Mens Tennis Forums banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Good Morning Everyone!

We would like to introduce you to the only actual all time ranking regarding the Greats of the Past.

Some adjustments were necessary due to the lack of data and specially the differences in format. Digging into what really mattered in the past is almost like seeking another language (1890s LawnTennis, 1910s Championships, 1930s Davis/Tours, 1960s ProSlams) and translating it into your own (2000s Masters/Slams/Rankings/H2H).

Nevetheless, much like history itself or economic science, we were able to trace reasonable (and possible) parameters in order to compare them with some accuracy.

The concept of Sports started to take shape by mid XIX century (1850s), with the establishment of associations and rules. Prior to that their meaning was completely different - purely royal/war related or of local leisures. Most have resemblances with ancient or medieval forms of proto-sports around the globe (Pre-Colombian Americas, Middle-East, South and Eastern-Asia, Africa, Europe), but not as rigorously defined as we came to know it today (Sumo is an exception).

The development of modern day (Lawn) Tennis (played outdoors, with racquets) follow that pattern too, along with cricket, golf, football (soccer), rugby, boxing, baseball, hockey, badminton and many others.

An important adjustment needed to be addressed is the concept of "Majors". Although in large use as synonym of Grand Slam, such equivalence is not accurate. "Majors" should mean the most important tournaments of the sport, thus those featuring the best athletes of the game.

The best tournaments, the ones where the best players of the game compete against each other, nowadays are indeed the Grand Slams. But it wasn't the case prior to Open Era. We had Professional events, from 1927-1967, and official ILTF (ITF) Championships from 1913-1926, besides Olympic Games, which effectively took tennis to international levels.

Regarding the Olympics, only those of 1900-1904-1908-1924 could be fully recognised as Majors, since featured most of the very best players in the world. The 1896, 1912 and 1920 games, didn't attract much high profile players, but that place it along the Amateur Slams won by Roy Emerson (without Laver nor Rosewall), Sedgmen/Trabert/Hoad (without Pancho) or even the All 4 Grand Slam champion Donald Budge (competing without Perry, Vines, Cochet, Nusslein, Karel, Tilden).

Those were the best tournaments in the game, sharing the stage (if not overshadowing it) with traditional Grand Slams, themselves established from 1877-1905 but fully recognised as main events by 1925. However only 3 were fully appreciated until 1940, and many great Open Era players like Borg, Wilander, Becker didn't even considered the Australian as a "full" Slam, with occurred only by the 1990s (with help from the standardisation of Master Tournaments circuit).

In this manner, "Majors" here have the meaning of the most valuable tournaments, and not only strictly Grand Slams. Into perspective, here it follows the actual number of Majors according to their existence, perception and cast of top players, since the best players play in the best tournaments: (surfaces) - Majors
- 1877 - 1904: 1 ~ 5 (2) - 4GS + OG (notably 1900/1904)
- 1905 - 1926: 4 ~ 7 (3) - 3GS + 3CH (Wimbledon = Grass Champinoships) + OG
- 1927 - 1967: 5 ~ 7 (2) - 4AS (Amateur Slams) + 3PS (Pro-Slams of UK, US and France)
- 1968 - 2020: 3 ~ 4 (3) - 3GS + 1AO (having Australian from 90s on so perceived)

In terms of #Rankings, it follows the awarded #1 of the year, thus not counting weeks. A couple observations:
- Shared Awarded #1 Seasons are split between the awardees;
- Federer and Nadal are tied in terms of years and Becker has no YE, thus we've added weeks counting since 1973, rounding it to 52 for previous #1s since no weeks were accurately available in the past;

Winning % is kept specially because it mirrors the Tours relevance at that time (otherwise relinquished by modern standard). Top5 Rivals H2H is also accounted, since it gives us the closest picture of how good those players were inside the court and particularly because they reflect the most important Tournament from Pre-War: the Davis Cup. Nobody wanted to lise their single matches, be it Wilding, Tilden, Cochet, Perry or von Cramm.

Important to notice that even if the Davis Cup titles are not directly awarded by the Torres Index Rankings (only trough Rivals H2H though), they were the most coveted titles of the pre-War period (much above any Amateur or Professional Slams).

Tennis itself was much bigger than nowadays, only Baseball (Japanese Empire and United States) and Football (Germany, Italy, France, Soviet Union and British Empire) shared the same relevance, whose sports were used and soft-diplomacy among great powers. The Davis Cup was the 3rd most praised international event, only after the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cups, involving most of the Contending Powers of WWI and WWII (Australasia, America, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Austria), and being a matter of state, since players were used as pawns at times both: on the battlefield (Wilding, Froitzheim, Germont, Budge) or in the backstage of Big Tennis events (Gottfried von Cramm, Dwight Davis, Hans Nüsslein, Bill Tilden, Shimizu, Harada, Jiro Sato).

Nowadays we have NFL and NBA taking a much central stage on world sports scene, nonetheless we may never underestimate the value Pre-War Tennis had in the world and consequently to the game itself.

Enjoy and debate!
Colorfulness Rectangle Font Parallel Pattern

Colorfulness Rectangle Slope Font Line
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,112 Posts
and many great Open Era players like Borg, Wilander, Becker didn't even considered the Australian as a "full" Slam, with occurred only by the 1990s
You have surely made a great effort of research and investigation, but I stopped reading here .. for reasons already developed at length here,

In 83, 3 top player plays AO, and Wilander beats the other 2, Lendl and McEnroe ... they too must think it was a low coast slam, so they tanked.

It would be difficult for Borg to have a whirlwind opinion while he is in retirement in 1983 or Becker who is then 14 years old and will not win his 1st slam until 3 years later.

If you imagine that RG early Open Era 70's is prestigious after 1969 (Laver and Rosewal never still played RG), take a closer look at the draws, and better yet, the absence of many players. (not only men but also wta..)
RG has to thank Borg in mid 70's, like AO has to thank Wilander and Edberg in mid 80's, it's a Swedish revival.




