Johnny Groove's Top 69 Players Ever (Djokovic #21 of all time) - Page 75 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

View Poll Results: How accurate was I?

5/5- Almost 100% spot on, Mr. Groove. I may switch a few around here or there, but good work 62 18.02%
4/5- More or less. I disagree with a few, but not bad at all 146 42.44%
3/5- Hmmmm, I dunno. Some look a bit dicey, mate 49 14.24%
2/5- Are you nuts? Why is X player in Y position? You are completely dissing Z player! 19 5.52%
1/5- Are you high and or drunk? WTF?!?!?! 68 19.77%
Voters: 344. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

Old 09-28-2012, 09:42 AM   #1111
country flag Gagsquet
Banned!
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Paris
Age: 24
Posts: 6,128
Gagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond reputeGagsquet has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

too long to read. *skip post*
Gagsquet is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 09-28-2012, 09:48 AM   #1112
country flag Sanya
Registered User
 
Sanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 2,350
Sanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
Another note : I don't like when too much focus is made on "this player didn't win that tournament" ... although it was clear from everything he did in that period that it was really a mater of bad luck that he didn't achieve that because he had everything to do it.

People should be flexible and "expert" enough to realize those things imo.

Two examples :

- the constant "Borg didn't win the US Open" argument : some people defended him already then I will not insist, but clearly this argument is too much used, esp. in the comparison with Nadal (on the other side, Borg is clearly disadvantaged by the little importance given to indoor tennis in these rankings)

- the argument "Becker was a mug on clay because he didn't win a MAsters 1000 on clay (contrary to Edberg and Sampras) and didn't reach the FO final (contrary to Edberg)" : I mean people who watched tennis in the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s know that it was really a matter of bad luck and no Becker overall was a better claycourt player than Edberg and Sampras. He played 5 Masters 1000 finals on clay (Edberg 1) and 3 French Open semifinals (Edberg 1) !! He lost 8-6 in the final set the Monte-Carlo final 1995 to the clay beast which Tomas Muster was in that time ! Against Mancini in 1989 it was very tight. In Roland-Garros some people here said that if he had defeated Edberg in 1989 (and it was very very tight), he probably would have defeated Chang in the final, who was a good match-up for him ! And then what ? a few points more and Becker would have been a clay king ? that's bullshit : Becker was the same winning or not those few points, I don't accept the manichean arguments "it's black or white, not grey".
Still comparison mainly must be based on figures. Because you can go too far from reality. Personally I think that Rios, for example, was underachiever because of bad luck, he had everything to win all the Majors apart from Wimbledon for a few times and be at least in TOP-30 here.

On this level of historical "competition" one-two points > one-two wins > one-two titles decide almost everything in grading, IMO. A lot of players are extremely close.
__________________
Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 09:53 AM   #1113
country flag JediFed
Registered User
 
JediFed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio Texas
Age: 33
Posts: 4,878
JediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond reputeJediFed has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Roddick is better than Stan Smith - IMO, he should be number 45. He's the only player with 10+ GS semifinals not to appear on the list. Everyone else (save Roddick + Murray), have 4+ slams.
__________________
Federer - Emperor of the Slams, King of Hard, Lord of the Australian Open, Lord of Wimbledon.

Sunset of Age
She's MY Miss MTF
Sweet, Sassy, Sophisticated

"Love has nothing to do with what you're expecting to get, only what you're expecting to give - which is everything. What you receive in return varies, but that really has no connection with why you give. You give because you love and cannot help giving." - K. Hepburn.

Last edited by JediFed : 09-28-2012 at 10:04 AM.
JediFed is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 09:56 AM   #1114
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
Still comparison mainly must be based on figures. Because you can go too far from reality. Personally I think that Rios, for example, was underachiever because of bad luck, he had everything to win all the Majors apart from Wimbledon for a few times and be at least in TOP-30 here.

On this level of historical "competition" one-two points > one-two wins > one-two titles decide almost everything in grading, IMO. A lot of players are extremely close.
yes but there's a huge huge difference between being very near many times and "underachieving" : Rios only played one grand slam semifinal (he went to the final) and didn't lose to an all-time great, it was Korda !

Extending it to "he should have won multiple slams" is completely different from what I said about Borg, Becker and Connors who were very near many years in a row.

Rios and Nalbandian didn't have what was needed to win those, Borg, Becker and Connors very clearly had it for the ones who use their memories and brain and don't keep their eyes only on figures (and don't hate these players )
__________________
useless old guy
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 10:08 AM   #1115
country flag Sanya
Registered User
 
Sanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 2,350
Sanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
yes but there's a huge huge difference between being very near many times and "underachieving" : Rios only played one grand slam semifinal (he went to the final) and didn't lose to an all-time great, it was Korda !

Extending it to "he should have won multiple slams" is completely different from what I said about Borg, Becker and Connors who were very near many years in a row.
OK, and what you personally suggest in case with Becker, for example? Should we count his numerous attempts as almost-titles and put him higher due to this?

Actually I understand what you meant very well. But it can`t work here. Because in the end of the day such very doubtful list turns into... hell, even don`t know what to say exactly. The same Boris was close plenty of times, but he failed in all of them for a reason too. You can always look at these situations from different angles. You are very near to position "few close attempts" = "deserved to count". It is list of best of the best, attempts should be counted in 10th turn after more important criterias, IMO, and then you realise they don`t change much.
__________________
Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 10:10 AM   #1116
country flag ogbg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 847
ogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond reputeogbg has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
OK, and what you personally suggest in case with Becker, for example? Should we count his numerous attempts as almost-titles and put him higher due to this?

Actually I understand what you meant very well. But it can`t work here. Because in the end of the day such very doubtful list turns into... hell, even don`t know what to say exactly. The same Boris was close plenty of times, but he failed in all of them for a reason too. You can always look at these situations from different angles. You are very near to position "few close attempts" = "deserved to count". It is list of best of the best, attempts should be counted in 10th turn after more important criterias, IMO, and then you realise they don`t change much.
There is another list on here which assigns numerical values to various milestones (GS wins, finals, SF, etc..) but it's only since 1990 I believe. I quite like it - would be interesting to see it extended further back.
ogbg is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 10:16 AM   #1117
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
OK, and what you personally suggest in case with Becker, for example? Should we count his numerous attempts as almost-titles and put him higher due to this?

Actually I understand what you meant very well. But it can`t work here. Because in the end of the day such very doubtful list turns into... hell, even don`t know what to say exactly. The same Boris was close plenty of times, but he failed in all of them for a reason too. You can always look at these situations from different angles. You are very near to position "few close attempts" = "deserved to count". It is list of best of the best, attempts should be counted in 10th turn after more important criterias, IMO, and then you realise they don`t change much.
well I didn't mean "giving" them slams or whatever but mainly I meant stop reading "Becker was a claymug", "Borg was not good on hardcourts", even "not as good as Nadal" ... because these were just not true (and it's not only about "bad luck" or "missing something" : Nadal had far more opportunities to win a hardcourt slam than Borg for the reasons you know in Borg's case : Australian open not played, US Open played on other surfaces, Borg retiring early).

Some people who say that are just haters (or Nadaltards in Borg's case), then youngsters who didn't live these period just absorb these arguments (and usually they do that in regard of the modern conditions which are different),

and what I mostly meant was to give an information about that to youngsters.

After that, for Johnny's ranking, that's another point ... or well, it could moderate the "carreer blemishes" in those cases and for instance, have a role in doubtful cases like "Borg versus Nadal".

But mainly my post was not aimed at changing Johnny's list but rather to inform youngsters, esp. as some haters inevitably give these arguments.

The same about "Lendl could never have won on grass in whatever era" argument (common Lendl's haters' argument) which was also bullshit but which Action_Jackson and a few others had fairly countered before me.
__________________
useless old guy

Last edited by duong : 09-28-2012 at 10:28 AM.
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 10:41 AM   #1118
country flag Sanya
Registered User
 
Sanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 2,350
Sanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond reputeSanya has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

I don`t think you should even pay attention to such posts.

Speaking about Borg - wasn`t good on hard, yep. I wrote here to Johnny that I personally put Borg even higher than Sampras.
__________________
Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 10:47 AM   #1119
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
I don`t think you should even pay attention to such posts.

Speaking about Borg - wasn`t good on hard, yep. I wrote here to Johnny that I personally put Borg even higher than Sampras.
I also put Borg higher than Sampras for being more "multi-surface" and facing tougher competition imo, but I can understand that the opposite is more commonly accepted, esp. because of longevity which is a factor I give less importance than many people, esp. about Borg because in my eyes, the fact that he "just wanted to benefit more from life" mostly explains his retiring (but I'm not sure how he would have performed with the change of the rackets comparing to what you suggested in your posts which I remember now : I have in memory his poor come-backs but maybe I give them too much importance as for him like for Nadal without any "fire of motivation" nothing is left).

