By Raymond Lee | @Tennis_Now | Friday, June 6, 2025

The GOAT debate has long captivated tennis fans and players for decades.

Debates on who the Greatest Of All Time in any sport or competition has been discussed ever since there have been sports. Unfortunately, most sports aren’t like weightlifting or running a race where you can have an exact measurement of what you carried out or at least a close measurement.

I’ve read some on the internet saying there is no GOAT in tennis. That to me is not accurate. Of course there is a GOAT in tennis, but it depends on what category you are discussing.

One of the reasons I’m writing this article is not necessarily to determine who is the GOAT of tennis but to discuss the reasons how we should examine and determine a potential GOAT. I also give due credit to the GOAT level players who have been overlooked over the years due to the passage of time and other factors.

I am not necessarily going to pick a GOAT of Tennis but I felt it would be interesting to examine the facts. I may eliminate a few from consideration who have been called the GOAT. I will offer some logical reasons why a certain Great Player has a reasonable argument to be considered possibly the Greatest of All Time.

The game of chess now with our super chess computer programs, can analyze the accuracy of chess players throughout history. So they can establish who is the most accurate human player of all time, which I believe is currently Magnus Carlsen. Even that has some problems because the old-time chess players did not have the theory and the current technology that we have today to improve play. Perhaps these players would have been far better and perhaps could rival Carlsen for accuracy of chess play.

In some ways perhaps a better question is how would Carlsen do in Bobby Fischer’s time, Emmanuel Lasker’s time, Mikhail Tal’s time or the early days of Karpov and Kasparov when there were no computers or online play?

Clearly, as of now, if you just discuss the accuracy of chess moves, the GOAT of chess is Magnus Carlsen. That is one category in chess.

Would Carlsen be as accurate if he didn’t have today’s technology? I don’t think so.

For example, if you were discussing the GOAT of tennis with a wood racquet you definitely would NOT have Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal aka the Big Three in the mix or in the Women’s Game, Serena Williams, or Steffi Graf.

In that way, new racquet and string technology are the equivalent of using computer programs in chess. It helps improve the player’s level of play enormously.



Will they be able to find out who is the best tennis player in certain categories via computer analysis? Perhaps someday. I am certain they have the technology to do it now if they wanted to.

Can players today hit all the shots they hit today with a wood racquet? I do not think so. Everything is relative.

Clearly the players of today and recent years can hit superior shots compared to the players of yesteryear because of better equipment. They have better racquets, better strings, and frankly better training methods due to advances in medicine.

Roger Federer at his peak could hit superior shots compared to the players of the past. However, he also had superior equipment and other resources. A good question to ask is how Federer would do if he was playing in 1965. I’m sure he would be fantastic and awesome, but he wouldn’t be able to hit the shots he could hit when he was at his peak in the 2000s due to the inferior racquets and strings. Also, the advances in training methods is a substantial difference.



It also depends on how you define what a GOAT is. You can’t necessarily go into total accomplishments without examining the history behind those accomplishments. For example, Roy Emerson once held the record for the most majors won with 12. Did any tennis expert ever consider Roy Emerson to be the GOAT? I don’t think so.

The reason was that Emerson won all his majors as an amateur, without playing all the top players. Roy Emerson was of course a great player but playing and winning majors in the amateurs isn’t as great an accomplishment as winning majors in Open Tennis. Would Emerson have won 12 majors if Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Gimeno and Hoad played in those majors? Almost definitely not.

Let’s give a ridiculous example of how you have to examine things in total. Let’s say there is a Club Championship and Player A, who is a good player but not World Class, wins his Club Championship 10 years in a row without ever losing. He departs from the club for a while.

In the meantime, a young kid named Rafael Nadal, age 22, decides to join the same club. He wins the Club Championship for 2 straight years. Not only does Rafa win the Club Championship, but he also wins it without losing a game in both years.

Nadal leaves the Club. Player A comes back to win the Championship again.

My question is this, who is the GOAT of that club?

Well, if you go by just Championship Titles, it’s clearly Player A, with 11 Club Championships. That’s the way much of the media rates the greats.

But let’s face it, the GOAT of that Club is Rafael Nadal.

I point this out because often we just count Championships aka majors to decide who is the GOAT in Tennis history. Well, counting Championships is fine. It is a decent indicator of the possible greatness of the player we are examining. But we have to recognize the reason we count championships is to understand the LEVEL OF PLAY of the player we are discussing.

The LEVEL OF PLAY of Rafael Nadal is far superior to that of Player A.