Reconsider certain WCT circuit events, because you remain locked in a logic "ATP", or worse... logical MS of 1990 and current "big titles" bias recency, which is more serious for a circuit played still in the 1980's, more than to linger on OG draws from the 1900s or 1920s ...

Anyway, if you believe what you write, that's the gist, but don't expect to convince those who know ... what they know :D

Sorry to repost some of my old posts again, but since nothing new in what I'm reading, I don't have to change anything.
So this .. and many others ...


#79 · 10 mo ago

Roo said:
Grass victories against top 10 players. Anything after AO '87 (the last grass AO) is eligible. This means Cash & Edberg are impacted but Lendl and Wilander are not really impacted.
By integrating Wilander, it gives.
3 top 10 (2 titles, Wx0).


On grass, especially at this time, you should always be wary of the ranking.
example, 3 last rounds Wilander in his AO 84

RoundRankOpponentW-LScore
Finals21Country Flag
Kevin Curren
W67 64 76 62
Semi-Finals15Country Flag
Johan Kriek
W61 60 62
Quarter-Finals22Country Flag
Stefan Edberg
W75 63 16 64
Personally, I do not rule out AO 83-84-85-87, I recalled the reasons.

AO was reborn in the first half of the 80's.
Nov 1983, return of 1-2-3 McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander who play for YE1 and Wilander must play after the Davis Cup final in Kooyong, on grass, in the same stadium.

He beats McEnroe and Lendl, then retain his title the following year in 84 vs. Curren (beats Lendl) who would play the Wimbledon final against Becker in 85, after beating Connors and McEnroe.

Edberg will beat Wilander in 85, no tournament in 86 and Edberg will beat Cash (b Lendl in 1/2) in January 87, who will win Wimbledon in July (b Lendl), Wilander absent because he is getting married


It was only in '88 that the AO moved to Flinders Park on Rebound Ace ... where the change of surface didn't change much ...
1/2
Cash b Lendl
Wilander b Edberg

F Wilander b Cash



Roo said:
3s:Lendl (2 titles, Wx0)
Roo said:
Some top 10 players (including a few here) are typically grass easybeats.
Sure, 2 titles Lendl are Queen's 89 and 90, where
Lendl b McEnroe (6-2 6-4) and Becker (6-3,6-2); Becker in semi b Edberg (6-4-6-4)
3rd win for Lendl vs top 10 is Edberg, Wimb 87.


#49 · 19 d ago (Edited)

For me, AO is compact since 1983.

I don't consider a GS where Wilander has to beat McEnroe and Lendl as light, even with 96 players.... when the same year, McEnroe b Chris Lewis in Wimbledon final..

No more when he has to beat Curren in the 84 final who will be a finalist against Becker at Wimbledon 85.

Nor Edberg who beats Lendl and Wilander in 85 or who beats Cash in 87 (beats Lendl in 1/2) who will be Wimbledon winner the same year... vs Lendl

And in truth, also the 1st edition on hard 1988 with (again) 1/2 Wilander-Edberg and Cash-Lendl, we have seen worse in the other GS supposedly top of the game .. 🙄

AO 89 Lend b Mecir (same final US 86)
AO 90 Lendl b Edberg,
unfortunately Edberg is injured and retired

AO 91 Becker b Lendl

Or you have to tell me where was best finals at that time.

#40 · 1 mo ago

Nolerafa said:
Also till 1988, AO didn’t even have 128 players in the draw like the other 3 did. The top seeds got a bye in to the 2nd round. In terms of prize money, Miami (or Lipton championship as it was called then) offered higher prize money and thereby higher points than AO- so one could say that was more prestigious. Wilander-Lendl played AO 83 final on grass- nobody considered them as great grass courters. Edberg won 2 AO on grass in 85 and 87, yet it wasn’t held in the same esteem as Becker’s Wimbledon wins in 85 and 86.
Your post is correct.
However, I would add this nuance.

Of course, AO never had the prestige of Wimbledon, and
grass and meteo did not have exactly the same conditions as in London, however from the 1983 edition, the top players returned, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander (who beat both in 1983).

Curren plays the final Dec. 1984 in Melbourne .. and Wimbledon 1985 final (he beat Connors and defending champion McEnroe)
In January 87, Edberg beats Cash in AO final.. who will win Wimbledon 87.
It's still grass.



Regarding Miami, not only , it has prize money but also, "slam format", 128 players, 7 rounds and bo5 each round. 1985 to 1989.

20-03-1989Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Ivan Lendl (1) d. Thomas Muster (7) W/O
14-03-1988Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Mats Wilander (1) d. Jimmy Connors (2) 6-4 4-6 6-4 6-4
23-02-1987Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Miloslav Mecir (9) d. Ivan Lendl (1) 7-5 6-2 7-5
10-02-1986Boca WestHardKO 128128Ivan Lendl (1) d. Mats Wilander (2) 3-6 6-1 7-6 6-4
04-02-1985Delray BeachHardKO 128128Tim Mayotte d. Scott Davis 4-6 4-6 6-3 6-2 6-4
draw was at 96 players in 1990 when MS 1000 was invented and only final in bo5
16-03-1990Miami MastersHardKO 9696Andre Agassi (5) d. Stefan Edberg (3) 6-1 6-4 0-6 6-2


#43 · 10 mo ago (Edited)

Phillo said:
AO was for the most part ignored & not revered in the 70’s up to the late 80’s when surface changed from Grass to HC along w/ a new venue, we have the same morons on MTF posting their ignorance about AO
No.

AO was reborn in the first half of the 80's.
Nov 1983, return of 1-2-3 McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander who play for YE1 and Wilander must play after the Davis Cup final in Kooyong, on grass, in the same stadium.