As for "not paying attention to such posts", some of them are made by knowledgeable people who just didn't like one player ... and as I said, my problem with them is that youngsters read and believe them. I just want to deliver an information, that's what I like doing in forums : receiving and giving infos.
__________________
useless old guy
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:22 AM   #1120
country flag UnderhandSmash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Age: 31
Posts: 53
UnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond reputeUnderhandSmash has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
I also put Borg higher than Sampras for being more "multi-surface" and facing tougher competition imo, but I can understand that the opposite is more commonly accepted, esp. because of longevity which is a factor I give less importance than many people, esp. about Borg because in my eyes, the fact that he "just wanted to benefit more from life" mostly explains his retiring (but I'm not sure how he would have performed with the change of the rackets comparing to what you suggested in your posts which I remember now : I have in memory his poor come-backs but maybe I give them too much importance as for him like for Nadal without any "fire of motivation" nothing is left).
I know a few things about Borg, I watched some of his matches on youtube, but you obviously know more. Where would you rank him? Would you put him above Laver or Federer? (as a Federer fan, I would consider that blasphemous )

One of the things that I think should have major importance in ranking these greats should be their ability to excel in different eras.

When were talking about the greatest tennis player of all time, we have to first think about what "tennis" is. In different eras there were different surfaces (even if they call them by the same name), different skills that were more valuable, and more suitable for that era, than others. This is one of the reasons why I consider Federer to be the undisputed GOAT. I think if he played in any era he would be considered as one of the greatest players, if not the greatest. He would have succeeded in the 90's, we all saw how good his serve volley was in the early 2000's, and how complete his offensive arsenal is. I believe he would have dominated if he played at the beginning of the open era. Back then tennis required a player to have a "feel" of the game, and there was more reliance on pure tennis skills than power and fitness. This era has more of an emphasis on defensive skills and fitness/strength/speed, but Federer, as of now, is number 1 at age 31. So that was my Federer is peRFection rant, I hope you enjoyed it .
UnderhandSmash is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:24 AM   #1121
country flag EliSter
Registered User
 
EliSter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: everywhere...
Age: 24
Posts: 5,836
EliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond reputeEliSter has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Why 55 ? Why not 50 or 60?
__________________
Quote:
To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.

BigJohn
EliSter is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:38 AM   #1122
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderhandSmash View Post
I know a few things about Borg, I watched some of his matches on youtube, but you obviously know more. Where would you rank him? Would you put him above Laver or Federer? (as a Federer fan, I would consider that blasphemous )
no I suggest it's possible to put him above Sampras but clearly not at the same level as Laver and Federer.

I also think that Laver's and Federer's major point (more than any numbers imo) is that their very complete technical arsenal would have put them high in any era, their physical abilities were also especially good for their time (I make this precision especially for Laver).

Borg and Sampras and Nadal and Gonzales all were more suited to one kind of surfaces, one kind of game, or even one kind of rackets (for instance if there had been more slow hardcourts in Sampras' time, I'm not sure people would still say that "Sampras was just too good for Agassi" ... I'm not a Sampras-hater at all but I'm a Sampras' greatness-doubter for sure ; on the other hand, I remember Laver saying that Sampras showed very good skills when he tried wooden rackets, not sure that Nadal could do that ). Rosewall can be said as maybe not enough "powerful" for a modern era.

Laver and Federer imo are both above the others ; choosing between them is very ambiguous, I was very surprised personally that Johnny Groove chose to put Fed above Laver only because of his win in Wimbledon this year, I don't think it really changes the comparison Fed could have been put above before, Laver could still be put above now, I just guess some players like that are too hard to separate, which is why in the end "not numeric" arguments like the ones I gave for Borg comparing to Nadal can make a difference.

By the way, about Fed's ability to adapt different eras, I think people who didn't watch his early years should watch them to realize how much his game has changed with time and that he was a true "fast-surface" player in that time : he always attracted to the net in that time, and the first tournament he won was on carpet (Taraflex in Milan). I agree that Fed was helped to win more slams by the homogenization of surfaces, but it's nothing comparing to Nadal and Djokovic, and people should not think because of recent times that Fed was not made to be a "fast-surface" player, he would have had other kinds of difficulties and oppositions in an era of faster surfaces, that's all.
__________________
useless old guy

Last edited by duong : 09-28-2012 at 11:52 AM.
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:48 AM   #1123
country flag Litotes
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 41
Posts: 29,858
Litotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond reputeLitotes has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by EliSter View Post
Why 55 ? Why not 50 or 60?
Most probably, he included those players he wanted on the list and counted them afterwards.
Litotes is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 12:12 AM   #1124
country flag piterpol
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 31
Posts: 36
piterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond reputepiterpol has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Hey johnny, Kramer 8°??? WTF!, kramer is overrated, kramer disliked Gonzales.

Look at this and change your perception

http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/PG_.htm

PANCHO GONZALEZ:GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER OF ALL TIME

Now with the U. S. Open over and fourteen slam titles under his belt on his "come-back" victory, Pete Sampras will undoubtedly be hailed more than ever as "arguably" the greatest tennis player of all time. Many previous doubters will now be convinced of Sam-pras’s unique place in tennis’ hallowed pantheon.

We submit, however, that there would be no "argument" whatsoever about whom the true winner of that ranking would be if we would but take a little effort to make sense of the exact meaning of this special honor: the greatest tennis player of all time. Heretofore we have been dazzled by the glitter of the slam (Australian, French, Wimbledon, U. S. Open) titles, because we have made a fetish of them without giving the matter a great deal of thought – incredible as it may seem for such ardent devotees of the game.

Whenever the name of Richard Pancho Gonzalez comes up in these discussions, he is summarily dismissed for the same incredibly obtuse argument reflected by former great tennis player, and Pancho nemesis, Jack Kramer, when he said, however well intentioned: "The tragedy of his greatness is you look up the records 25 years from now, they don’t show anything Gonzales really did, because he turned pro so early."

What Kramer (and all the sportswriters who echo him) is referring to is that Gonzalez turned professional in 1949 at age 21, making him ineligible to play in the slam tourna-ments, which were available only to amateurs. He was, thus, emasculated and banished from the top spot on the hierarchy of the greatest tennis players. In recent polls at the end of 1999 that tried to select the greatest tennis players of the twentieth century, Pancho was not even listed among the top twenty in some surveys.

So, we ask, what does winning slam titles have to do with measuring the greatness of

a tennis player? Amazing that sportswriters and historians of tennis have yet to ask and assess this most basic of questions in relation to our subject. To answer this simple but indispensable question, we should at least try to make a tiny bit of sense of the value of these mindless sacrosanct titles.

Anyone who is even a little conversant with tennis knows that "open tennis" began in 1968. That is, before then, only amateurs could play slam tournaments, like little, unsea-soned boys, while the professional tennis players, barred from these tournaments, could only compete in the professional circuits. And, as Bud Elsie said, ". . . there isn’t an ama-teur to be found who can beat any of the top pros." In short, there was virtually no com-petition between the amateurs playing the slam tournaments and the pros playing on the pro tours. It would seem obvious to conclude that the winners of slam titles before the open era were inferior players, while winning those titles, to the pros playing in the pro tours. Therefore, neither the slam titles nor the amateur players winning them should be given anywhere near the same value before 1968 that we have given them since then, the beginning of the open era.

It is pure idiocy, then, to consider those slam titles as a yardstick for measuring the greatness of a player throughout history as if there were no difference in the play and players before and after 1968. If the term "greatness" is to take on any kind of rational meaning, it should refer to the players’ ability on the court in relation to their competi-tion, and not confuse it with the specious glitter of the slam titles, per se, especially if a difference is to be made between those who won them before 1968 and those after.

What is clearly in order (and has been for years) is the re-writing of tennis history so as to give the true owner of the title "The Greatest Tennis Player of All Time" his rightful due. Why it has not been done until now defies all comprehension.

Our concern here, then, is the question of greatness of play and not the misunderstand-ing and distortion of the value of amateur "slam" titles. We can begin by assessing the play of Roy Emerson, king of amateurs, who won 12 slam titles before 1968 but was a wholesale flop on the professional level, where he failed to win even one championship and was crushed by Gonzalez when they met on the pro tour. Yet when Sampras was challenging Emerson’s twelve (amateur) titles, much was made of the fact that Sampras, as a pro, had the chance of tying, and later breaking, that record of slam titles, as if Emer-son’s titles were the equal of those Sampras had won.

In the case of Rod Laver, often listed among the best, if not the greatest, player of all time, his reputation derives in great part from his having won two grand slams (all four titles won in the same year). When he won his first in 1962, Laver was still an amateur. His play was that of an amateur, as his play against his first pro opponent, Lew Hoad, emphatically showed the following year when Laver turned pro.

Cas Fish describes the debacle in Tennis Today: "Contracted to play Hoad 13 best-of-five set matches, Laver won the first set of the first match, but was unable to win another. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to work out that this meant that Hoad won 39 con-secutive sets from Laver. . . . Hoad at that time had virtually retired from the game, was suffering with a chronically bad back, and had had only three weeks to practice before the match. . . . It rather makes nonsense of Laver’s first grand slam."