I believe just looking at raw numbers is just part of the equation, but you have to dig deeper for the truth. You have to look at everything and do an objective analysis. I’ve seen some articles in which the writer already decided beforehand on the outcome and simply uses only the information that supports their opinion. That to me is the incorrect way to examine things.

The true way to figure out who is the GOAT or who has good reasons to be called the GOAT is to examine what the player accomplished of course, but also to understand the circumstances under which that player was able to accumulate those accomplishments! What the player accomplished is simply a device to gauge the level of play of that particular tennis player.

Sometimes there are factors like the Professional Tennis/Amateur Tennis divide in the Men’s game that prevented players from entering major tournaments like Wimbledon. There could be boycotts not allowing players to play Wimbledon like in 1973, when most of the top players did not play.

This allowed Jan Kodes an easier path to win Wimbledon. Perhaps Kodes would have won Wimbledon that year anyway but we will never know. Later that year Kodes came within one set of winning the US Open but was defeated by the great John Newcombe in 5 sets after Kodes was leading 2 sets to 1.

Jimmy Connors and Evonne Goolagong were not allowed to play the French Open in 1974 due to the fact that they dared to sign a contract with World TeamTennis. Connors was in the middle of perhaps his greatest year in which he won every classic major he entered! Would he have won the French Open and the Grand Slam? Who knows? It was a shame he did not get the chance.

Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert won the 1974 French Open that year. Evert probably would have won the French Open anyway but Goolagong was capable of defeating Evert even on clay. It would have been nice to see her get that chance.

Another problem is that some classic majors lost a lot of prestige in some years. Because of that many top players did not want to play in that particular major tournament. Other tournaments, like the WCT Finals were really majors in terms of prestige.

So often some majors, due to the fact that they lost prestige, did not have the strongest fields. There were other factors also, like the fact that the Australian Open for example was played at the end of the calendar year. Many players didn’t want to play at that time of year.

Arthur Ashe was ranked No. 1 in 1975 due to the fact he won the WCT Finals and Wimbledon. The WCT Finals had great prestige so essentially Ashe won 2 majors that year.

So a player like John McEnroe, who officially has won 7 classic majors can be argued to have won really won 12 majors because he won 5 WCT Finals, although the WCT Finals did lose some prestige in its later years. Same with Ivan Lendl. Lendl won 8 classic majors but also won 3 WCT Finals for 11 majors. At worse, the WCT Finals are a top level addition to the resume of these great players showing their high level of play.

So, let’s examine what players have a reasonable argument for being the GOAT or players who have been called the GOAT while they were playing, why they could be and perhaps arguments against that. The key word here is REASONABLE. Someone could say the Club Champion I mentioned earlier is the GOAT but that would be ridiculous.

Pre-Open Era

Bill Tilden

Bill Tilden was considered for many decades to be THE GOAT of tennis. In 1969, after Rod Laver won his second Calendar Year Grand Slam, an international panel of tennis writers that picked the Player of the Year for Martini and Rossi Gold Racket picked the greatest tennis players of all time. Tilden was chosen as No. 1 as he was in another top tennis poll in 1950.

Tilden played in a time in which overseas travel was very difficult. Players had to often travel by boat, which would take many weeks, perhaps months. The players would get out of shape and it would take a while to recover their form. Players did not want to travel overseas to play the majors as much.

With these limitations, Tilden was the top winner of the classic majors for many years with a total of 10 classic majors. You can actually say safely that it was 11 majors since he won the World Hard Court in 1921 which was the top clay court major at that time since the French Championships were only open to French players.

So Tilden from 1920 to 1925 won 9 majors out of 9 played! Tilden during those years lost just a few matches a year.

Even in 1930, clearly past his prime, when he traveled to Europe at the age of 37, Tilden won 18 tournaments. Among these tournaments were the championships of 5 nations. The championships were Wimbledon, Austria, Italy, Monaco and the Netherlands (Dutch Championship) which is incredibly impressive for a player of any age.

Tilden had a record of 120-6 for the year! Just an off year for him.

To quote The Bud Collins History of Tennis “If a player’s value is measured by the dominance and influence he exercises over a sport, then William Tatem “Big Bill Tilden could be considered the greatest player in the history of tennis.”

Again, quoting Bud Collins History of Tennis “As an amateur (1912-30), Tilden won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals and had a 907-62 match record—a phenomenal .936 average.” This is utter domination of tennis over a long term.

In fact, for years Hall of Famer Bud Collins called Bill Tilden GOAT—until Bud Collins saw prime-time Roger Federer.