He beats McEnroe and Lendl, then retain his title the following year in 84 vs. Curren (beats Lendl) who would play the Wimbledon final against Becker in 85, after beating Connors and McEnroe.

Edberg will beat Wilander in 85, no tournament in 86 and Edberg will beat Cash (b Lendl in 1/2) in January 87, who will win Wimbledon in July (b Lendl), Wilander absent because he is getting married


It was only in '88 that the AO moved to Flinders Park on Rebound Ace ... where the change of surface didn't change much ...
1/2
Cash b Lendl
Wilander b Edberg

F Wilander b Cash

#47 · 6 mo ago

NADALalot said:
and winning Wimbledon in the 80s is more significant
Winning on grass is more significant in the 80's than in the 2000's.. for a clay player as Wilander.. or Borg.

Because the game, with the material and the surface was more specific than now.

At AO, Wilander beat McEnroe (83) and Curren (84), 3 titles at Wimbledon (81-83-84) and finalist 85 in Wimbledon.
Ao was not Wimbledon but Edberg won twice each on grass (AO 85-87, Wimb 88-90) and Cash finalist in AO (87) and winner of Wimbledon (87).

And overall, we cannot compare 80's and 2000's circuit.

Wilander is the only player to perform little slam 88 (and Miami this year with 128 players, 7 round in bo5) since Connors 74 and before big3 in 2000's, it means something when players like Borg, McEnroe and Lendl had more arguments to achieve it.


#12 · 6 mo ago

swissmaestro92 said:
Australian Open was a minor league slam in the late 70s/early 80s for example but by the time Lendl won it in the early 90s it was considered very prestigious and would only continue to grow in importance.
Of course, I thought of AO until 1982, but I preferred to avoid relaunching .. another "debate" .... 🙄

To the only nuance that AO has ALWAYS been a slam.

We know its "dark age" period.

And now we can correlate it for McEnroe and Lendl as well.

McEnroe first played him in 1983, which was a year he finished with YE1, but without overwhelming dominance.
However, he has been at the top for 4 years, precocious today but in accordance with the standards of the time, winner of the Masters 78, of his 1st slam US Open 79, that he was number one the 1st time in March 80 and 1st YE1 in 81.
He lost in 1/2 this year, surprisingly, against Wilander.
His big year 1984, he is suspended (cf. Stockholm 84) and .. already in 1985, he has passed his peak.
He did not come back until 1989, at the age of 30 and on hard.
He will have played 5 editions.

For Lendl, the situation is a little different, but also marked by the AO context of his time.
He plays more editions, always consistent, but still penalized by the grass. Also beaten by Wilander in 83, he undergoes the law of "true" herbivores the 3 following editions .. Curren, Cash and Edberg.

Of course, with the transition to hard, he will have more success with 2 titles (89-90), his last 2 in slam, but he too, his peak has already passed.

Note that Agassi came relatively late to AO, in 1995, but his career was more "fanciful" and "chaotic" than McEnroe and Lendl.

Fortunately I wanted to avoid talking about the AO. :)
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
54,761 Posts
Nice work! Finally a list that comes close to mine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
Nice work! Finally a list that comes close to mine
My only complaint with the top 10 is that Tilden and Renshaw are from very distant eras. Perhaps there should be two ranking eras, pre WW2 and after WW2, or something like that? Also, I think Newcombe is ranked much too low on this list. But then, I probably do not understand the whole criteria used as it seemed rather complicated to my old brain to comprehend.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
54,761 Posts
My only complaint with the top 10 is that Tilden and Renshaw are from very distant eras. Perhaps there should be two ranking eras, pre WW2 and after WW2, or something like that? Also, I think Newcombe is ranked much too low on this list. But then, I probably do not understand the whole criteria used as it seemed rather complicated to my old brain to comprehend.
Tilden and Renshaw both had 7 YE #1, a record Laver and Gonzales also hold which Djokovic is about to tie

Tilden is around 8 on my list and Renshaw a bit below but they are all time greats. Renshaw was the original GOAT of tennis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
The big question - should the actual level of tennis and competition be measured somehow and applied to OP's results as index / multiplier in order to get more just and realistic final rankings? It's clear that in Golden Era the effort and pressure to make history is way higher than in the past, especially in the Gentlemen's Era.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
54,761 Posts
The big question - should the actual level of tennis and competition be measured somehow and applied to OP's results as index / multiplier in order to get more just and realistic final rankings? It's clear that in Golden Era the effort and pressure to make history is way higher than in the past, especially in the Gentlemen's Era.
The problem with turning this into a mathematical equation contest in order to measure strength of field makes it too subjective. Who is to decide how good players were 100+ years ago vs today and how much of a co-efficient number they get? Every statistician would have a different list
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
The problem with turning this into a mathematical equation contest in order to measure strength of field makes it too subjective. Who is to decide how good players were 100+ years ago vs today and how much of a co-efficient number they get? Every statistician would have a different list
In other words, we ignore this problem because we are unable to be objective or lack knowledge? I understand that, but the fact is that the problem ignoring isn't the problem solving, which makes your historians' lists unfinished / incomplete. If we are unable to solve this problem seriously, maybe we can try to do the MTF's solution to the problem for fun? To let MTF members to rank OP's eras from 0 to 100%?
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
54,761 Posts
In other words, we ignore this problem because we are unable to be objective or lack knowledge? I understand that, but the fact is that the problem ignoring isn't the problem solving, which makes your historians' lists unfinished / incomplete. If we are unable to solve this problem seriously, maybe we can try to do the MTF's solution to the problem for fun? To let MTF members to rank OP's eras from 0 to 100%?
I personally don't feel there is any problem at all. My list is pretty set, all the numbers have been accounted for, I respect all eras through all the changing rules and surfaces and court speeds and formats and equipment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
In other words, we ignore this problem because we are unable to be objective or lack knowledge? I understand that, but the fact is that the problem ignoring isn't the problem solving, which makes your historians' lists unfinished / incomplete. If we are unable to solve this problem seriously, maybe we can try to do the MTF's solution to the problem for fun?
Agree. I have the same opinion as you. Just because a problem (like how should slams be compared) is difficult to solve, we cannot ignore and let it remain unsolved. If it’s impossible to solve, we should just split the eras and create separate GOAT lists for each era. Or else we should make a good attempt to solve it.

it does become subjective though, which is fine! That comes with the territory of comparing two different eras.

we should respect the old era but should we respect the new era. Fairness for all eras is the only way to respect all eras.