Dave Anderson adds another brush stroke to the thoroughness of Laver’s introduction to the pro tour, talking about how Laver reacted after being trounced by Ken Rosewall in his next match: "Laver was thrashed [by] and rated Hoad as ‘the best I’ve ever played against.’ The next day he lost to Rosewall. ‘I thought Lew was good, Laver said . . ., ‘but Kenny is twice as good as Lew. . . . If I’m going to beat [Rosewall] consistently, I’ve got to learn how to play tennis all over again.’"

These impressions give the necessary perspective to Laver’s first "grand slam": the excellent play of an amateur, who cannot give a top pro a decent game. Laver himself says he needs "to learn how to play tennis all over again" if he hopes to compete with the pros. As good as Laver was during his relatively short professional run, he was not in any strict sense dominant from 1963 to 1969, the latter year when he won his only pro-fessional grand slam and also the last year he ever won a singles slam title, at age 31. Perhaps his major claim to fame is the two grand slams no one else has been able to match. But as we have seen, his first grand slam (in amateur competition) should not be given nearly the same weight as the one he won as a pro.

We have also talked about Sampras’ 14 professional slam titles. They were won sporadically over the course of several years. He was relatively dominant for a few years but was blanked completely for two years (2000-2002) at age 29 and has never won on clay (French Open). For his latest victorious tournament, the 2002 U. S. Open, he was seeded No. 17 in a desperate attempt at a come-back. Many sportswriters were writing him off as a washed-up former champ. With increasing odds it may well have been his last hurrah.

On the other hand, Pancho Gonzalez was, as Bud Elsie says, ". . . absolute and merci-less ruler of the tennis world. Gonzalez dominates tennis as probably no other athlete does in any other sport." That dominance was not for a few sporadic tournaments but for an unbroken span of twelve years (1951-62)!! Unlike Sampras he also won on clay. And was still winning major tournaments, beating the top pros into his 40s!

Richard Pancho Gonzalez (1928-95) did not have coming up the advantages of his contemporaries or predecessors. [A detailed biography falls beyond the scope of the pre-sent discussion.] With little competition in relatively insignificant amateur venues and a two-year interruption for service in the Navy (1945-46), Pancho was a diamond in the rough when he got the opportunity to compete in important tournaments after his service. Even with so little formal instruction and preparation after leaving the Navy, however, he was already beating such world-class players as Jaroslav Drobny, Frank Parker, and Bob Falkenburg in 1947, which earned him a No. 17 national ranking and a No. 8 seeding for the 1948 U. S. Championships (still an amateur slam tournament).

Because Jack Kramer (winner of the 1947 U. S. Championships) had turned pro and the top-ranked amateur, Ted Schroeder, did not compete in the 1948 U. S. Champion-ships, Pancho was seen as a hallow champion when he won the title. But Gonzalez made believers of the doubters when he defended his title in 1949, beating the highly touted Schroeder himself.

After his shocking victory over Schroeder, Gonzalez was lured by the enticing emolu-ments of the pro tour, the kind he had never known before or dreamed of in his life. His introductory tour in 1950 proved a rude awakening for him, however, when he was em-barrassed by Jack Kramer (winner of the U. S. Championships in ‘46’ and ’47 and Wim-bledon ’47 and considered the greatest player of his time), who walloped him 96-27 in 103 matches.

Because of his dominance between 1946-53, a span of eight years, Kramer has been considered one of the greatest players of all time, if not the greatest. However, this span is grossly overstated and misleading, perhaps mainly due to Kramer adherents among the sportswriters and Kramer himself, notorious self-promoter.

Even while Kramer was still considered King of the Court by the sportswriters and the public in 1951, the year after Gonzalez’s disastrous loss to Kramer on his maiden pro tour, Gonzalez was not only beating Kramer regularly but dominating him. Hence, though Kramer (as well as sportswriters) may speak of Gonzalez’s reign as King of the Court not beginning till 1954, Gonzalez consistently trounced Kramer from 1951 onward. So, though sportswriters insist on crediting Kramer as King of the Court from 1946-53, the facts show otherwise. In the 1953 World’s Professional Tennis Championships, presented by Jack March, he says: "Vastly improved since losing a cross-country exhi-bition tour to Jack Kramer three years ago, Gonzales didn’t mature tennis-wise until 1952, although he beat Kramer for the World Indoor title as far back as 1951, and has had the ‘Indian sign’ on Kramer ever since – having defeated Jack each time during the past three years."

Gonzalez himself confirms the facts: "As a matter of fact I haven’t lost to Kramer since 1951 . . . And in 1952 I beat him twice – once in the Philadelphia Inquirer tourna-ment, in straight sets, and later in the year in the finals of the International at Wembley, England. Jake [Kramer] even had me 4-1 in the fifth set in that match, and I still beat him!"

In an interview in Racquet (May 1953), Gonzalez reiterates: "Kramer played in two tournaments and lost both of them . . . I’ve played Kramer three tournament matches and won all three . . . the tournament in Europe which is called the International Champion-ship, in which all top pros are invited to participate, I have won the last three years." The last three years means and includes ’53, ’52, and ’51. And the sportswriters and histori-ans persist in considering Kramer King of the Court during this period, when the record clearly shows that Gonzalez was dominating him and everyone else since 1951.

After the death of Gonzalez in 1995, Kramer, still promoting himself as King till ‘53, commented: "He [Gonzalez] had no Wimbledons [singles] . . . but from 1954 to 1962, he was the best player that walked on the court."

Neil Anderson, who spoke two days after Gonzalez’s death, adds: "Gonzalez went on to dominate the pro tour from 1954 to 1962, beating amateur champions as Frank Sedg-man, Pancho Segura, Tony Trabert, Lew Hoad and Kenneth [Ken] Rosewall in head-to-head matches before retiring in 1963."

It should be clear by now, if we consider performance rather than sporadic titles, that Gonzalez dominated the World of Tennis from 1951 (not 1954) to 1962, a twelve-year span of dominance, as opposed to Kramer’s five (1946-50, not ’53), making Gonzalez by far the greatest tennis player in history. Who else has such a record, of unbroken domi-nance, that even begins to approach Gonzalez’s?

The Los Angeles Times (August 24, 1988) contained a review of the careers of the best tennis players in history soon after Jimmy Connors had been ranked No. 1 five times. No one, including the likes of Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver, et al., had won more than nine No.1 rankings – except for Gonzalez, who won 14!! This is not for occasional amateur or pro slam titles. That is for an unbroken string of No. 1 world rankings! How many does Sampras have, or likely to have?

When we hear of Borg’s astounding feat in having won five straight Wimbledons, we should consider (1959 winner of the Australian and Wimbledon titles) Alex Olmedo’s observation when he says, "Nobody mentions the fact that he [Gonzalez] beat every Wimbledon champion 10 years in a row . . . if there had been open tennis, he might have won 10 Wimbledons." The record shows that most Wimbledon winners have won at least one other slam tournament. Hence, it would not compromise our credibility unduly to believe that Gonzalez, conqueror of every Wimbledon champion for 10 years, would not have won at least one other title each of those 10 years. That would make it at least 20 slam titles, and probably a few grand slams! That’s dominance!! Is there any other tennis player on record who comes anywhere close to that?

S. L. Price in Sports Illustrated ("The Lone Wolf," June 24, 2002) writes: "Pancho Gonzalez may have been the best tennis player of all time . . . Kramer rates Gonzalez a better player than Sampras or Laver. Ashe called Gonzalez the only idol he ever had. Segura, Olmedo and Ralston say Gonzalez was the best player in history. Connors said once that if he needed someone to play for his life, he’d pick Gonzalez. Pasarell agrees: ‘He was the toughest competitor who ever played. He just fought and fought until he died. . . . [In 1971] the 43-year old Gonzalez beat a 19-year-old Connors from the base-line in the Pacific Southwest Open."

To illustrate how dominant Pancho was over these newly minted winners of the ama-teur slam titles, we can highlight some of the most stellar examples, who were advertised on winning more than one of these titles in a given year "the world’s greatest tennis play-er." Some of them became outstanding pro champions – once Gonzalez retired.

As a promoter of perhaps the most successful pro tour, Jack Kramer tried recruiting the best competition against King Gonzalez, usually "the world’s greatest tennis player," like Tony Trabert, winner of Wimbledon and the U. S. Championships in 1955, to sell tickets but also to topple Gonzalez, if possible, with whom he had a running feud over their contract. To provide this competition against Gonzalez, Kramer had these novices especially coached for months. Even with all the coaching his new over-matched rival received, Gonzalez demolished Trabert 75-27 in 102 matches. This dominance over Tra-bert continued throughout all the tours they played together for years.

The next "world’s greatest tennis player" who fell haplessly into the clutches of the King was Ken Rosewall, the player whom Laver would consider twice as good as Lew Hoad and convince him he would have to learn to play tennis all over again. On his first pro tour in 1957, Rosewall quickly learned why Gonzalez was King, losing to him 51-26 in 77 matches. Gonzalez maintained this dominance all the years they played against each other in the pro tour. For many years battling Laver on the pro tour, Rosewall gave Laver as much as he got from him.