Tilden was not only great in tournament play but he also was excellent when he turned Professional in 1931, at the age of 38. As I mentioned earlier, he was great the previous year in winning 18 tournaments including the championships of 5 nations, which included Wimbledon and the Italian Championships.

Tilden’s amateur record cannot be discounted because he did not play the pros because virtually all the top players were playing in the amateur ranks. There was no “organized top pro tour.”

Tilden had every shot. Ellsworth Vines said he never saw anyone who could do as much off both sides. Tilden was an excellent mover and a great strategist on the court.

Tilden was the top pro for a number of years until the great Ellsworth Vines dethroned him in 1934.

https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/40618/

Ellsworth Vines

Ellsworth Vines, at least to me, is sort of almost a mythical figure.

It seems that everyone who played him shared the same opinion: When Vines was on his game, that he was invincible!

Vines, when he was younger, had an injury that forced him to only use his right arm for years. In this way, like Hoad and Laver after him, his playing arm was huge compared to his left arm and compared to any normal human being. In other words, like Hoad and Laver, he had what can only be described as superhuman strength and reflexes.

Vines was also a great athlete who played several sports well, including basketball, baseball (I understand that he often launched Home Runs that were incredibly long) and of course later golf, where he became a world class player. Clearly the greatest combination of the top level of play if you combine tennis and golf.

Vines hit very flat strokes which had little margin for error, although he did hit with some topspin off the forehand crosscourt. Many have said that Vines’ first serve was the most powerful serve of all time. Vines had a very strong second serve also.

Here’s a description of Vines at his very best. This is from Tennis Styles and Stylists by Paul Metzler—"Vines was only nineteen when, in 1931, he swept the board in U.S. major tournaments to such effect that his American ranking rose from tenth to first and he became the logical successor to Tilden. The following year he descended on Wimbledon, laying the opposition waste with his “violent” game, smashing some lobs so hard that the ball bounced from mid-court into the royal box itself. In the quarterfinals he was expected to be well tested by the powerful serving and all-round hard hitting of the Spanish player Enrique Maier. But a strong opponent only caused Vines to hit even harder. He won in quick time, 6-2 6-3 6-2, making the Spaniard’s service appear almost innocuous compared to his own. Next, he faced Crawford, victor over fourth-seeded Fred Perry, and hit him off the court in so devastating a display that Henri Cochet, watching from the stands, was heard to observe: “Pretty good. Wonderful. Never saw anything like it.”

In the final, Vines was to oppose England’s Bunny Austin, who had beaten Frank Shields of America and Jiroh Satoh of Japan. Austin was a smooth stroke-maker usually at his best against the hard-hitting American type of player, and he was given some chance of halting Vines’ crushing run. He was also the first Englishman to reach the final for 10 years.

Austin was allowed to show a little more of his art than Crawford had been, but only a little. Vines began uncertainly, and the score reached 4-all in the first set.

Veteran onlookers described the match from then on as the greatest display of intense speed ever seen on a tennis court. Vines swept over Austin like a heavy surf gaining force with each wave. The score was 6-4, 6-2, 6-0. In his 12 service games Vines served 30 aces, the last one ending the match. The third set took only ten minutes. Some of Vines’ drives beat Austin “by half the length of the court.”

The last service ace by Vines is the stuff of legend. Austin claimed he never saw the last ace and didn’t know which side he aced him on. Perhaps this is true and perhaps not but it does demonstrate the great speed of Vines’ great serve.

To also quote the great Jack Kramer on Vines from his wonderful book The Game ”Hell, when Elly was on, you’d be lucky to get your racket on the ball once you served it.”

Later in the paragraph, ”Elly had shoulder problems himself. But when Vines and Hoad were healthy, and when they were hot, they---and Laver too---could do more with the ball than Budge. Nothing was impossible for any of these three guys when they were on. They thought of something, and then they just went and did it.”

To quote Allison Danzig the great tennis writer: ”Vines at the peak of his form could probably have beaten any player that ever lived. His lightning-bolt service was regarded by some as the best of all. No one hit a forehand flatter or harder or kept the ball so close to the net. He was murderous overhead and a volleyer of the first rank.”

Another thing I find interesting is how many said that Ellsworth Vines was an erratic player, meaning that he could be on or off his game at times due to his high-risk style. That almost seemed to imply that he lost more than he should have. Well perhaps that was true but it didn’t seem to show in the won-lost records. Isn’t that what truly matters?

It seems to me that like the Great Rod Laver, Ellsworth Vines would hit himself into form and once he reached that level, he was unstoppable.