I value and appreciate different opinions like @Johnny Groove ’s.

There is no one solution to these things, there are many possible reasonable ones.

For my opinion I had already posted my GOAT chart a few weeks ago here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Good Morning Everyone!

We would like to introduce you to the only actual all time ranking regarding the Greats of the Past.

Some adjustments were necessary due to the lack of data and specially the differences in format. Digging into what really mattered in the past is almost like seeking another language (1890s LawnTennis, 1910s Championships, 1930s Davis/Tours, 1960s ProSlams) and translating it into your own (2000s Masters/Slams/Rankings/H2H).

Nevetheless, much like history itself or economic science, we were able to trace reasonable (and possible) parameters in order to compare them with some accuracy.

The concept of Sports started to take shape by mid XIX century (1850s), with the establishment of associations and rules. Prior to that their meaning was completely different - purely royal/war related or of local leisures. Most have resemblances with ancient or medieval forms of proto-sports around the globe (Pre-Colombian Americas, Middle-East, South and Eastern-Asia, Africa, Europe), but not as rigorously defined as we came to know it today (Sumo is an exception).

The development of modern day (Lawn) Tennis (played outdoors, with racquets) follow that pattern too, along with cricket, golf, football (soccer), rugby, boxing, baseball, hockey, badminton and many others.

An important adjustment needed to be addressed is the concept of "Majors". Although in large use as synonym of Grand Slam, such equivalence is not accurate. "Majors" should mean the most important tournaments of the sport, thus those featuring the best athletes of the game.

The best tournaments, the ones where the best players of the game compete against each other, nowadays are indeed the Grand Slams. But it wasn't the case prior to Open Era. We had Professional events, from 1927-1967, and official ILTF (ITF) Championships from 1913-1926, besides Olympic Games, which effectively took tennis to international levels.

Regarding the Olympics, only those of 1900-1904-1908-1924 could be fully recognised as Majors, since featured most of the very best players in the world. The 1896, 1912 and 1920 games, didn't attract much high profile players, but that place it along the Amateur Slams won by Roy Emerson (without Laver nor Rosewall), Sedgmen/Trabert/Hoad (without Pancho) or even the All 4 Grand Slam champion Donald Budge (competing without Perry, Vines, Cochet, Nusslein, Karel, Tilden).

Those were the best tournaments in the game, sharing the stage (if not overshadowing it) with traditional Grand Slams, themselves established from 1877-1905 but fully recognised as main events by 1925. However only 3 were fully appreciated until 1940, and many great Open Era players like Borg, Wilander, Becker didn't even considered the Australian as a "full" Slam, with occurred only by the 1990s (with help from the standardisation of Master Tournaments circuit).

In this manner, "Majors" here have the meaning of the most valuable tournaments, and not only strictly Grand Slams. Into perspective, here it follows the actual number of Majors according to their existence, perception and cast of top players, since the best players play in the best tournaments: (surfaces) - Majors
  • 1877 - 1904: 1 ~ 5 (2) - 4GS + OG (notably 1900/1904)
  • 1905 - 1926: 4 ~ 7 (3) - 3GS + 3CH (Wimbledon = Grass Champinoships) + OG
  • 1927 - 1967: 5 ~ 7 (2) - 4AS (Amateur Slams) + 3PS (Pro-Slams of UK, US and France)
  • 1968 - 2020: 3 ~ 4 (3) - 3GS + 1AO (having Australian from 90s on so perceived)

In terms of #Rankings, it follows the awarded #1 of the year, thus not counting weeks. A couple observations:
  • Shared Awarded #1 Seasons are split between the awardees;
  • Federer and Nadal are tied in terms of years and Becker has no YE, thus we've added weeks counting since 1973, rounding it to 52 for previous #1s since no weeks were accurately available in the past;

Winning % is kept specially because it mirrors the Tours relevance at that time (otherwise relinquished by modern standard). Top5 Rivals H2H is also accounted, since it gives us the closest picture of how good those players were inside the court and particularly because they reflect the most important Tournament from Pre-War: the Davis Cup. Nobody wanted to lise their single matches, be it Wilding, Tilden, Cochet, Perry or von Cramm.

Important to notice that even if the Davis Cup titles are not directly awarded by the Torres Index Rankings (only trough Rivals H2H though), they were the most coveted titles of the pre-War period (much above any Amateur or Professional Slams).

Tennis itself was much bigger than nowadays, only Baseball (Japanese Empire and United States) and Football (Germany, Italy, France, Soviet Union and British Empire) shared the same relevance, whose sports were used and soft-diplomacy among great powers. The Davis Cup was the 3rd most praised international event, only after the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cups, involving most of the Contending Powers of WWI and WWII (Australasia, America, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Austria), and being a matter of state, since players were used as pawns at times both: on the battlefield (Wilding, Froitzheim, Germont, Budge) or in the backstage of Big Tennis events (Gottfried von Cramm, Dwight Davis, Hans Nüsslein, Bill Tilden, Shimizu, Harada, Jiro Sato).

Nowadays we have NFL and NBA taking a much central stage on world sports scene, nonetheless we may never underestimate the value Pre-War Tennis had in the world and consequently to the game itself.