Some sportswriters believe that if Lew Hoad had not been plagued by his chronic bad back, which shortened his career on the court, he might have become the greatest tennis player in history. Nevertheless, at his best, Hoad fell victim to Gonzalez’s dominance like the rest of the others, losing to Gonzalez in every tour they played over the years be-ginning with Hoad’s initial pro tour. Hoad, after being coached personally by Kramer for months, while Gonzalez was not playing and gaining 15 pounds over his competitive weight, started strong against the King, leading 18-9 at the outset. But, as soon as Gonza-lez got back into shape, he quickly turned the tide and overwhelmed his young talented opponent beating him 51-36 in 87 matches.

Bad back or not Hoad, with all his skills, talent, power, and speed, was not only domi-nated by Gonzalez, but even Rosewall, who was himself dominated by Gonzalez, could say in Dave Anderson’s The Return of Champion [a book on Gonzalez]: I’d say that I’ve beaten Lew [Hoad] in 20 of our 25 matches in the last three years." Hence, however much good press Hoad may receive from the sportswriters, it is clear he could not even dominate a player consistently thrashed by Gonzalez.

In Elliot Berry’s Topspin (1996), Rosewall expresses his respect for Gonzalez’s great-ness: "I am an admirer of the Gonzalez game . . . Pancho is the toughest opponent I have ever faced [not excluding his long-time rival Laver]. . . . He is difficult to play because of his big serve and his all-around ability. . . . Pancho is not only a great athlete but a great retriever as well. I have to class him a notch above Hoad."

Gonzalez’s charisma and spectacular dominance on the court was a magnet for the general tennis public as well as Hollywood celebrities. Bud Collins remarks: "A large crowd was behind Gonzalez, as always. To many of them the dark, appealing Gonzalez was tennis. . . . A pro stopover without big Pancho was a big bust, most promoters felt."

Collins put it in broader perspective when he added: "For a decade Gonzalez and pro tennis were synonymous. A promoter couldn’t hope to rally crowds unless Pancho was on the bill. The other names [Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, Cooper, Segura, Ander-son, Sedgman, Olmedo, Parker, MacKay] meant little."

Tennis great Don Budge is said to have remarked that Gonzalez is, "the greatest play-er never to have won Wimbledon." In an earlier interview with Budge, Julius Heldman says: "For decades players argued the relative merits of Tilden and Budge when discuss-ing the never-ending question of the greatest player of all time. Budge himself now feels that ‘Gorgo’ [Gonzalez] has earned the No. 1 spot."

When asked the same question, as to whom he thought the greatest tennis player of all time was, Hoad, who became one of Gonzalez’s friends on the tour, said humorously, with no ethnic slur intended, "That Mex-y-can prick Gonzalez."

Yet, there are those persistent parasitical sportswriters who will search out the most negative things about Gonzalez, however inane or irrelevant, perhaps with the hope of making themselves look good if they can bring down the giant. Some attack him because Gonzalez was "a loner," difficult to get along with, as if that had anything to do with his greatness as a player. Others will try to tear him down because of his "hot temper." Still others will cast their stones condemning him for his many marriages (six). But even his detractors do not and cannot attack him as a player or his record.

Much ink has been spilt over the subject of Gonzalez’s "hot temper." Allen Fox, long-time practice partner of Pancho’s and sportswriter, comments on it: "Pancho was one of those rare individuals who could actually play better when he got mad. . . . Anger motiva-ted Gonzalez. It increased his adrenaline and made him more alert, quicker, stronger and more focused on winning than ever. He became meaner and more menacing. Compared to Gonzalez, Connors and MacEnroe were pussycats."

Though sportswriters are wont to give a most negative spin to Gonzalez’s hot temper, Allen Fox, as much object of Pancho’s "fury" as anyone, could say after years of playing with him, "I idolized, loved, and profoundly respected [Gonzalez] the man."

Kramer echoes Fox’s assessment of Pancho’s mastery when angry: "When he [Gon-zalez] got upset, he played better. . . . He played mad most of the time."

Laver (often thumped by Gonzalez despite differences in age) joins the chorus: "We hoped he [Gonzalez] wouldn’t get upset; it just made him tougher." And though Laver could at one point say, "He [Gonzalez] was ungracious to say the least, a loner, and an jerk on court," he could still appreciate the beauty of Pancho’s play. "I was find-ing myself enthralled to watch him [Gonzalez], just like any other spectator."

Almost in apotheosis in speaking of Gonzalez’s enthralling play, sportswriter Rex Bellamy notes: "To watch Gonzalez was to think in terms of poetry and music. He did not play the game. He composed it."

Commentators who have never seen Gonzalez play may speak of him as being a one-dimensional player: cannon serve and volley. But his game would not have seemed poetry to keen observers if that were the case. Allen Fox explains: "His [Gonzalez’s] re-putation was as a huge server, but in reality, Gonzalez was a ‘touch’ player. . . . Pancho had wonderful control and an instinct for putting the ball in awkward positions for his opponent."

Fox also observes what probably cannot be said of any other player in history: "I never personally witnessed Gonzalez lose his serve when he was serving for a set or match . . . His first serve went in with uncanny frequency . . . his nerves were steely calm under pressure. In the clutch Pancho simply did not miss."

In the clutch Pancho simply did not miss! He never lost his serve while serving for a set or match! What other tennis player can lay claim to such adulation?

We have employed various criteria for measuring the greatness of Pancho Gonzalez in contrast to other tennis players proclaimed the best, and in a few cases incorrectly consi-dered the best in history. We have seen how the record shows that Gonzalez has won hands down. Not only have we seen his dominance over all the competition but also for a much longer span than anyone else can boast, as well as ranking No. 1 many more times than anyone else.

However, we might add another dimension that cannot be attributed to anyone else in history: winning at the highest level of tennis longer than anyone else. Unlike other top players who fizzled out at a relatively early age, Gonzalez could still beat the top players on any given day and win pro tournaments well into his 40s. Borg retired in his twenties and was unable to compete against top players when he tried a come-back within just a few years. McEnroe was another washout when he retired young and could not compete a few months later. Neither Budge nor Laver was at all effective as top competitors by the age of 37. For all practical purposes Laver was burnt out after he won his pro grand slam in ’69 at age 31. Budge retired and tried a come-back at age 37 in an attempt to re-place Jack Kramer as King of the Court in 1953 only to be crushed by Gonzalez, who had already unofficially dethroned Kramer in ’51.

At the top of his game Gonzalez retired a couple of times, but was lured back to com-pete again in the pro Championships, which he won handily. However, just before retir-ing for the first time, after the 1960 tour, Gonzalez was made victim of Kramer’s "bounce rule," an attempt by Kramer to control Gonzalez’s indomitable serve-and-volley game for the 1960 tour, and to level the playing field because there was not enough competition for him from among the top pros. The idea was to let the ball bounce before the server could return the service return. But in spite of this ploy (just one more of Kramer’s schemes in trying to control Gonzalez), the swarthy King demolished all the available competition, like Rosewall, Trabert, Olmedo, Segura, Ashley Cooper (’58 winner of Wimbledon), and Mal Anderson (winner of the U. S. Championships) 45-8 (at one point it was 21-1). Gonzalez returned to win the 1961 pro tour championships after retiring at the end of the ’60 tour, beating Hoad, Barry MacKay, Butch Buchholz, Olmedo, and the new star Andres Gimeno, who lost to Gonzalez 16-9, after which Gonzalez retired again. This time he retired for good as a regular member of the tour to give more of his time to drag racing, for which he also had a fanatical passion.

However, the ticket office had been crying out to Gonzalez in the intervening years to boost sales and replenish his depleting bank account. After making some preparations, Gonzalez entered the 1964 World Professional Championships and won, beating Gimeno for the title as he had done the last time, as if the King had not left the tennis scene at all in beating all the pro competition, as he had done so convincingly for so many years.

At this stage in Gonzalez’s career, at the age of 36 and beyond, there was still no "tie-breaker" in the game, hence it became the strategy of his younger opponents to make every effort to survive the first three sets to tire the aging tiger, who almost certainly would have won many more titles at this stage in his career had he had the advantage of today’s tie-breaker.

Even without the tie-breaker Gonzalez entered and won the 1964 U. S. Professional Indoor Championships at White Plains, N. Y., beating Anderson, Hoad, Rosewall (No. 1 pro champ since Gonzalez’s retirement), and Laver (recent 1962 winner of the amateur grand slam).

Howard Cosell commented on this amazing victory by Gonzalez some years later: "I remember once when he [Gonzalez] was long past his prime watching at . . . White Plains (1964 U. S. Professional Indoor Championships) . . . where he consecutively defeated Anderson, Rosewall, Hoad, and young Rod Laver to win the tournament. . . . It struck me as one of the extraordinary achievements in my lifetime in sports."

