Mens Tennis Forums banner

Who is the USO goat?

  • Sampras (5 titles and 8 finals too much to deal with baby)

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • Federer (5 titles and 6 finals in a row)

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • Connors (5 titles and 7 finals)

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • Mcenroe (4 titles on 5 finals)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lendl (although only 3 titles, 8 finals in a row is just ridiculous achievement).

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 2 4.9%

  • Total voters
    41
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just wondering who is regarded as the USO goat by the United Statian crowd. ;) ?

IS it connors? sampras? Federer? Mcenroe? Lendl?


I think Sampras still remains as the USO goat, 5 titles and 8 finals is too much to deal with. He also beat there agassi x3, chang and pioline on finals. (beating hewitt/agassi/roddick/djokovic/murray.

On the other hand Federer also won it 5 times but he did it in a row reaching 6 straight finals.

Connors won it 5 times in total of 7 finals and beat only big names on the finals such as Rosewall, borg x2 and Lendl x2.

There is also Lendl with 3 titles on 8 finals (in a row). And mcenroe with 4 titles on 5 final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67,452 Posts
easily sampras
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'd put them

1) Sampras
2) COnnors (close second, won on 3 different surfaces)
gap
3) Federer
gap
gap
4) Mcenroe
5) Lendl (close fourth, considering he did 8 finals in a row,...)
 

·
Bring it Home
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Based on results, Sampras probably is the USO GOAT and Federer is probably the Wimbledon GOAT.

What is kinda bizarre, since Federer is a better hardcourter and Sampras was a better grasscourter. :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
Sampras
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,004 Posts
Do you place much emphasis on the fact that Connors won the title on all three surfaces?
One should, especially since he beat Borg in 2 finals, one on clay and one on hard courts. I voted for Pete, but forgot Jimmy's unique record. I was never a Connors fan, but one has to give him special credit. Take one from Pete and give it to Jimmy-LOL!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,003 Posts
Connors for me, regardless of what you think of the three different surfaces. Just compare him with Sampras:

Connors: 5 W, 7 F, 13 SF, 16 QF - 98 wins
Sampras: 5 W, 8 F, 9 SF, 10 QF - 71 wins

Streaks:
Connors reached the SF or better 12 years in a row, plus the QF or better 13 years in a row. Also five finals in a row.
Sampras reached three finals in a row.

One extra lost final does not trump four extra SFs and six extra QFs and the most impressive one-tournament SF streak in slam history.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Connors for me, regardless of what you think of the three different surfaces. Just compare him with Sampras:

Connors: 5 W, 7 F, 13 SF, 16 QF - 98 wins
Sampras: 5 W, 8 F, 9 SF, 10 QF - 71 wins

Streaks:
Connors reached the SF or better 12 years in a row, plus the QF or better 13 years in a row. Also five finals in a row.
Sampras reached three finals in a row.

One extra lost final does not trump four extra SFs and six extra QFs and the most impressive one-tournament SF streak in slam history.
Lets no forget he won uso on different surfaces.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
47,128 Posts
Pete and Jimmy, IMO.

Tilden won 7 US titles, but they were not "Open". Connors I think had the more impressive winning on 3 surfaces but Pete had more wins over a longer period of time, but Jimmy's run in '91 was crazy. Connors won it in 74 on grass over Rosewall in the final, then lost in 75 on green clay to Orantes, then beat Borg on green clay in 76 for the title, then lost on clay to Vilas in 77 in the finals, then beat Borg again in 78, this time on hard court. After Mac won it in 79, 80, and 81, Connors was able to rebound to win the titles in 82 and 83.

Splitting hairs, really.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Pistol Pete IMO. He was such a joy to watch.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,003 Posts
Pete and Jimmy, IMO.

Tilden won 7 US titles, but they were not "Open". Connors I think had the more impressive winning on 3 surfaces but Pete had more wins over a longer period of time, but Jimmy's run in '91 was crazy. Connors won it in 74 on grass over Rosewall in the final, then lost in 75 on green clay to Orantes, then beat Borg on green clay in 76 for the title, then lost on clay to Vilas in 77 in the finals, then beat Borg again in 78, this time on hard court. After Mac won it in 79, 80, and 81, Connors was able to rebound to win the titles in 82 and 83.

Splitting hairs, really.
Pete had more wins? I guess you meant "Pete had his wins over a longer period of time". Suggesting he had more does not rhyme well with the facts.

btw, it's funny, according to such arguments the best way to get five wins is five in a row, the second best is four in a row somewhere, third best is three in a row somewhere and fourth best is to have them as far away from each other as possible. No love for "reasonable close together".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
I guess this is the reason Sampras is beating Connors in the poll. People have seen Sampras. Not many in here are old enough to remember Connors other than as a list of facts and figures.
Good point. I have never seen Connors play aside from 2-3 youtube videos so i am more in Pete's favor.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,003 Posts
Good point. I have never seen Connors play aside from 2-3 youtube videos so i am more in Pete's favor.
Which also means that Federer will overtake Sampras in a few years time, even without adding to his resumé, since fewer people will then have seen Sampras play, and get to #1 even here unless another player manages five in the mean time.

Don't know why it is so important to have seen everything yourself, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
Which also means that Federer will overtake Sampras in a few years time, even without adding to his resumé, since fewer people will then have seen Sampras play, and get to #1 even here unless another player manages five in the mean time.

Don't know why it is so important to have seen everything yourself, though.
I think because people forget the past too soon.

Look at the 04 -07 weak era crap talk here. It too has to do with the fact that fewer people supporting that claim have seen Federer play then, since they seriously started watching tennis when Rafa and Nole peaked so they assume it was a weak era based on the slam count of Federer's peers.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top