Enjoy and debate!
View attachment 370958
View attachment 370959
Can you give details of the points/percentage system and show how each player got those points?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
You have surely made a great effort of research and investigation, but I stopped reading here .. for reasons already developed at length here,

In 83, 3 top player plays AO, and Wilander beats the other 2, Lendl and McEnroe ... they too must think it was a low coast slam, so they tanked.

It would be difficult for Borg to have a whirlwind opinion while he is in retirement in 1983 or Becker who is then 14 years old and will not win his 1st slam until 3 years later.

If you imagine that RG early Open Era 70's is prestigious after 1969 (Laver and Rosewal never still played RG), take a closer look at the draws, and better yet, the absence of many players. (not only men but also wta..)
RG has to thank Borg in mid 70's, like AO has to thank Wilander and Edberg in mid 80's, it's a Swedish revival.




Reconsider certain WCT circuit events, because you remain locked in a logic "ATP", or worse... logical MS of 1990 and current "big titles" bias recency, which is more serious for a circuit played still in the 1980's, more than to linger on OG draws from the 1900s or 1920s ...

Anyway, if you believe what you write, that's the gist, but don't expect to convince those who know ... what they know :D

Sorry to repost some of my old posts again, but since nothing new in what I'm reading, I don't have to change anything.
So this .. and many others ...


#79 · 10 mo ago


By integrating Wilander, it gives.
3 top 10 (2 titles, Wx0).


On grass, especially at this time, you should always be wary of the ranking.
example, 3 last rounds Wilander in his AO 84

RoundRankOpponentW-LScore
Finals21Country Flag
Kevin Curren
W67 64 76 62
Semi-Finals15Country Flag
Johan Kriek
W61 60 62
Quarter-Finals22Country Flag
Stefan Edberg
W75 63 16 64
Personally, I do not rule out AO 83-84-85-87, I recalled the reasons.

AO was reborn in the first half of the 80's.
Nov 1983, return of 1-2-3 McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander who play for YE1 and Wilander must play after the Davis Cup final in Kooyong, on grass, in the same stadium.

He beats McEnroe and Lendl, then retain his title the following year in 84 vs. Curren (beats Lendl) who would play the Wimbledon final against Becker in 85, after beating Connors and McEnroe.

Edberg will beat Wilander in 85, no tournament in 86 and Edberg will beat Cash (b Lendl in 1/2) in January 87, who will win Wimbledon in July (b Lendl), Wilander absent because he is getting married


It was only in '88 that the AO moved to Flinders Park on Rebound Ace ... where the change of surface didn't change much ...
1/2
Cash b Lendl
Wilander b Edberg

F Wilander b Cash





Sure, 2 titles Lendl are Queen's 89 and 90, where
Lendl b McEnroe (6-2 6-4) and Becker (6-3,6-2); Becker in semi b Edberg (6-4-6-4)
3rd win for Lendl vs top 10 is Edberg, Wimb 87.


#49 · 19 d ago (Edited)

For me, AO is compact since 1983.

I don't consider a GS where Wilander has to beat McEnroe and Lendl as light, even with 96 players.... when the same year, McEnroe b Chris Lewis in Wimbledon final..

No more when he has to beat Curren in the 84 final who will be a finalist against Becker at Wimbledon 85.

Nor Edberg who beats Lendl and Wilander in 85 or who beats Cash in 87 (beats Lendl in 1/2) who will be Wimbledon winner the same year... vs Lendl

And in truth, also the 1st edition on hard 1988 with (again) 1/2 Wilander-Edberg and Cash-Lendl, we have seen worse in the other GS supposedly top of the game .. 🙄

AO 89 Lend b Mecir (same final US 86)
AO 90 Lendl b Edberg,
unfortunately Edberg is injured and retired

AO 91 Becker b Lendl

Or you have to tell me where was best finals at that time.

#40 · 1 mo ago


Your post is correct.
However, I would add this nuance.

Of course, AO never had the prestige of Wimbledon, and
grass and meteo did not have exactly the same conditions as in London, however from the 1983 edition, the top players returned, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander (who beat both in 1983).

Curren plays the final Dec. 1984 in Melbourne .. and Wimbledon 1985 final (he beat Connors and defending champion McEnroe)
In January 87, Edberg beats Cash in AO final.. who will win Wimbledon 87.
It's still grass.



Regarding Miami, not only , it has prize money but also, "slam format", 128 players, 7 rounds and bo5 each round. 1985 to 1989.

20-03-1989Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Ivan Lendl (1) d. Thomas Muster (7) W/O
14-03-1988Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Mats Wilander (1) d. Jimmy Connors (2) 6-4 4-6 6-4 6-4
23-02-1987Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Miloslav Mecir (9) d. Ivan Lendl (1) 7-5 6-2 7-5
10-02-1986Boca WestHardKO 128128Ivan Lendl (1) d. Mats Wilander (2) 3-6 6-1 7-6 6-4
04-02-1985Delray BeachHardKO 128128Tim Mayotte d. Scott Davis 4-6 4-6 6-3 6-2 6-4
draw was at 96 players in 1990 when MS 1000 was invented and only final in bo5
16-03-1990Miami MastersHardKO 9696Andre Agassi (5) d. Stefan Edberg (3) 6-1 6-4 0-6 6-2


#43 · 10 mo ago (Edited)


No.

AO was reborn in the first half of the 80's.
Nov 1983, return of 1-2-3 McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander who play for YE1 and Wilander must play after the Davis Cup final in Kooyong, on grass, in the same stadium.

He beats McEnroe and Lendl, then retain his title the following year in 84 vs. Curren (beats Lendl) who would play the Wimbledon final against Becker in 85, after beating Connors and McEnroe.