After a study made by James Fixx, concerned with highest achievement by athletes of advanced age (sponsored by Nike Sports Research Laboratory), he concluded: "Gonza-les’s extended heyday could not, of course, last forever, but while it did it was incompar-able."

That "incomparable extended heyday," unmatched by any other tennis player in histo-ry,"continued through the next few years. In 1965 at Dallas, Texas, at age 37, Gonzalez entered and won the first nationally televised tennis tournament, in which he beat the top pros, including Sedgman, Rosewall, and Laver.

In another exhibition of extraordinary tennis, at age 38, Gonzalez traveled to Wem-bley, England once again to enter and win, once again, this time beating Rosewall 15-13 in the semi-final, and, with only a 10-15 minute rest, beat Laver in three sets in the final for the title.

To inaugurate the "open era" in 1968, Gonzalez, now 40, entered the French Open, easily beating Istvan Gulyas (finalist the previous two years while tourney was still for amateurs) in straight sets, devastated amateur champ Roy Emerson in the quarter finals but lost to Laver in the semi-finals.

Still remembered as perhaps the most astounding match of all time is the contest between Gonzalez (age 41) and Pasarell (age 25 with a 1967 No. 1 U. S. ranking) at the 1969 Wimbledon Open, in which the two played their historic 112-game, two-day mara-thon, in which Gonzalez finally prevailed when his much younger opponent crumbled under the overwhelming pressure. Despite his incredible heroics in this match, however, Pancho, still without benefit of the tie-breaker, lost to his protégé, Arthur Ashe, in the fourth round.

But that same year Pancho entered the 1969 Howard Hughes Open and won the tour-nament, annihilating new tennis darling John Newcome (with a No. 1 world ranking in ’67, ’70, and ’71), beating Rosewall, Stan Smith (No. 1 world ranking in ’72), to whom Laver lost, and Ashe (winner of U. S. Open, Wimbledon, and a No. 1 ranking in ’75) in three easy sets for the title, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4.

The following year Gonzalez (age 42) was lured to play in a special winner-take-all format against Laver (1969 winner of the only men’s pro grand slam) at Madison Square Garden before a full house of 15,000 fans, which Gonzalez won. Two weeks later in De-troit with the same format, Gonzalez battered a hapless John Newcome (age 26) in three easy straight sets, 6-4, 6-4, and 6-2.

Gonzalez returned late the same year for the 1970 Howard Hughes Open, in which he trounced Andres Gimeno, Tony Roche (No. 2 world ranking in ’69), and beat Laver in four sets for the title. At practically age 44, Gonzalez entered and won his last pro tour-nament at the 1972 Des Moines Indoor Championships, beating Frenchman George Go-ven, as the oldest player in history to win an ATP open tournament. That same year Gon-zalez played in 14 tournaments, winning 32 of 43 matches (for a .744 average).

One can read in the USTA Official Encyclopedia of Tennis that: "Many experts believe that if ‘open’ tennis had come in the early 1950s Pancho Gonzalez would have been rank-ed as the world’s greatest player."

The Official USLTA Yearbook adds another dimension: ". . . [that Gonzalez is] one of the most colorful players ever, with unsurpassed ability to raise his game when threatened with defeat."

Julius Heldman observes: "The Gonzalez game has always been admired by every top player. He has no critics. He is universally recognized as a great stylist, a hungry competitor and winner."

We have already heard some of this admiration from some of Gonzalez’s rivals. We can complete our discussion with the feelings of a few more, beginning with perhaps his severest tormentor, Jack Kramer: "As far as I can see, he has no weaknesses; he is as perfect a player as I have ever seen or hope to see."

Though little love was lost between Gonzalez and Trabert, the latter has been able to say: "Gonzales is the greatest natural athlete tennis has ever known," and "There’s no question that Pancho has become one of the best of all time. I rank him along with Bill Tilden, Don Budge, and Fred Perry."

Another intense rival and admirer, Marty Riessen in Match Point comments: "Pancho was an idol of mine, as he was to many kids taking up the game in the fifties . . . of all the players I have seen (Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, et al.), I would have to rank Pancho number one . . . simply because, at his best, he could beat everybody else."

Barry MacKay, when asked whom he thought was the greatest player of all time in the San Francisco Examiner, said: "I guess . . . I’d go with Pancho, then Jack Kramer, Lew Hoad, Rod Laver and probably Don Budge. . . . I’ve seen . . . films of him [Tilden]," but "even though he was a fine athlete, I don’t think he was as great an athlete as Gonzalez, Hoad, or even Laver."

Gonzalez’s opponent in the historic match at Wimbledon, Charlie Pasarell, familiar with today’s competitors, offered as recently as 1995: "His greatest asset was that if you had to beat one player for one match where everything was on it, among the players of all time, the player I would take would be Pancho Gonzalez."

More recently in the San Francisco Chronicle, "King of the Court" (1999), sportswri-ter Bruce Jenkins makes a telling comment about Gonzalez in relation to today’s stars: ". . . you put everyone on equal terms, and he [Gonzalez] kicks everyone’s butt. . . . As much as I like Sampras, if you put these two guys on the court, I’m betting that Gonzalez is the last man standing."

Former player, coach, and manger, Ion Tiriac, commenting in 1995, the year that saw the loss of Gonzalez, Hoad, and Fred Perry, said: "Pancho was more the man of the day than anyone else. . . . He was the beginning of professional tennis as we know it. He was the father of everything we have today. . . . He was one of the greatest . . . "

Though there are still those who qualify Gonzalez’s greatness with "he was one of the greatest," we should no longer hide shyly behind such qualifiers and give the man his due by admitting without the smallest doubt that the unadulterated and objectively assessed record patently shows Gonzalez to be the greatest tennis player of all time – by far!

We can only wonder why the record has not been set straight these many years, and why since Gonzalez broke the "racial" barrier long before Althea Gibson or Arthur Ashe, Gonzalez has not received at least as much credit, having been the trailblazer who brought down the ethnic barriers in a previously all-white sport, especially considering that Gonzalez was a much superior player to Ashe. So, whether for being the first to over-come the prejudices of the white tennis community or for his surpassing accomplish-ments and talent, it is criminal not to give Gonzalez what he has richly earned. Fair is fair. The grand slam venue in New York has been named after Ashe. Where is Pancho’s stadium, the man who "was the father of everything we have today" in tennis?
piterpol is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 04:58 PM   #1125
country flag Johnny Groove
Future ATP Star
 
Johnny Groove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Age: 24
Posts: 35,049
Johnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond reputeJohnny Groove has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

All 158 players who ever won a slam, from 1877-2012, and #1


1877: Spencer Gore wins Wimbledon, ends year #1

1878: Frank Hadow wins Wimbledon, ends year #1

1879: Vere Goold wins the Irish, John Hartley wins Wimbledon, ends year #1

1880: Willie Renshaw wins the Irish, Herbert Lawford wins the Prince’s Club, John Hartley wins Wimbledon, ends year #1

1881: Richard Richardson wins Manchester, Willie Renshaw wins the Irish, Wimbledon, and Prince’s Club, ends year #1

1882: Richardson wins Manchester, Ernie Renshaw wins Prince’s Club, Willie Renshaw wins the Irish and Wimbledon, ends year #1

1883: Ernie Renshaw wins the Irish, Herbert Lawford wins Prince’s Club, Herbert Wilberforce wins Manchester, Willie Renshaw wins Wimbledon, ends #1

1884: Lawford wins the Irish, Donald Stewart wins Manchester, Richard Sears wins the US, Willie Renshaw wins Wimbledon, ends #1

1885: Lawford wins the Irish, James Dwight wins Manchester, Richard Sears wins the US, Willie Renshaw wins Wimbledon, ends #1

1886: Lawford wins the Irish, Harry Grove wins Manchester, Richard Sears wins the US, Willie Renshaw wins Wimbledon, ends #1

1887: Harry Grove wins Manchester, Richard Sears wins the US, Ernie Renshaw wins the Irish, Herbert Lawford wins Wimbledon, E. Renshaw and Lawford co-#1

1888: Henry Slocum wins the US, Willoughby Hamilton wins Manchester, Ernie Renshaw wins the Irish and Wimbledon, ends #1

1889: Henry Slocum wins the US, Willie Renshaw wins Wimbledon, Willoughby Hamilton wins the Irish and Manchester, Hamilton and Renshaw co-#1

1890: Oliver Campbell wins the US, Ernest Lewis wins the Irish, Josh Pim wins Manchester, Hamilton wins Wimbledon, Pim and Hamilton co-#1

1891: Ernest Lewis wins the Irish, Pim wins Manchester, Campbell wins the US, Baddeley wins Wimbledon, Lewis/Pim/Baddeley co-#1

1892: Campbell wins the US, Ernie Renshaw wins the Irish, Pim wins Manchester, Baddeley wins Wimbledon, Renshaw/Baddeley co-#1

1893: Robert Wrenn wins the US, Joshua Pim wins a triple crown of the Irish, Manchester, and Wimbledon and is clearly #1 for the 1893 season.

