[Whiznot]

I've spent all day searching without success for a thread dumber than this one.

[Jimnik]

Everyone knows Federer's era was the muggiest.

King William was the first and the conqueror.

[dazed1]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Everyone knows Federer's era was the muggiest.

King William was the first and the conqueror.

[NSMv1924]

Only a true Federina mug poster would exclude Sampras from this list, god they're so pathetic.

[Serve&Volley01]

Are people seriously not biased in favour of Sampras and Federer because they live or lived in their eras?

Everyone thinks their current generation is the best and greatest.

It goes far to say people write off Renshaw and Tilden as people even causal players could beat when they have zero knowledge. Face-palm* It could be a legitimate post to say Federer edges it for A B C... but not Renshaw was a mug and incomparably bad to Sampras and Fed.

If Fed and Sampras had to play in 1881 with their racquets and the competition do you honestly think they would blow all their challengers off the court in straight sets without losing a game?

[End da Game]

serious question, why has wimbledon centre court not been named after william renshaw?

[Mountaindewslave]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

when Renshaw was winning Wimbledon = no player could serve 130MPH
when Borg was winning Wimbledon = 1 player could serve 130MPH
when Sampras was winning Wimbledon = 5 players could serve 130MPH
when Federeich winning Wimbledon = 50 players could serve 130MPH

this is sort of argument but then again Federer of course can play that much better on grass because of those boosts too

what I find incredible is that anyone could dare to argue Renshaw being one of the greatest grass court players when there was such virtually limited competition at the time. NO matter how you cut it, there was not much competition at the time in which he played. you argue if you'd like that there was some relatively decent in competition in England at the time but what you can't argue is that the field of that era was deep or populous whatsoever, players almost never traveled around to play tennis, REnshaw was playing against his countrymates. pick any country that is into tennis at any time and you will not have THAT many amazing players in the same generation. there lacked good competition so he had no one to push him or beat him. it is what it is, can't argue about his talent per say, but what we can be certain about is that the # of tennis players he had to go against where much much fewer, and in all liklihood the quality he faced was dramatically less than any other periods in the game at WImbledon. it certainly devalues his accomplishments, strange that some people on here think that just because a player was great specifically on grass makes up for the lack of deep competition

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Litotes

I'm not the one who introduced the concept of fast grass as somehow being a mitigating factor enabling a player with less merits to be regarded as greater than his superior. For me, grass is grass. If you want to find the greatest grass player of all time, look for who has won most on it. You'll then find you have a choice between Laver and Federer. Laver won more, but also had more opportunities. How you weigh that is up to you. Sampras, however, won less than Federer with exactly the same opportunities. As it is patently impossible to prove he faced stronger opponents, no circumstantial evidence to suggest that he did, and theories can be made in either direction, sticking to the merits seems the obvious solution.

+1

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave

this is sort of argument but then again Federer of course can play that much better on grass because of those boosts too

what I find incredible is that anyone could dare to argue Renshaw being one of the greatest grass court players when there was such virtually limited competition at the time. NO matter how you cut it, there was not much competition at the time in which he played. you argue if you'd like that there was some relatively decent in competition in England at the time but what you can't argue is that the field of that era was deep or populous whatsoever, players almost never traveled around to play tennis, REnshaw was playing against his countrymates. pick any country that is into tennis at any time and you will not have THAT many amazing players in the same generation. there lacked good competition so he had no one to push him or beat him. it is what it is, can't argue about his talent per say, but what we can be certain about is that the # of tennis players he had to go against where much much fewer, and in all liklihood the quality he faced was dramatically less than any other periods in the game at WImbledon. it certainly devalues his accomplishments, strange that some people on here think that just because a player was great specifically on grass makes up for the lack of deep competition

+ 1 this too

[TigerTim]

Originally Posted by End da Game

serious question, why has wimbledon centre court not been named after william renshaw?

Wimbledon courts are not named after players.

I am surprised they don't make court 2 and 3 William Renshaw Court 2 and Fred Perry Court 3 at the very least.