Edberg will beat Wilander in 85, no tournament in 86 and Edberg will beat Cash (b Lendl in 1/2) in January 87, who will win Wimbledon in July (b Lendl), Wilander absent because he is getting married


It was only in '88 that the AO moved to Flinders Park on Rebound Ace ... where the change of surface didn't change much ...
1/2
Cash b Lendl
Wilander b Edberg

F Wilander b Cash

#47 · 6 mo ago


Winning on grass is more significant in the 80's than in the 2000's.. for a clay player as Wilander.. or Borg.

Because the game, with the material and the surface was more specific than now.

At AO, Wilander beat McEnroe (83) and Curren (84), 3 titles at Wimbledon (81-83-84) and finalist 85 in Wimbledon.
Ao was not Wimbledon but Edberg won twice each on grass (AO 85-87, Wimb 88-90) and Cash finalist in AO (87) and winner of Wimbledon (87).

And overall, we cannot compare 80's and 2000's circuit.

Wilander is the only player to perform little slam 88 (and Miami this year with 128 players, 7 round in bo5) since Connors 74 and before big3 in 2000's, it means something when players like Borg, McEnroe and Lendl had more arguments to achieve it.


#12 · 6 mo ago


Of course, I thought of AO until 1982, but I preferred to avoid relaunching .. another "debate" .... 🙄

To the only nuance that AO has ALWAYS been a slam.

We know its "dark age" period.

And now we can correlate it for McEnroe and Lendl as well.

McEnroe first played him in 1983, which was a year he finished with YE1, but without overwhelming dominance.
However, he has been at the top for 4 years, precocious today but in accordance with the standards of the time, winner of the Masters 78, of his 1st slam US Open 79, that he was number one the 1st time in March 80 and 1st YE1 in 81.
He lost in 1/2 this year, surprisingly, against Wilander.
His big year 1984, he is suspended (cf. Stockholm 84) and .. already in 1985, he has passed his peak.
He did not come back until 1989, at the age of 30 and on hard.
He will have played 5 editions.

For Lendl, the situation is a little different, but also marked by the AO context of his time.
He plays more editions, always consistent, but still penalized by the grass. Also beaten by Wilander in 83, he undergoes the law of "true" herbivores the 3 following editions .. Curren, Cash and Edberg.

Of course, with the transition to hard, he will have more success with 2 titles (89-90), his last 2 in slam, but he too, his peak has already passed.

Note that Agassi came relatively late to AO, in 1995, but his career was more "fanciful" and "chaotic" than McEnroe and Lendl.

Fortunately I wanted to avoid talking about the AO. :)

Very well noticed about the French Open. Anyway we count them all - since it’s virtually impossible to give proper nuances.

The AO is a long story. It wasn’t even considered a Slam by a large portion of the press. Only 3 Slams were fully considered, AO only on official IT(L)F papers. And that’s all Pre-War. Post-war we all know how relinquished it was - not even a pro-version.

On many accounts of Borg, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors and Becker did not considered AO as important as the other 3 Slams. If the Top5 GOATs (till that time) said so, it must have some true on it, no matter how one likes AO.

The fact Djokovic, Nadal and Federer play Indian Wells, Rome or Cincy doesn’t make them “important” either.

NEVERTHELESS we count them all as Majors.

We just wanted to point out how the term “Major” and “Grand Slam” might be subjective.

The relevance of Australian Open, or even the French Open like you’ve pointed out, might be equivalent to the Covered-Court Championships - a Major just like Wimbledon at its time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
You have surely made a great effort of research and investigation, but I stopped reading here .. for reasons already developed at length here,

In 83, 3 top player plays AO, and Wilander beats the other 2, Lendl and McEnroe ... they too must think it was a low coast slam, so they tanked.

It would be difficult for Borg to have a whirlwind opinion while he is in retirement in 1983 or Becker who is then 14 years old and will not win his 1st slam until 3 years later.

If you imagine that RG early Open Era 70's is prestigious after 1969 (Laver and Rosewal never still played RG), take a closer look at the draws, and better yet, the absence of many players. (not only men but also wta..)
RG has to thank Borg in mid 70's, like AO has to thank Wilander and Edberg in mid 80's, it's a Swedish revival.




Reconsider certain WCT circuit events, because you remain locked in a logic "ATP", or worse... logical MS of 1990 and current "big titles" bias recency, which is more serious for a circuit played still in the 1980's, more than to linger on OG draws from the 1900s or 1920s ...

Anyway, if you believe what you write, that's the gist, but don't expect to convince those who know ... what they know :D

Sorry to repost some of my old posts again, but since nothing new in what I'm reading, I don't have to change anything.
So this .. and many others ...


#79 · 10 mo ago


By integrating Wilander, it gives.
3 top 10 (2 titles, Wx0).


On grass, especially at this time, you should always be wary of the ranking.
example, 3 last rounds Wilander in his AO 84

RoundRankOpponentW-LScore
Finals21Country Flag
Kevin Curren
W67 64 76 62
Semi-Finals15Country Flag
Johan Kriek
W61 60 62
Quarter-Finals22Country Flag
Stefan Edberg
W75 63 16 64
Personally, I do not rule out AO 83-84-85-87, I recalled the reasons.

AO was reborn in the first half of the 80's.
Nov 1983, return of 1-2-3 McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander who play for YE1 and Wilander must play after the Davis Cup final in Kooyong, on grass, in the same stadium.

He beats McEnroe and Lendl, then retain his title the following year in 84 vs. Curren (beats Lendl) who would play the Wimbledon final against Becker in 85, after beating Connors and McEnroe.

Edberg will beat Wilander in 85, no tournament in 86 and Edberg will beat Cash (b Lendl in 1/2) in January 87, who will win Wimbledon in July (b Lendl), Wilander absent because he is getting married


It was only in '88 that the AO moved to Flinders Park on Rebound Ace ... where the change of surface didn't change much ...
1/2
Cash b Lendl
Wilander b Edberg

F Wilander b Cash





Sure, 2 titles Lendl are Queen's 89 and 90, where
Lendl b McEnroe (6-2 6-4) and Becker (6-3,6-2); Becker in semi b Edberg (6-4-6-4)
3rd win for Lendl vs top 10 is Edberg, Wimb 87.