1894: Wrenn wins the US, Baddeley wins Manchester, Pim wins the Irish and Wimbledon and is #1 for the year.

1895: Pim wins the Irish, Fred Hovey wins the US, Baddeley wins Manchester and Wimbledon, Pim/Baddeley co-#1

1896: Wrenn wins the US, Mahoney wins Wimbledon, Baddeley wins the Irish and Manchester, and is #1 for the year.

1897: Wrenn wins the US, Baddeley wins Manchester, Wilberforce Eaves wins the Irish, and Reggie Doherty wins Wimbledon. Eaves, Wrenn, and Doherty all co-#1’s.

1898: Mal Whitman wins the US, Mahoney wins the Irish, Laurie Doherty wins Manchester, Reggie Doherty wins Wimbledon, Doherty bros co-#1 for the year.

1899: Mal Whitman wins the US, Sidney Smith wins Manchester, Reggie Doherty wins the Irish and Wimbledon and is #1 for the year.

1900: Mal Whitman wins the US, Sidney Smith wins Manchester, Reggie Doherty wins the Irish and Wimbledon, but splits #1 with Whitman for the year.

1901: Reggie Doherty wins the Irish, Sidney Smith wins Manchester, William Larned wins the US, Arthur Gore wins Wimbledon, and Larned and Gore split #1.

1902: Sidney Smith wins Manchester, William Larned wins the US, Laurie Doherty wins the Irish and Wimbledon, and Larned and both Doherty’s split #1.

1903: Sidney Smith wins Manchester, Laurie Doherty wins Wimbledon, US, and leads the Brits to DC glory, clearly #1.

1904: Sidney Smith wins Manchester, Holcombe Ward wins US, Laurie Doherty wins Wimbledon and is #1.

1905: Sidney Smith again wins Manchester, Beals Wright wins the US, Laure Doherty wins Wimbledon and is #1.

1906: Norman Brookes wins the Victorian, Frank Riseley wins Manchester, Bill Clothier wins the US, Laurie Doherty wins Wimbledon and is #1 once more.

1907: Larned wins the US, Brookes wins Manchester and Wimbledon and is #1.

1908: Arthur Gore wins Manchester and Wimbledon, Larned wins the US and is #1.

1909: Gore wins Wimbledon, Wilding wins the Aussie and Victorian, Larned wins the US and is #1.

1910: Tony Wilding wins Wimbledon, Larned wins the US and is #1

1911: Larned wins the US, Brookes wins the Aussie, Wilding wins Wimbledon, Brookes and Wilding split #1.

1912: Otto Froitzheim wins the World Hardcourts, Jim Cecil Parke wins Aussie, McLoughlin wins the US, Wilding wins Wimbledon and is #1.

1913: McLoughlin wins the US, Wilding wins the World Hardcourts and Wimbledon, and is #1.

1914: Dick Williams wins the US, Brookes wins Wimbledon, Wilding wins the World Hardcourts, but McLoughlin the Davis Cup hero is #1.

1915: Bill Johnston wins the US, only counts as 1 slam during war time, #1

1916: Dick Williams wins the US, 1 slam, #1

1917: Lindley Murray wins the US, 1 slam, #1

1918: Lindley Murray wins the US, 1 slam, #1

1919: Andre Gobert wins the Inter-Allied Event, Gerald Patterson wins Wimbledon, Algernon Kingscote wins the AO, Johnston wins the US, and shares #1 with Patterson for the year.

1920: William Laurentz wins the World Hardcourts, Bill Tilden wins Wimbledon and US, and is #1 for the year.

1921: Tilden wins a Triple Crown of the World Hardcourts, Wimbledon, and the US, and is #1 for the year.

1922: Henri Cochet wins the World Hardcourts, Patterson wins Wimbledon, James Anderson wins the AO, and Tilden wins the USO, Tilden and Johnston share the #1 for the year.

1923: Johnston wins the World Hardcourts and Wimbledon, Tilden wins the US and is #1 for the year.

1924: James Anderson wins the AO, Jean Borotra wins Wimbledon, Vinnie Richards wins the Olympics, Tilden wins the US, and is #1 for the year.

1925: James Anderson wins the AO, Rene Lacoste wins the French and Wimbledon, Tilden wins the US, and is once again #1 for the year.

1926: Jack Hawkes wins the AO, Cochet wins RG, Borotra wins Wimbledon, Lacoste wins the US, and is #1 for the year.

1927: Gerald Patterson wins the AO, Cochet wins Wimbledon, but Lacoste wins RG and USO, and is #1 for the year.

1928: Jean Borotra wins the AO, Lacoste wins Wimbledon, Vinnie Richards wins the US Pro, Cochet wins RG and US, and is #1 for the year.

1929: John Colin Gregory wins the AO, Lacoste wins RG, Tilden wins the US, Karel Kozeluh wins the US Pro, Cochet wins Wimbledon and is #1.

1930: Gar Moon wins the AO, Kozeluh wins the French Pro, Johnny Doeg wins the US, Vinnie Richards wins the US Pro, Tilden wins Wimbledon, Cochet wins RG, and Tilden/Cochet share #1, each slam counts as 0.66 of a slam.

1931: 6 slams this year, each counts as 0.66 of a slam. Jack Crawford wins the AO, Borotra wins RG, Sidney Wood wins Wimbledon, Tilden wins the pro tour and US Pro, Vines wins the US, and Tilden/Vines/Cochet all share #1, Tilden gets 18, and Cochet and Vines 17 weeks at #1.

1932: 6 slams this year, 0.66. Crawford wins AO again, Cochet wins RG, Kozeluh wins the US Pro, Martin Plaa wins the German Pro, Vines wins Wimbledon and US, and is #1 for the year.

1933: Only 5 slams thus year, 0.8 per. Fred Perry wins the US, Hans Nusslein wins the German Pro, Crawford wins the AO, RG, and Wimbledon, and is #1 for the year.

1934: 8 slams this year, damn. Each counts as a 0.5 of a slam. Perry wins the AO, Wimbledon, and US, Tilden wins the French Pro, Nusslein wins the US Pro, Vines wins the Pro Tour, Wembley Pro, Gottfried Von Cramm wins RG, Perry and Vines split the #1.

1935: 8 slams this year, each is 0.5 of a slam. Crawford wins the AO, Wilmer Allison wins the US, Perry wins RG and Wimbledon, Vines wins the Pro Tour, French Pro, Southport Pro, and Wembley Pro. Vines and Perry split #1.

1936: 7 slams this year, each is 0.57 of a slam. Adrian Quist wins the AO, Von Cramm wins RG, Cochet wins the French Pro, Hans Nusslein wins the Southport Pro, Vines wins the pro tour, Perry wins Wimbledon and US. Vines and Perry split #1 again.

1937: 8 slams, 0.5, Vivian McGrath wins the AO, Henner Henkel wins RG, Budge wins Wimbledon/US, Nusslein wins French Pro, Southport Pro, and Wembley Pro, Vines wins the Pro Tour. Vines/Perry/Budge share #1, with Vines getting 18, Perry/Budge with 17.

1938: 8 slams, 0.5, Budge wins AO, RG, Wimbledon, and USO, Vines wins the Pro Tour, Perry wins the US Pro, Nusslein wins the French Pro and Southport Pro, Budge and Vines split #1.

1939: 8 slams, 0.5, John Bromwich wins the AO, Don McNeill wins RG, Riggs wins Wimbledon and US, Nusslein wins the Southport Pro, Vines wins the US Pro, Budge wins Pro Tour and French Pro, Budge clearly #1.

1940: 3 slams, each worth 1.33, Quist wins the AO, McNeill wins the US, Budge wins the US Pro. Budge #1 again.

1941: 4 legit slams, Budge wins the Pro Tour, Perry wins the US Pro and Forest Hills Pro, and Riggs wins the USO. Perry and Riggs split #1.

1942: 3 slams, 1.33, Ted Schroeder wins the US, Budge wins the US Pro and Pro Tour, and is #1.

1943: 1 slam, counts as 1, Joe Hunt wins USO, but Budge is still #1.

1944: 1 slam, counts as 1, Frank Parker wins USO, but Budge is still King.

1945: 2 slams, Frank Parker wins the USO, Riggs wins the US Pro, and is new #1

1946: 7 slams, 0.57 per, Bromwich wins the AO, Yvon Petra wins Wimbledon, Marcel Bernard wins RG, Jack Kramer wins the US, Riggs wins the Pro Tour, US Pro, and US Pro Hardcourts, and is #1.

1947: 6 slams, 0.75 per, Dinny Pails wins the AO, Jozsef Asboth wins RG, Kramer wins Wimbledon and USO, Riggs wins US Pro and Philly Pro, and Kramer and Riggs split #1.

1948: 6 slams, 0.75 per, Quist wins the AO, Frank Parker wins RG, Pancho Gonzales wins the US, Bob Falkenburg wins Wimbledon, Kramer wins the Pro Tour and US Pro and is #1.