Here are Vines’ won-lost records year by year.

1930 21-5

1931 67-5

1932 59-10

1933 39-9

1934 85-23

Vines turned pro this year and some sources claim he defeated Tilden by 47-26 on tour but Vines in some interviews said the record was incorrect so I will go with 85-23. Very impressive record considering he had turned pro and faced top players like Tilden and Nusslein among others.

1935 74-16

1936 90-13

1937 35-35

1938 53-39

Vines played Fred Perry on tour and defeated him on several tours. It seems clear to me that he was in decline due to physical injuries and mental fatigue. In his last few years in Professional Tennis he was possibly playing more golf than tennis.

My thought is that Vines probably could be somewhat erratic at times during the match but he could raise his game to another level when he was behind to pull out matches. This is generally true of many players like Rod Laver for example. I believe Arthur Ashe said that when Laver was behind, he started to hit the ball harder instead of temporizing like some may.

Vines’ won-lost percentages are actually superb during his best years in the amateurs and his years in the Professional Ranks. It’s only the last couple of years in which we see a decline due to injuries and burn out.

Vines’ peak levels are perhaps as high as any player, arguably more so. He was legendary for being unstoppable when he was on his game. His power was considered to be as much or more than any player that ever lived. For peak level and for career level Vines was incredible.

Here’s Vines playing Henri Cochet in the finals of the US Nationals now called the US Open. Cochet was a great player who was number 1 in the world. Cochet is often on the old historical lists as one of the greatest ever and won a number of majors. Yet, he never defeated Vines in about 12 or 13 matches.



Don Budge

J. Donald Budge has been often called the greatest tennis player that ever lived.

Many who played him swore that he was invincible. This is further cemented by the fact that he won the “First Calendar Year Grand Slam” in 1938. That of course is a fantastic feat, however one major problem I have with that is essentially Don Budge invented the concept of the Grand Slam. He told no one about his intent to win the four majors at the time. There wasn’t the pressure that Rod Laver felt in 1962 or 1969 or when Lew Hoad was going for the Grand Slam in 1956 when he lost to the annoying nemesis of many players, the eternal Ken Rosewall in four sets.

I’m also certain that Novak Djokovic felt a tremendous amount of pressure when he was going for the Calendar Year Grand Slam a few years ago and lost to Daniil Medvedev in the US Open final. Same with Martina Navratilova, although with Navratilova, to me, exceeded the Calendar Year Grand Slam by winning six straight majors, which is sometimes overlooked.

Budge was known for his awesome topspin drive backhand which was famous for destroying net rushers. I might add that it was not a heavy topspin backhand.

There was a story that Pancho Gonzalez, who arguably had the best serve of all-time, served to Budge and the return hit Gonzalez before he finished his follow-through! That does sound great, but I believe I saw some records Budge beat Gonzalez only once in their many matches so it’s clear he rarely if ever did this again.

Granted, Budge was over the hill and 13 years older than Gonzalez. Still, Gonzalez in his early forties was able to defeat players like Laver, Newcombe and Rosewall a number of times. All much younger than him. Still, to this day, Pancho Gonzalez’s family says one of his greatest thrills in tennis was hitting with Don Budge, who recognized the brilliance in the young Gonzalez.

After failing to win the first two majors that he entered, Budge won the last six majors that he played in, which included, as I mentioned earlier, the Calendar Year Grand Slam in 1938.

Budge turned pro in 1939 and defeated Ellsworth Vines on tour to become the Professional Champion of the World. Vines was having injury problems, including a shoulder injury that was so bad it forced him to serve underhand! Even at that Vines barely lost to Budge 22-17 or 21-18 depending on the source.

Budge at his best was something to behold. He had a very strong serve, a good volley and very powerful penetrating groundstrokes. Budge used an extremely heavy wood racquet of 15.5 to 17.5 ounces depending on the source with no overgrip. Budge wrote that it was 15.5 ounces in his bio, Don Budge, A Tennis Memoir. If you visit the International Tennis Hall of Fame you can see the heavy wood racquet Budge wielded and you’ll see he did not use a grip on that racquet—it was his hand on the wood grip.

Budge’s backhand, prior to the Open Era and relatively speaking even now, is perhaps the greatest backhand of all time. It certainly was rated that way by many, if not most tennis experts at that time and for many decades afterwards.

Hall of Famer and former US Open semifinalist Gene Scott, who took lessons from Budge, famously wrote “Nobody—and I mean nobody—dared serve to Budge’s backhand until he was into his 50s.”