#49 · 19 d ago (Edited)

For me, AO is compact since 1983.

I don't consider a GS where Wilander has to beat McEnroe and Lendl as light, even with 96 players.... when the same year, McEnroe b Chris Lewis in Wimbledon final..

No more when he has to beat Curren in the 84 final who will be a finalist against Becker at Wimbledon 85.

Nor Edberg who beats Lendl and Wilander in 85 or who beats Cash in 87 (beats Lendl in 1/2) who will be Wimbledon winner the same year... vs Lendl

And in truth, also the 1st edition on hard 1988 with (again) 1/2 Wilander-Edberg and Cash-Lendl, we have seen worse in the other GS supposedly top of the game .. 🙄

AO 89 Lend b Mecir (same final US 86)
AO 90 Lendl b Edberg,
unfortunately Edberg is injured and retired

AO 91 Becker b Lendl

Or you have to tell me where was best finals at that time.

#40 · 1 mo ago


Your post is correct.
However, I would add this nuance.

Of course, AO never had the prestige of Wimbledon, and
grass and meteo did not have exactly the same conditions as in London, however from the 1983 edition, the top players returned, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander (who beat both in 1983).

Curren plays the final Dec. 1984 in Melbourne .. and Wimbledon 1985 final (he beat Connors and defending champion McEnroe)
In January 87, Edberg beats Cash in AO final.. who will win Wimbledon 87.
It's still grass.



Regarding Miami, not only , it has prize money but also, "slam format", 128 players, 7 rounds and bo5 each round. 1985 to 1989.

20-03-1989Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Ivan Lendl (1) d. Thomas Muster (7) W/O
14-03-1988Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Mats Wilander (1) d. Jimmy Connors (2) 6-4 4-6 6-4 6-4
23-02-1987Key BiscayneHardKO 128128Miloslav Mecir (9) d. Ivan Lendl (1) 7-5 6-2 7-5
10-02-1986Boca WestHardKO 128128Ivan Lendl (1) d. Mats Wilander (2) 3-6 6-1 7-6 6-4
04-02-1985Delray BeachHardKO 128128Tim Mayotte d. Scott Davis 4-6 4-6 6-3 6-2 6-4
draw was at 96 players in 1990 when MS 1000 was invented and only final in bo5
16-03-1990Miami MastersHardKO 9696Andre Agassi (5) d. Stefan Edberg (3) 6-1 6-4 0-6 6-2


#43 · 10 mo ago (Edited)


No.

AO was reborn in the first half of the 80's.
Nov 1983, return of 1-2-3 McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander who play for YE1 and Wilander must play after the Davis Cup final in Kooyong, on grass, in the same stadium.

He beats McEnroe and Lendl, then retain his title the following year in 84 vs. Curren (beats Lendl) who would play the Wimbledon final against Becker in 85, after beating Connors and McEnroe.

Edberg will beat Wilander in 85, no tournament in 86 and Edberg will beat Cash (b Lendl in 1/2) in January 87, who will win Wimbledon in July (b Lendl), Wilander absent because he is getting married


It was only in '88 that the AO moved to Flinders Park on Rebound Ace ... where the change of surface didn't change much ...
1/2
Cash b Lendl
Wilander b Edberg

F Wilander b Cash

#47 · 6 mo ago


Winning on grass is more significant in the 80's than in the 2000's.. for a clay player as Wilander.. or Borg.

Because the game, with the material and the surface was more specific than now.

At AO, Wilander beat McEnroe (83) and Curren (84), 3 titles at Wimbledon (81-83-84) and finalist 85 in Wimbledon.
Ao was not Wimbledon but Edberg won twice each on grass (AO 85-87, Wimb 88-90) and Cash finalist in AO (87) and winner of Wimbledon (87).

And overall, we cannot compare 80's and 2000's circuit.

Wilander is the only player to perform little slam 88 (and Miami this year with 128 players, 7 round in bo5) since Connors 74 and before big3 in 2000's, it means something when players like Borg, McEnroe and Lendl had more arguments to achieve it.


#12 · 6 mo ago


Of course, I thought of AO until 1982, but I preferred to avoid relaunching .. another "debate" .... 🙄

To the only nuance that AO has ALWAYS been a slam.

We know its "dark age" period.

And now we can correlate it for McEnroe and Lendl as well.

McEnroe first played him in 1983, which was a year he finished with YE1, but without overwhelming dominance.
However, he has been at the top for 4 years, precocious today but in accordance with the standards of the time, winner of the Masters 78, of his 1st slam US Open 79, that he was number one the 1st time in March 80 and 1st YE1 in 81.
He lost in 1/2 this year, surprisingly, against Wilander.
His big year 1984, he is suspended (cf. Stockholm 84) and .. already in 1985, he has passed his peak.
He did not come back until 1989, at the age of 30 and on hard.
He will have played 5 editions.

For Lendl, the situation is a little different, but also marked by the AO context of his time.
He plays more editions, always consistent, but still penalized by the grass. Also beaten by Wilander in 83, he undergoes the law of "true" herbivores the 3 following editions .. Curren, Cash and Edberg.

Of course, with the transition to hard, he will have more success with 2 titles (89-90), his last 2 in slam, but he too, his peak has already passed.

Note that Agassi came relatively late to AO, in 1995, but his career was more "fanciful" and "chaotic" than McEnroe and Lendl.

Fortunately I wanted to avoid talking about the AO. :)
The Torres Index makes no use of Big Titles. It’s wether Majors or all Titles. There was no such concept as “Big Titles” pre-OpenEra.

Big Titles were the bulk of the 1973 Rankings, reason why it is a valid concept (but one must translate it to the 70s ranking systems).