1949: 6 slams, 0.75 per, Kramer wins Wembley Pro, Riggs wins the US Pro, Sedgman wins the AO, Frank Parker wins RG, Ted Schroeder wins Wimbledon, Gonzales defends the US, Jack Kramer is #1 for the year.

1950: 8 slams, 0.5 per, Sedgman wins the AO, Budge Patty wins RG and Wimbledon, Art Larsen wins the US, Gonzales wins the Philly Pro and Wembley Pro, Kramer wins the Pro Tour, Segura wins the US Pro, and Jack Kramer and Pancho Segura split #1

1951: 8 slams, 0.5 per, Dick Savitt wins the AO and Wimbledon, Jaroslav Drobny wins the RG, Sedgman wins the US, Gonzales wins the Wembley Pro, Segura wins the US Pro, Jack Kramer wins the Pro Tour and the Philly Pro, and is #1.

1952: 7 slams, 0.57 per, Ken McGregor wins the AO, Drobny wins RG, Sedgman wins Wimbledon and US, Segura wins the US Pro, Gonzales wins the Philly Pro and Wembley Pro and is #1.

1953: 7 slams, 0.57 per, Rosewall wins the AO and RG, Gonzales wins the US Pro, Seixas wins Wimbledon, Trabert wins the US, Sedgman wins the Wembley Pro, Kramer wins the Pro Tour, Jack Kramer and Pancho Segura split #1

1954: 7 slams, 0.57 per, Mervyn Rose wins the AO, Trabert wins RG, Drobny wins Wimbledon, Seixas wins the US, Pancho Gonzales wins the US Pro, the US Pro Hardcourts, and the Pro Tour and is #1.

1955: 6 slams, 0.75 per, Rosewall wins the AO, Trabert wins RG, Wimbledon, and USO, Pancho Gonzales wins the US Pro and US Pro Hardcourts and is #1

1956: 8 slams, 0.5 per, Lew Hoad wins AO, RG, and Wimbledon, Rosewall wins the US, Trabert wins the French Pro, Pancho Gonzales wins the US Pro, Wembley Pro, and Pro Tour, and is #1.

1957: 9 slams, 0.44 per, Ashley Cooper wins the AO, Sven Davidson wins RG, Hoad wins Wimbledon, Mal Anderson wins the US, Segura wins the Aussie Pro, Rosewall wins the Wembley Pro, Pancho Gonzales wins the US Pro, Pro Tour, and Tournament of Champions and is #1

1958: 10 slams, 0.4 per, Mervyn Rose wins the RG, Ashley Cooper wins AO, W, and US, Sedgman wins the Aussie Pro and Wembley Pro, Rosewall wins the French Pro, Gonzales wins tournament of champions, US Pro, and Pro Tour, and Sedgman and Gonzales split #1.

1959: 9 slams, 0.44 per, Alex Olmedo wins AO and W, Nicola Pietrangeli wins RG, Neale Fraser wins US, Lew Hoad wins Tournament of Champions, Trabert wins the French Pro, Mal Anderson wins Wembley Pro, Gonzales wins US Pro and Pro Tour. Gonzales and Hoad share #1.

1960: 8 slams, 0.5 per, Laver wins AO, Pietrangeli wins RG, Fraser wins Wimbledon and US, Alex Olmedo wins the US Pro, Rosewall wins French Pro and Wembley Pro, Gonzales wins Pro Tour. Gonzales and Rosewall share #1.

1961: 8 slams, 0.5 per, Emerson wins the AO, USO, Manolo Santana wins RG, Laver wins Wimbledon, Gonzales wins US Pro and Pro Tour, Rosewall wins French Pro and Wembley Pro. Gonzales and Rosewall share #1.

1962: 7 slams, 0.57 slams, Laver wins AO, RG, W, USO, Butch Buchholz wins the US Pro, Rosewall wins French Pro and Wembley Pro, Rosewall is #1.

1963: 8 slams, 0.50 slams, Emerson wins AO and RG, Chuck McKinley wins Wimbledon, Rafael Osuna wins USO, Rosewall wins Pro Slam. Pro Tour, US Pro, French Pro, and Wembley Pro. Rosewall is #1, obviously.

1964: 7 slams, 0.57 slams, Emerson wins AO, Wimbledon, and USO, Santana wins RG, Laver wins US Pro and Wembley Pro, Rosewall wins French Pro. Rosewall and Laver split #1

1965: 7 slams, 0.57 slams, Emerson wins AO and Wimbledon, Stolle wins RG, Santana wins USO, Laver wins Wembley Pro, Rosewall wins US Pro and French Pro, Rosewall and Laver split #1.

1966: 7 slams, 0.57 slams, Emerson wins AO, Roche wins RG, Santana wins Wimbledon, Stolle wins USO, Rosewall wins French Pro, Laver wins US Pro and Wembley Pro, Laver is #1.

1967: 8 slams, 0.5 slams, Emerson wins AO and RG, Newcombe wins Wimbledon and USO, Laver wins Pro Slam, US Pro, Wembley Pro, French Pro, and Wimbledon Pro. Laver is #1.

1968: 6 slams, 0.75 slams, Bill Bowrey wins AO, Rosewall wins RG, Ashe wins USO, Laver wins Wimbledon and French Pro, and Pacific Southwest, Laver is #1.

1969: Laver is #1
1970: Rosewall, Laver, and Newcombe split #1, Newcombe gets the 18
1971: Rosewall, Newcombe, and Smith split #1, Newcombe gets the 18
1972: Smith and Nastase split #1
1973: Nastase and Newcombe split #1
1974: Connors is #1
1975: Ashe is #1
1976: Connors is #1
1977: Borg and Vilas split #1
1978: Borg and Connors split #1
1979: Borg is #1
1980: Borg is #1
1981: Mac is #1
1982: Connors is #1
1983: Mac is #1
1984: Mac is #1
1985: Lendl is #1
1986: Lendl is #1
1987: Lendl is #1
1988: Wilander is #1
1989: Becker is #1
1990: Edberg is #1
1991: Edberg is #1
1992: Courier is #1
1993: Sampras is #1
1994: Sampras is #1
1995: Sampras is #1
1996: Sampras is #1
1997: Sampras is #1
1998: Sampras is #1
1999: Agassi is #1
2000: Guga is #1
2001: Hewitt is #1
2002: Hewitt is #1
2003: Roddick is #1
2004: Fed is #1
2005: Fed is #1
2006: Fed is #1
2007: Fed is #1
2008: Nadal is #1
2009: Fed is #1
2010: Nadal is #1
2011: Djokovic is #1
2012:


