
#6 Roddick
#7 Moya
#8 Ferrero

I think you`ll find that most people would agree with me on this;)

Kuerten & Nadal would come after Safin, respectively ;)

Tennis Fool
02-05-2007, 11:56 PM
Of course it will always be subjective but you can still give big results a much greater value but not make them definitive.

But results on the greatest stages is what matters most...

Tennis Fool
02-06-2007, 12:01 AM
verkerk could have done so much in his career :( Henman should be alot higher than that, top 10 player for several years. 6 semi finals in grand slam and a masters. with atp titles on top. hmm so verkerk is ahead of him because of a slam final?
Who says Verkerk is done? I hope he isn't. It was fun around here with Eggy making fun of him. Good times.

Again, I ask, where's Henman's final?

Really?

Ask Henman if "he would trade all these six GS semi-finals for a one shot at winning Wimby in the finals?"

Chances are he would say 'yes'. Finals give you a shot at the trophy. Whether he wins or not, anyone would love to have a shot at it.

And, losing at SF gives you NOTHING.
I agree here.

He might, but that doesn't mean anything. To most knowledgable tennis fans, Henman will always be considered more accomplished. You're not gonna win this one, why try?
Of course, you know all. Henman will be known as an underachiever who gave his hill away to Andy Murray. BTW, if Guga is real in his comeback, Henman will fall off the list.

drf716
02-06-2007, 12:39 AM
i thinkit's fair to use grand slam titles as basis toconsider a player succesful because it's difficult to win 7 straight matches. plus it is grand! and slam!

Tennis Fool
03-19-2007, 11:54 PM
Only new item to report is Nadal's 7th shield. If only Federer could lose a few more titles, Nadal would have a crack at No. 1 and the No. 2 title on my list.

Just noticing the players who have seen extraordinary heights at slams only now to wallow in mediocrity for one reason or another:
Gaston
Tojo
Flip
Guille
Rusedski
Schuettler
& Verkerk.

What's going on? Are these guys done or just need a time to turnaround their games/recover from injuries?

Edit: Of course all of these guys except Guille are over 27, so maybe just too much wear and tear from the tour.

Tennis Fool
04-09-2007, 03:20 AM
With Rusedski's retirement, Tommy Haas makes the list at No. 20.

Also, note the Revenge of the Face. Martin Verkerk has moved up 500 places in two months. He's almost back in the top 1000, lol.

leng jai
04-09-2007, 03:46 AM
Haas has 3 GS SF.

Tennis Fool
04-09-2007, 03:59 AM
You're right. He either sucks or does exceptionally well at the AO. :)