For the entire conceptualization as “Big Titles” I suggest you the discussion about Open Era GOATs.

Apparently you haven't read this new post at all, since mentioned there is "nothing new" (new to what? parameters?) about an entirely new subject (how could have you read something that hasn't been written yet!).

For the rest, you truly should have a deep reading of it all, it's worth it - nobody has accomplished such detailed research of Tennis Eras.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
54,761 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,112 Posts
On many accounts of Borg, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors and Becker did not considered AO as important as the other 3 Slams. If the Top5 GOATs (till that time) said so, it must have some true on it, no matter how one likes AO.
Thank you for taking the time for your 2 long replies, even if you repeat what you have already posted before, it does not matter.
But I repeat, I prefer to know what I know :)

And so, when I speak about these events, here AO 1983, it is not because I read it, but because I lived it
and that I still have the magazines from this tournament. (Tennis Magazine, Tennis de France, le Monde du tennis,
the last 2 named no longer exist; as well as "L'année du tennis" from 1978 to 1989.



I am of course not going to have a firm opinion on OG 1920... or the events prior to the 70's ... as long as I have been following tennis since late 70's, RG 1978 precisely, and the circuit allows me a coherent and continuous understanding overall since the rise of Connors and Borg in 1974.
This has not prevented me, of course, since that time, from trying to understand and also analyze what happened before.


And therefore, I will not bore you more with that since you seem convinced of what you are writing.



I have already posted here at length about the AO, its history, its remoteness, the cost and the length of the trip, not to mention at the time of the aussies golden age as well how little chance of success for foreign players.
But also how, through the Davis Cup, the 4 GS events obtain this status.
You are a new user here, and therefore you have not read these developments, which is to be expected.

I'm not in love with AO, I'm not Australian, and as you may have noticed, I'm French ... it would be easier for me to promote Roland Garros ...


I am above all in love ... with the facts, without concession, and above all I must say that I am not in search of an illusory "goat" by seeking to force the figures of history to make them correspond to a recurrence bias that will please in my eyes.



We just wanted to point out how the term “Major” and “Grand Slam” might be subjective.
Of course that "Major" and "Grand Slam" is subjective, since currently ATP calls MS 1000 as "big titles" and that it is also on this influence that you made your "classification", whereas these tournaments have no legitimacy in this "title" before 1990, not to say since big3, like OG ..
I can even tell you that in the French methodology, "Major" concerns GS + WTF and now OG.
In English, Major = GS only.


The Torres Index
What is that? Who is Torres? What is its legitimacy to designate the "true" greatest of all times, and to proclaim itself judge of last instance, this lack of humility in the face of the history of the game is quite crippling.


Apparently you haven't read this new post at all, since mentioned there is "nothing new" (new to what? parameters?) about an entirely new subject (how could have you read something that hasn't been written yet!).
Yes, I have the weakness to think that nothing has changed about the events of the past, they are what they are forever.
What changes is the reading that we can do at a given moment ...
with varying reasons depending on the moment ...

In areas other than tennis, it has a name, revisionism, or in its most extreme form ... the cancel culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Thank you for taking the time for your 2 long replies, even if you repeat what you have already posted before, it does not matter.
But I repeat, I prefer to know what I know :)

And so, when I speak about these events, here AO 1983, it is not because I read it, but because I lived it
and that I still have the magazines from this tournament. (Tennis Magazine, Tennis de France, le Monde du tennis,
the last 2 named no longer exist; as well as "L'année du tennis" from 1978 to 1989.



I am of course not going to have a firm opinion on OG 1920... or the events prior to the 70's ... as long as I have been following tennis since late 70's, RG 1978 precisely, and the circuit allows me a coherent and continuous understanding overall since the rise of Connors and Borg in 1974.
This has not prevented me, of course, since that time, from trying to understand and also analyze what happened before.


And therefore, I will not bore you more with that since you seem convinced of what you are writing.



I have already posted here at length about the AO, its history, its remoteness, the cost and the length of the trip, not to mention at the time of the aussies golden age as well how little chance of success for foreign players.
But also how, through the Davis Cup, the 4 GS events obtain this status.
You are a new user here, and therefore you have not read these developments, which is to be expected.

I'm not in love with AO, I'm not Australian, and as you may have noticed, I'm French ... it would be easier for me to promote Roland Garros ...


I am above all in love ... with the facts, without concession, and above all I must say that I am not in search of an illusory "goat" by seeking to force the figures of history to make them correspond to a recurrence bias that will please in my eyes.





Of course that "Major" and "Grand Slam" is subjective, since currently ATP calls MS 1000 as "big titles" and that it is also on this influence that you made your "classification", whereas these tournaments have no legitimacy in this "title" before 1990, not to say since big3, like OG ..
I can even tell you that in the French methodology, "Major" concerns GS + WTF and now OG.
In English, Major = GS only.



What is that? Who is Torres? What is its legitimacy to designate the "true" greatest of all times, and to proclaim itself judge of last instance, this lack of humility in the face of the history of the game is quite crippling.




Yes, I have the weakness to think that nothing has changed about the events of the past, they are what they are forever.
What changes is the reading that we can do at a given moment ...
with varying reasons depending on the moment ...

In areas other than tennis, it has a name, revisionism, or in its most extreme form ... the cancel culture.
Thank you for the replay.

We only work with official data and empirical observations. We do not make use of any opinions or personal preferences whenever realising our rankings. Our diverse contributors spread around the globe may feel free to write about varied tennis-related topics, but on rankings we use specific algorithms savouring all data tennis may provides us. We do not support any forms of revisionism. Our team only works with history, which, to no surprise, may be vary disturbing or fascinating (depending on the mindset) for many. We would be glad to provide you any information you want, but our opinion cannot be given singularly due to the nature of our philosophy and work. Best Regards!
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top