How to measure tennis greatness?

Question

What should be the criterion for measuring tennis greatness?

1. Number of grandslams won - 14 for Pete Sampras

2. Versatility on different surfaces - Andre Agassi who won all GS on all surfaces

3. Maximum total number of weeks spent at #1 - Pete Sampras

4. Number of ATP singles titles won - 109 for Jimmy Connors

5. Ability to win all slams in the same calendar year - Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969

6. Most consecutive weeks at #1 - 232 (and counting)consecutive weeks for Roger Federer

7. Some other criterion?

Answer 1

Number 3. To me, a match is just a match, a grand slam or not. The total number of weeks at number 1 shows how much you have been winning in everything. That means the most.

Answer 2

number 2.if u can win on every surface that is great.......

Answer 3

Number 1 is the most coveted criterion, closely followed by #2. Grandslams are what it's all about. That's what separates men from boys, and women from girls. The more you can win the better. And nice if you can bag all of them. But I think Sampras' 14 beats Agassi's career slam anyday.

At the end of the day, ranking means nothing. Federer is number 1 right now, but who is the French Open and Wimbledon champion?

Connors' ATP singles again loses significance since quite a few of them were weak tournaments devoid of other top ranked players.

The calendar slam is nice, but I don't assign much weight to it. It says more about the strength of the era than anything else. Federer would have had 3 calendar slams had it not been for strong clay court opponents. Who is the strongest clay courter Rod Laver had to face during his  prime?

Answer 4

I look at 4 things:

1. Dominance, winning 2 Slams a year when players have a hard time winning 2 in 2 years. Staying #1 for so many weeks etc.

2. Consistency, Federer has made 17 consecutive semifinals and defended his title at the Aussie once, Wimbledon 4 times and U.S. 3 times.

3. Versatility, players like Pete who had the achilles heel in surfaces, like the French, many great players like Connors also failed at the French, or guys like Lendl who were great on hard courts but iffy on clay and grass. True greatness comes from winning on all surfaces constantly, like Federer making 10 straight Slam Finals.

4. Endurance and longevity, Borg is not one of the best, guy was a flash in the pan, Gale Sayers was great too, but he shouldn't be in the Hall, why? Cause he was no Barry Sanders. Agassi was #1 at age 34, respect.

Answer 5

Great question. I would have to say number 5 because to achieve a Grand Slam is the greatest honour in tennis. Rod Laver did this twice which proves his dominance on all surfaces.

Answer 6

I honestly think it's the combination of all you mentioned and other criteria other answerers added.

For instance, if a player won 15 GS in his career, but all from Wimbledon.  This player may have the most GS, but he can't be called the greatest because he can't win on other surfaces other than grass.

And lets say a player won all 4 GS once.  This player can't be called the greatest either because of his inability to win multiple times on different surfaces.

Until someone can win all 4 GS multiple times, there really is no clear greatest of all time.  Great question though :)

Answer 7

All the above you guys mentioned are true.  There's only one thing I would like to add on.  

Number of years in top ten: 16 ( Agassi tied with Connors)

It shows how consistent you are in your entire career.  You might be the greatest at this moment but can you maintain it throughout your career?  There are many players had had great achievement in their career but after they have reached their peak, they start to downfall and never recover.

Answer 8

For the record, Helen Moody won 19 grand slam titles in her career. She probably would have won more, but never even bothered to play in the Australia championships.

Also, McEnroe may have 'only' won 7 gs titles, but during much of his career the french and australian opens were not as big a deal as they are now. also, there were tournaments (one in Dallas that ended as the French was beginning) that drew stiffer competition because they paid more prize money.  They were tougher competition than what was had at Aus or French and paid more, but don't count as GS wins.

Rod Laver is another reason to not use just GS wins. he won the GS in 62 and 69...however during the in between years he wasn't even able to enter the gs events. how many more would he have won?

When comparing players from different eras I think that perhaps you should look at their overall rankings and tournaments won. Both give a measure of how well they play against their competition.

Answer 9

First of all, I just have to compliment you Tennifan for a really thought provoking question. LOL No seriously, I mean that. LOL It makes me very happy to answer a question that requires you to think a lot. LOL

Okay here's my answer:

For me it would be number 1: Number of grandslams won.

I believe everyone associated with the game tends to remember the number of Grandslams a player wins in his/her career first, rather than how many weeks/months/years they spend at number one, or how many tournaments they won, or how versatile they were on all courts.

Not that any of these achievements aren't important, because they are, and they mean a lot. But if you really, really pay close attention to the articles that are written about the top players in the game, or the things that commentators and fans have to say about them, the FIRST thing you will ever hear them talk about is: the number of Grand Slams that player won. Then you would hear them talk about the number of weeks they were number one; the number of tournaments they won; their ability to play on all surfaces. etc.

It just seems that people remember the slams quicker than any other record. It is what everyone holds on to. and as a player, it is what you strive the hardest to achieve.

So when you talk about greatness in the sport, chances are the player with the most slams tends to be heralded as the greatest, and then, once that is finish, we break down the other list of criterion why we believe that person is as "great" as we believe they are. e.g. the number of years they were number one, their versatility on different surfaces, they amount of tournaments they won, career Grandslam. etc.

Answer 10

well there isnt really criteria you just know and feel it

Answer 11

In addition to the ones you already listed, you might consider the following:

Number of times a player qualifies for the elite 8 player season-ending championships.

Success in both singles and doubles, like John McEnroe.

Overall career won-loss record and winning percentage.

Grand slam won-loss record and winning percentage.

You could also get into the minutiae of tennis statistics, but I think the ones you listed as well as these should paint a pretty comprehensive picture.