World War II intervened and Budge was in the military. Budge was injured in an obstacle course accident and hurt his shoulder. This affected Budge’s strong serve and also his overhead, to the point that those strokes were never quite the same.

Bobby Riggs was playing regularly even during the War and was improving immensely. His serve was stronger by then even though he was shorter than Budge. Riggs had great accuracy and power on his first serve. Ellsworth Vines was of the opinion that Riggs’ serve after the war was superior to Budge’s serve at its best because of Riggs’ great variety on his serve.

I have read articles on how Riggs served many aces against Budge in matches. My thought was that if the injury hurt Budge on serve, it didn’t hurt him on the return so Riggs’ serve probably would be effective even against Budge at his peak.

Budge was two years and eight months older than Riggs so it wasn’t a huge age difference.

According to sources, Riggs defeated Budge on a World Championship Tour 23 to 21 or 24 to 22. I believe Riggs jumped off to a 12-1 lead and held on to win the tour. There was another tour that they played in which Riggs also won, 12 to 6.

Here’s Riggs defeating Budge in the 1946 US Pro.



Despite Budge losing this match, you can see the beautiful form Budge has in his strokes.

Prior to Budge getting injured, Budge had played Pro Tours with several players including Fred Perry (Perry had a major injury and was but a shadow of what he used to be), Riggs, Kovacs, and Stoefen. Budge won the tour fairly easily with a record of 52-18 but what I found interesting was that Riggs, prior to his great improvement years later, won 10 out of 25 matches from Budge at his peak. Riggs, before he improved, was already bothersome to Budge!

Prior to his tour with Jack Kramer, Riggs, who now clearly was the World Champion, dominated the tournament schedule in winning 14 of the 31 tournaments on the schedule. This was by far the most tournaments won. Kovacs won 7, Budge 3, Van Horn 2 and Skeen 1.

They had a point total in the tournaments played. The standings were 1. Riggs 278 pts 2. Budge 164 pts 3. Kovacs 149 pts 4. Van Horn 143 pts 5. Earn 94 pts 6. Sabin 74 pts. 7. Faunce 68 pts 8. Jossi 60 pts 9 Perry 50 pts. It was clear that Riggs was by far the top player in the world.

I’m of the opinion that even if Budge was not injured Riggs would have been battling Budge for World No. 1.

Riggs was a very underrated player in tennis history. Riggs, like Budge, was number 1 in the pros. Riggs actually won far more tournaments in his career than Budge and Riggs also won a lot of pro tours.

I think the main reason Riggs did not get the acclaim he may deserve was because of his huge loss to Kramer and his loss to Billie Jean King. He was also a touch player who did have the ability to put away shots with power if needed but it’s not as impressive as the awe inspired by a power player with a huge serve like Vines, Federer, Hoad, Kramer, Gonzalez, Becker or Sampras.

Budge, however, was extremely dominant when he was at his peak with the big serve and power that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. In the amateurs from 1937 to 1938, Budge won 92 consecutive matches according to Bud Collins’ History of Tennis. Only Bill Tilden won more consecutive matches with 98 among the men.

The women have several players who have won more consecutive matches than Tilden with Suzanne Lenglen leading the way with 182, Helen Wills with 158, Lenglen again with 116 and Alice Marble with 111. Sometimes I am surprised that Lenglen ever lost.

The great Martina Navratilova has the record for most consecutive wins in the Open Era with a fantastic 74 followed by Steffi Graf with 66. That winning streak by Navratilova could be the most impressive of them all considering all the top opposition she faced!

Among the women, Navratilova’s peak level could very well be the highest of any player in history.

Budge also won an amazing six straight majors that he entered. That’s a great feat even if Vines, Perry, Nusslein and von Cramm did not participate.

Here’s Budge at his peak.



Jack Kramer

Jack Kramer was, along with Pancho Gonzalez, Pete Sampras and a few others, one of the greatest serve-and-volleyers of all time. All three champions had mammoth power and variety on their services. They all had excellent volleys and strong overheads.

Kramer played such an imposing style, rivals and reporters called his style “The Big Game.”

If you examine Jack Kramer’s record in majors, it does not appear overwhelming compared to players like Novak Djokovic.

However, let’s not forget that Djokovic did not win many majors also when he was younger. Djokovic did not become the dominant player he would be until 2011, the year he would turn 24. Once Djokovic became No. 1, he was virtually unstoppable, with some breaks due to injuries and other matters.

Kramer had some bad luck in that when he was ready to win majors, he had some injuries and illnesses that prevented him from winning the finals. He had food poisoning in one major and blisters in another. He also was prevented from playing many majors due to World War II.

Once the war ended Kramer, who was at his physical peak, started playing to his potential when he entered the majors. In 1947 Kramer won Wimbledon in crushing fashion, losing only 37 games in 7 matches. That is still a record for fewest games lost by a player at Wimbledon.

He also won the US Championship that year, repeating as the titleholder.

Obviously as an amateur Jack Kramer did not make money in tennis like the Professionals of today so he decided to turn Pro. Kramer faced the Professional Champion Bobby Riggs in an 89-match tour that would decide who would be the World Professional Champion.

Yes, it’s that Bobby Riggs. It’s the same one that faced Margaret Court and Billie Jean King. Riggs was actually a super player at his peak, very strong with no stroke weaknesses. Riggs dethroned Don Budge by defeating him on a World Championship tour.

The match was close at the beginning with Kramer only leading 15-13 after 28 matches. Kramer improved during the tour, improving his second serve so much that it has been called the greatest second serve in tennis history. Kramer’s first serve was also fantastic. Kramer had great versatility in his service game. Vic Braden, the great tennis coach once said Kramer could hit a slice serve at a sharper angle than anyone.

Kramer won 54 of the last 61 matches to win the tour easily 69 to 20. Kramer was clearly the superior player but the one-sided result is perhaps partially because Riggs, the smaller player was worn out playing the long tour.

Kramer later that year won the 1948 US Pro Championships. Kramer defeated Don Budge in a famous semifinal in 5 sets. That semifinal was interesting because Budge broke Kramer twice in the 4th set but still lost the set 6-4. Kramer crushed Budge in the final set, losing I believe only 1 point in the set.

Kramer then faced Bobby Riggs again in the final and defeated him in four sets by a score of 14-12, 6-2, 3-6, 6-3.

The 1948 US Pro was easily the most important professional tennis tournament of the year. The prestigious Wembley tournament was not played from 1940 to 1948. Kramer won Wembley in 1949 when it started again over Riggs again in four sets, 2-6 6-4 6-3 6-4.

While Kramer won a good number of tournaments in his career, perhaps the best reason to discuss why he is considered a potential GOAT is because of all the head-to-head World Championship Tours that he played and won.

Remember that some of these World Championship tours were close or more than 100 matches. Kramer defeated Riggs 69-20, Segura 64-28, Gonzalez (who was inexperienced) 96-27 and Sedgman 54-41. He also won a tour in which he swept players like Riggs and Segura I believe on clay. He won 11 matches without a loss. That is astounding considering the strength of these players.

In those days the World Professional Championship was essentially like a top Heavyweight Championship Fight. The winner of the bout wins the title. In the case of Professional Tennis, the winner of the World Championship Tour was the World Professional Champion. Kramer held that title until the early 1950s.

Kramer had to retire from being an active player because he developed early onset arthritis. He was not able to move well and had problems even bending down.

At his peak Kramer was one of the few players in tennis history that was the best on all the surfaces. He was the top on grass, clay, indoor canvas and wood.

Kramer at his best had a fantastic forehand and very strong groundstrokes. His sidespin forehand down the line was a great approach shot. The shot would pull the opponent off the court where Kramer often would be at the net to put the return away.

Here’s Kramer performing some shots showing his accuracy. Note that the speed measuring device is at the middle of the court. They did not measure the speed off the racquet. Clearly the speed would be faster if they measured just off the racquet.



Here’s Kramer playing Tom Brown in the 1947 Wimbledon Final. Kramer was not serve and volleying regularly at this point. Kramer still holds the record for fewest games lost at Wimbledon with only 37.



Kramer has a good argument (along with a few others) for being the top player when he was at his peak.

Players who spanned the Pre-Open Era and Open Era

Pancho Gonzalez

Over the years, I have written numerous times that I believe Pancho Gonzalez could very well be the most underrated player and greatest player in tennis history.

Many people who simply look at majors won don’t realize that Gonzalez was a Professional who was not allowed to play the majors. The Tennis Channel for example named Gonzalez the 35th greatest player of all time.

Frankly, that is insane—ask any of the great living champions who saw him play or played doubles with him, including Jimmy Connors.

Incredibly, TC had Ken Rosewall for example at No. 20 ahead of Gonzalez!

Here is the major problem with that, Rosewall was NEVER the No. 1 player until Gonzalez retired for the first time in 1962! Even in 1960, a year in which Gonzalez would turn 32, played a World Championship Tour against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo. Rosewall was Gonzalez’s main rival on this tour.

Rosewall was younger than Gonzalez at age 26 that year. Rosewall was a seasoned professional at the peak of his skills and physical prime. Yet Pancho Gonzalez won the tour in crushing fashion with 49 wins to only 8 losses.

Ken Rosewall was a very distant second with 32 wins and 25 losses. Gonzalez defeated Rosewall in their individual meetings, winning 20 out of 24! Peak Rosewall was no match for perhaps even a bit past his peak Pancho Gonzalez. It makes absolutely no sense to rank Rosewall, as great as he was ahead of Gonzalez, and this come from me, a massive Rosewall fan. It is nuts to rank Rosewall ahead of Gonzalez and makes you wonder what criteria TC used making that decision?

It would take too long to mention all the other players that were named ahead of Gonzalez on that Tennis Channel list who really have no reasonable right to be ahead of him and explain the reasons why, so let’s just stick to the facts here.

On that 1960 tour Pancho Segura finished third with 22 wins and 28 losses and Alejandro “Alex” Olmedo finished fourth with 11 wins and 44 losses.

Gonzalez played on another World Championship Tour the following year and also won it. He decided to retire. Not coincidentally Rosewall became the No. 1-ranked professional.

I’ve seen lists which have a number of greats ahead of Gonzalez which is simply based on majors won and tells me those making the lists probably never saw Gonzalez play. Connors, who played doubles alongside Gonzalez, said his intensity was powerful “Watching him play was like staring into the flame of a fire.”

Andre Agassi, who is uncle to Gonzalez’s son, Skylar, said of Gonzalez: “I wouldn’t want to face him on court—that’s for sure.”

Gonzalez was probably the best player in the world for a decade from the early 1950s to the early 1960s.

How many major tournaments would Gonzalez have won in that period if he was allowed to play? He was also extremely dangerous when he came back from retirement in 1964 although he wasn’t quite the same player. He would have possibly won some majors in those years also.

Open Tennis started in 1968. Gonzalez reached the semifinals of the 1968 French Open, which was the first Open Major. In that tournament, Gonzalez defeated Roy Emerson (who incidentally was ranked 17 on that Tennis Channel List), the defending French Champion in 5 sets. Gonzalez, lost to Rod Laver, who was at or near his peak in straight sets. Gonzalez would turn 40 that year.

Gonzalez, as would any player who has the credentials to be a possible GOAT had a number of great weapons and assets in his repertoire. The first is possibly the greatest serve of all time.

Here’s a bit from Tennis 2000 by Hall of Famer Vic Braden, the great tennis coach and analyst.

“Even in the 1960s, when he was winning matches at Wimbledon at the age of forty-one, Gonzalez was still the greatest server in the game because he generated his power with rhythm and the proper use of each body link, rather than brute strength. At the old Madison Square Garden, wrestling mats were hooked up to the corridors downstairs and you could find Pancho warming up there before a match, working on his serving motion. He would throw the ball up and just swing nice and easy, trying to make sure there were no hitches in his swing…

“The first time one of my students Jeff Austin, face Gorgo’s serve [Gonzalez’s nickname was “Gorgo”], his motion was so easy that Jeff thought Gorgo was going to take it easy on him ‘cause he was just a kid. But when Gorgo uncorked the ball right down the middle, Jeff wasn’t ready and it scared the heck out of him. I have no doubt Gonzalez would have served in the 140-mph zone with today’s rackets. But a bigger issue is that he would have done it with very little force on his shoulder and elbow.”

Gonzalez was not only a great server but he also was a great athlete who was silky smooth in his movement on the court. He was very quick and had great range in covering the court. He had good groundstrokes and a good return. His net game was excellent. At 6’3.5 inches tall he could handle and smash lobs with decisiveness. He had great touch and had a great variety of shots. The man had power and touch and could throw a football like a pro quarterback. Years later, the great Serena Williams would sometimes emulate Gonzalez’s training method of throwing a football before serving practice.

Perhaps the main reason as far as accomplishments are concerned for Gonzalez’s GOAT credentials is that he won many World Championship tours. He won at least six World Championship Tours against greats like Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Tony Trabert, Andres Gimeno, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgman, Alex Olmedo, Mal Anderson, Ashley Cooper, Don Budge, Butch Buchholz, Barry MacKay. Many of these players are multi major winning players and many are Hall of Famers.

This shows an incredibly high, consistent level of play.

In my opinion winning one of those World Championship Tours were the equivalent of winning several majors and accumulating a huge amount of ATP points.