1. Pancho Gonzales- 27(14.32)= 20.66 slams
2. Ken Rosewall- 25(15.4)= 20.2 slams
3. Rod Laver- 23(15.39)= 19.195 slams
4. Roger Federer- 17
5. Bill Tilden- 14(14.286)= 14.143
6. Pete Sampras- 14
7. Willie Renshaw- 11(11.33)= 11.165 slams
8. Bjorn Borg- 11
9. Rafael Nadal- 11
10. Don Budge- 12(9)= 10.5 slams
11. Ellsworth Vines- 13(7.07)= 10.035 slams
12. Roy Emerson- 12(6.42)= 9.21 slams
13. Joshua Pim- 9
14. Bobby Riggs- 10(7.96)= 8.98 slams
15. Fred Perry- 11(6.84)= 8.7 slams
16. Tony Wilding- 8(9.33)= 8.665 slams
17. Sidney Smith- 8(9)= 8.5 slams
18. Jack Kramer- 10(6.39)= 8.195 slams
19. Henri Cochet- 9(7.29)= 8.145 slams
20. William Larned- 7(9)= 8 slams
21. Wilfred Baddeley- 8
22. Ivan Lendl- 8
23. Jimmy Connors- 8
24. Andre Agassi- 8
25. Laurie Doherty- 7(8.33)= 7.665 slams
26. Lew Hoad- 5(2.38)= 7.38 slams
27. Reggie Doherty- 7
28. John McEnroe- 7
29. Mats Wilander- 7
30. Hans Nusslein- 9(4.87)= 6.935 slams
31. Rene Lacoste- 7(6.6)= 6.8 slams
32. John Newcombe- 7(6)= 6.5 slams
33. Herbert Lawford- 6(6.33)= 6.165 slams
34. Frank Sedgman- 8(4.26)= 6.13 slams
35. Ernest Renshaw- 6
36. Boris Becker- 6
37. Stefan Edberg- 6
38. Tony Trabert- 7(4.33)= 5.665 slams
39. Norman Brookes- 5(6.33)= 5.665 slams
40. Jack Crawford- 6(4.23)= 5.115 slams
41. Novak Djokovic- 5
42. Arthur Gore- 4(4.66)= 4.33 slams
43. Bill Johnston- 4(4.66)= 4.33 slams
44. Frank Parker- 4(4.5)= 4.25 slams
45. Robert Wrenn- 4
46. Willoughby Hamilton- 4
47. Richard Sears- 4
48. Guillermo Vilas- 4
49. Jim Courier- 4
50. Arthur Ashe- 4(3.75)= 3.875 slams
51. Jean Borotra- 4(3.466)= 3.733 slams
52. Manolo Santana- 4(2.21)= 3.105 slams
53. Pancho Segura- 4(2.01)= 3.005 slams
54. Gerald Patterson- 3
55. James Anderson- 3
56. Oliver Campbell- 3
57. Jan Kodes- 3
58. Guga Kuerten- 3
59. Mal Whitman- 3
60. Adrian Quist- 3(2.65)= 2.825 slams
61. Ashley Cooper- 4(1.64)= 2.82 slams
62. Vinnie Richards- 3(2.466)= 2.733 slams
63. Dick Williams- 2(2.33)= 2.665 slams
64. John Hartley- 2(3.33)= 2.665 slams
65. Maurice McLoughlin- 2(2.33)= 2.665 slams
66. Karel Kozeluh- 3(2.126)= 2.563 slams
67. Spencer Gore- 1(4)= 2.5 slams
68. Joe Hunt- 1(4)= 2.5 slams
69. Frank Hadow- 1(4)= 2.5 slams
70. Jaroslav Drobny- 3(1.64)= 2.32 slams
71. Neale Fraser- 3(1.44)= 2.22 slams
72. Alex Olmedo- 3(1.38)= 2.19 slams
73. Ted Schroeder- 2(2.08)= 2.04 slams
74. Ilie Nastase- 2
75. Lleyton Hewitt- 2
76. Marat Safin- 2
77. Patrick Rafter- 2
78. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- 2
79. Stan Smith- 2
80. Sergei Bruguera- 2
81. Johan Kriek- 2
82. Harold Mahoney- 2
83. Richard Richardson- 2
84. Harry Grove- 2
85. Lindley Murray- 2
86. Ernest Lewis- 2
87. Henry Slocum- 2
88. Don McNeill- 2(1.83)= 1.915 slams
89. Vic Seixas- 2(1.14)= 1.57 slams
90. Fred Stolle- 2(1.14)= 1.57 slams
91. John Bromwich- 2(1.07)= 1.535 slams
92. Gottfried Von Cramm- 2(1.07)= 1.535 slams
93. Budge Patty- 2(1)= 1.5 slams
94. Vere Goold- 1(2)= 1.5 slams
95. Dick Savitt- 2(1)= 1.5 slams
96. Mervyn Rose- 2(0.97)= 1.485 slams
97. Nicola Pietrangeli- 2(0.94)= 1.47 slams
98. Mal Anderson- 2(0.88)= 1.44 slams
99. William Laurentz- 1(1.33)= 1.165 slams
100. Holcombe Ward- 1(1.33)= 1.165 slams
101. Beals Wright- 1(1.33)= 1.165 slams
102. Andy Murray- 1
103. Andy Roddick- 1
104. Michael Chang- 1
105. Goran Ivanisevic- 1
106. Vitas Gerulaitis- 1
107. Michael Stich- 1
108. Juan Carlos Ferrero- 1
109. Pat Cash- 1
110. Roscoe Tanner- 1
111. Manuel Orantes- 1
112. Andres Gimeno- 1
113. Petr Korda- 1
114. Carlos Moya- 1
115. Richard Krajicek- 1
116. Thomas Muster- 1
117. Adriano Pannatta- 1
118. Mark Edmondson- 1
119. Juan Martin Del Potro- 1
120. Yannick Noah- 1
121. Thomas Johansson- 1
122. Andres Gomez- 1
123. Albert Costa- 1
124. Brian Teacher- 1
125. Gaston Gaudio- 1
126. Jack Hawkes- 1
127. Andre Gobert- 1
128. Algernon Kingscote- 1
129. Frank Riseley- 1
130. Bill Clothier- 1
131. James Cecil Parke- 1
132. Otto Froitzheim- 1
133. Wilberforce Eaves- 1
134. James Dwight- 1
135. Fred Hovey- 1
136. Herbert Wilberforce- 1
137. Donald Stewart- 1
138. John Colin Gregory- 1(0.8)= 0.9 slams
139. Dinny Pails- 1(0.75)= 0.875 slams
140. Bill Bowrey- 1(0.75)= 0.875 slams
141. Bob Falkenburg- 1(0.75)= 0.875 slams
142. Jozsef Asboth- 1(0.75)= 0.875 slams
143. Gar Moon- 1 (0.66)= 0.83 slams
144. Johnny Doeg- 1 (0.66)= 0.83 slams
145. Sydney Wodd- 1 (0.66)= 0.83 slams
146. Martin Plaa- 1 (0.66)= 0.83 slams
147. Yvon Petra- 1 (0.57)= 0.785 slams
148. Butch Buchholz- 1(0.57)= 0.785 slams
149. Ken McGregor- 1(0.57)= 0.785 slams
150. Tony Roche- 1(0.57)= 0.785 slams
151. Marcel Bernard- 1(0.57)= 0.785 slams
152. Art Larsen- 1(0.5)= 0.75 slams
153. Chuck McKinley- 1(0.5)= 0.75 slams
154. Rafael Osuna- 1(0.5)= 0.75 slams
155. Wilmer Allison- 1(0.5)= 0.75 slams
156. Henner Henkel- 1(0.5)= 0.75 slams
157. Vivian McGrath- 1(0.5)= 0.75 slams
158. Sven Davidson- 1(0.44)= 0.72 slams

All 67 players ever to be ranked #1 in the world

1. Pancho Gonzales- 364 weeks
2. Bill Tilden- 330 weeks
3. Pete Sampras- 286 weeks
4. Don Budge- 303 weeks
5. Willie Renshaw- 286 weeks
6. Rod Laver- 277 weeks
7. Roger Federer- 300 weeks
8. Laurie Doherty- 252 weeks
9. Ken Rosewall- 242 weeks
10. Jack Kramer- 234 weeks
11. Ivan Lendl- 234 weeks, I have taken 36 weeks from Lendl, and given 20 to Becker, and 16 to Edberg
12. William Larned- 199 weeks
13. Ellsworth Vines- 191 weeks
14. Jimmy Connors- 182 weeks, I have taken 86 weeks from Connors and rightly given 41 to Borg, 27 to Ashe, and 14 to Vilas
15. Joshua Pim- 173 weeks
16. John McEnroe- 170 weeks
17. Bobby Riggs- 156 weeks
18. Bjorn Borg- 150 weeks, I have taken 41 weeks from Connors and rightly given them to Borg
19. Henri Cochet- 147 weeks
20. Reggie Doherty- 139 weeks
21. Tony Wilding- 130 weeks
22. Wilfred Baddeley- 122 weeks
23. Fred Perry- 121 weeks
24. Ernest Renshaw- 104 weeks
25. Rene Lacoste- 104 weeks
26. John Hartley- 104 weeks
27. Bill Johnston- 104 weeks
28. Lindley Murray- 104 weeks
29. Rafael Nadal- 102 weeks
30. Andre Agassi- 101 weeks
31. Stefan Edberg- 88 weeks
32. Lleyton Hewitt- 80 weeks
33. Norman Brookes- 78 weeks
34. John Newcombe- 70 weeks
35. Jim Courier- 58 weeks
36. Novak Djokovic- 53 weeks
37. Maurice McLoughlin- 52 weeks
38. Spencer Gore- 52 weeks
39. Jack Crawford- 52 weeks
40. Pancho Segura- 52 weeks
41. Dick Williams- 52 weeks
42. Frank Hadow- 52 weeks
43. Willoughby Hamilton- 52 weeks
44.Gustavo Kuerten- 43 weeks
45.Stan Smith- 43 weeks
46. Ilie Nastase- 40 weeks
47. Boris Becker- 32 weeks
48. Arthur Ashe- 27 weeks, I have taken 27 weeks from Connors and given them to Ashe
49. Gerald Patterson- 26 weeks
50. Herbert Lawford- 26 weeks
51. Frank Sedgman- 26 weeks
52. Arthur Gore- 26 weeks
53. Lew Hoad- 26 weeks
54. Mal Whitman- 26 weeks
55. Mats Wilander- 20 weeks
56. Ernest Lewis- 17 weeks
57. Wilberforce Eaves- 17 weeks
58. Robert Wrenn- 17 weeks
59. Guillermo Vilas- 14 weeks, I took 14 weeks from Connors
60. Andy Roddick- 13 weeks
61. Marat Safin- 9 weeks
62. Juan Carlos Ferrero- 8 weeks
63. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- 6 weeks
64. Thomas Muster- 6 weeks
65. Marcelo Rios- 6 weeks
66. Carlos Moya- 2 weeks
67. Patrick Rafter- 1 week

Son of a bitch, this took forever. Now that I have compiled all the stats, I must re-do my rankings..........
__________________
Respect the Laws of MTF
Brush up on your tennis history, people- Top 101 Tennis Players of all Time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathaliia View Post
What do you like doing on MTF most?
Reading Johnny Groove threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripwires View Post
Johnny blurs the line between grandeur and grandiose
Johnny Groove is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios