Top male players since Rod Laver (slam results only - quantity and mix):
1) Pete Sampras 2) Bjorn Borg 3) Andre Agassi 4) JP McEnroe 5) Jimmy Connors 6) Boris Becker 7) Stefan Edberg 8) Ivan Lendl 9) Mats Wilander 10) Roger Federer
(slam results + adjustment for DC play)
1) Bjorn Borg 2) Pete Sampras 3) Andre Agassi 4) JP McEnroe 5) Boris Becker 6) Stefan Edberg 7) Jimmy Connors 8) Mats Wilander 9) Ivan Lendl 10) Roger Federer
(slam results + adjustments for DC play + slam importance modification)
1) Bjorn Borg 2) JP McEnroe 3) Pete Sampras 4) Andre Agassi 5) Boris Becker 6) Stefan Edberg 7) Jimmy Connors 8) Mats Wilander 9) Ivan Lendl 10) Roger Federer
IMO, the 3rd list is the best way to measure overall results, but take your pick.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
- Thomas Jefferson
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
I think adjusting for DC play is questionable to begin with. All the> guys in the top 4 on your lists have notable DC achievements. None of> them should get addtional points over the others on that basis.
? Borg, Mac, and Agassi are far more accomplished in DC than Sampras. Though of course that doesn't hurt Sampras that much because his slam record is so good.
Mac won 4 DCs at a time when DC was more important than the FO or AO. He deserves slam credit for that. And by "slam importance" i mean winning the slams that counted most and not docking guys for not winning the AO in the 70s and early 80s when it was very weak.
But yes, you could still make a case for Sampras > Mac in list #3.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Top male players since Rod Laver (slam results only - quantity and mix):>
1) Pete Sampras> 2) Bjorn Borg> 3) Andre Agassi> 4) JP McEnroe> 5) Jimmy Connors> 6) Boris Becker> 7) Stefan Edberg> 8) Ivan Lendl> 9) Mats Wilander> 10) Roger Federer>
(slam results + adjustment for DC play)>
1) Bjorn Borg> 2) Pete Sampras> 3) Andre Agassi> 4) JP McEnroe> 5) Boris Becker> 6) Stefan Edberg> 7) Jimmy Connors> 8) Mats Wilander> 9) Ivan Lendl> 10) Roger Federer>
(slam results + adjustments for DC play + slam importance modification)>
1) Bjorn Borg> 2) JP McEnroe> 3) Pete Sampras> 4) Andre Agassi> 5) Boris Becker> 6) Stefan Edberg> 7) Jimmy Connors> 8) Mats Wilander> 9) Ivan Lendl> 10) Roger Federer>
IMO, the 3rd list is the best way to measure overall results, but take your> pick.>
Top male players since Rod Laver (slam results only - quantity and>
mix):>
You are again talking about the new players only. I started this thread> so that we can talk about the older greats like Budge, Tilden and> Gonzales.>
Tough to rate Pancho - he may have been best ever, but we don't know how he woulda coped in slam final pressure - maybe lost a lot of finals like Lendl?
My gut is he's somehwhere in top 10, but nuts to say he's best ever...
Top male players since Rod Laver (slam results only - quantity and>
mix):>
1) Pete Sampras>>2) Bjorn Borg>>3) Andre Agassi>
You have to be kidding me??! Fucking cs....LOL>
4) JP McEnroe>>5) Jimmy Connors>>6) Boris Becker>>7) Stefan Edberg>>8) Ivan Lendl>>9) Mats Wilander>>10) Roger Federer>>
(slam results + adjustment for DC play)>>
1) Bjorn Borg>>2) Pete Sampras>>3) Andre Agassi>>4) JP McEnroe>>5) Boris Becker>>6) Stefan Edberg>>7) Jimmy Connors>>8) Mats Wilander>>9) Ivan Lendl>>10) Roger Federer>>
(slam results + adjustments for DC play + slam importance>
modification)>
1) Bjorn Borg>>2) JP McEnroe>>3) Pete Sampras>>4) Andre Agassi>>5) Boris Becker>>6) Stefan Edberg>>7) Jimmy Connors>>8) Mats Wilander>>9) Ivan Lendl>>10) Roger Federer>>
IMO, the 3rd list is the best way to measure overall results, but>
take your>
pick.>>
I think adjusting for DC play is questionable to begin with. All the> guys in the top 4 on your lists have notable DC achievements. None of> them should get addtional points over the others on that basis. McEnroe> should not be rewarded so heavily as to come out over a guy with twice> as many slams and more than twice as many Wimbledons and twice as many> #1 years on any list. What have you been smoking? Labrador?>
Yes, Jaros is way off with his logic here - DC counts for little in individual legacy points. It's great to have on resume, but only as a 'filler'....
Yes, Jaros is way off with his logic here - DC counts for little in> individual legacy points. It's great to have on resume, but only as a> 'filler'....
Before the mid-80s, DC was more highly regarded than AO for sure, arguably even FO.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
StephenJ wrote:>>Yes, Jaros is way off with his logic here - DC counts for little in>>individual legacy points. It's great to have on resume, but only as a>>'filler'....>
Before the mid-80s, DC was more highly regarded than AO for sure, arguably> even FO.>
Different test of skills. Peaking for 1 or 2 matches, knowing you can lose & still win etc....
Before the mid-80s, DC was more highly regarded than AO for sure,
arguably> > even FO.> >
Different test of skills. Peaking for 1 or 2 matches, knowing you can> lose & still win etc....
Yes, but not necessarily an inferior test of skills.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Yes, and besides, Sampras has '95 DC finals win on *clay in Russia* to> his enormous credit. That's enough.
Sampras does merit a slam-credit for big contribution towards winning 95 DC, and i give him that.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Different test of skills. Peaking for 1 or 2 matches, knowing you> can> > > lose & still win etc....> >
Yes, but not necessarily an inferior test of skills.>
But you seem to dismiss YEC's??
Yes, that's comparatively meaningless.
I don't give DC slam credit today, because DC has fallen off badly since mid-90s.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Certainly not a slam-level category - rates behind slams, yr-end No.1 &> even YEC....
Today that's true, but not in bygone eras.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