Why? Well, if you won the World Championship Tour, you were the considered the Champion and the No. 1 player for the year. On the current tour, if you win let’s say two majors in that calendar year you are not guaranteed to be No. 1.

During Gonzalez’s World Championship Tour in 1959, he defeated both Ashley Cooper and Mal Anderson 34 times without a loss. To put this in perspective, Cooper and Anderson won 3 of the last 4 majors before they turned professional. So in some ways, you could argue that winning 1 match against Gonzalez was tougher than winning 3 majors.

So, if Cooper and Anderson won several majors, how many majors would a peak Gonzalez have won?

Admittedly if there was always Open Tennis, Gonzalez would have tougher competition than the amateur competition that Cooper and Anderson faced but let’s not forget that 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. Gonzalez, with his great serve and volley game would imo be almost unbeatable on any grass surface. On clay Gonzalez’s mobility and groundstrokes would make him extremely tough to defeat.

In today’s game with two hard court surfaces out of the four majors, Gonzalez would be also extremely difficult to beat. On grass, he would be unbelievably hard to beat, similar in that way to Sampras was in his prime. In fact, Sampras himself has said he watched video of Gonzalez and Laver growing up to hone his attacking game.

It’s clear from matches against this type of competition that Gonzalez would have most likely won a huge number of majors if he was able to play them during his 20 years as a Professional prior to the start of Open Tennis.

Here’s an excerpt for an article by Joseph B Stahl from Tennis Week.

”I have my doubts as to whether Laver even at his best could have lived with heavyweight hitters like Ellsworth Vines, Budge, Kramer and Hoad, who all had huge, overpowering attacking games like Gonzales’s, and doubts as well as to where Gonzalez himself stacks up against those tigers. I do give Pancho an edge over them all, as I did in a 1993 article, but only a slim one, and with misgivings. Vines and Hoad were very much up-and-down erratic geniuses who had bad days in which they could and did lose to anybody, but it was generally agreed among their peers that when they were on, "you might as well just go have tea or go home" (Budge), and Gonzalez said of Hoad, "When Lew Hoad was at his peak nobody could touch him."

This is an excerpt from Stan Hart’s excellent book Once a Champion that quotes Bobby Riggs:

“So suppose you had them all on their best day, playing each other. Then what?

“Probably Vines, but here is what I want to say. Suppose you tell the loser that if they lose, they don’t get any money. Suppose you say that the winner gets the money and the losers have to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. On those terms. I would take Gonzales. He might be the meanest and might rise to the highest, and if his life depended on it, he might be the survivor.”

Now whether Riggs is correct on whether Gonzalez would win a survivor take all tennis tournament is debatable of course. But it does show great respect for the ability of Pancho Gonzalez to play on his best in big situations—and he was one of the rare champions who could channel into action.

As Laver famously said of Gonzalez “You didn’t want him to get mad. The madder he got, the better he played.”

I’m not sure about Joseph B Stahl comments although they are reasonable comments, Laver was a pretty powerful player. When I write “powerful player,” I am thinking of the ability to hit the ball with great speed and the ability to attack his opponent. Laver had a lot of weapons.

Laver also had an excellent lefty service. But I understand what Stahl means. Players like Gonzalez, Vines and Kramer perhaps were more effective in their ability to strike first with their huge serves and powerful volleys and groundstrokes. Perhaps, Laver wasn’t exactly a slouch there either but there is no doubt, at least in my mind that these players did have clearly more powerful serves than Laver.

You also have to add the numerous tournaments that Gonzalez won in his great resume. Gonzalez won about 120 tournaments in his career, many of them with the toughest competition perhaps in tennis history. He also won two US Championships as a young player before he was close to his peak. In fact before Dominic Thiem’s comeback win over Alexander Zverev in the US Open final, Gonzalez was the only man to ever rally from two sets down in the US Final and take the title.

If anyone examines the Pancho Gonzalez record correctly, they will have to conclude that he is at worst a candidate for the possible Tennis GOAT for both peak level and career level.

It’s truly a shame that some current media, including that Tennis Channel list, seem to marginalize Gonzalez, a True GOAT candidate.



Lew Hoad

Lew Hoad is one of the most fascinating figures in the history of tennis.

Even Pancho Gonzalez said that his best game was better than his. That is questionable to me because it’s truly hard to be unstoppable if the other player, in this case, Pancho Gonzalez is hitting rocket serves at you.

But there are stories of Hoad blasting incredible returns off of players like Gonzalez and hitting powerful serves, volleys and groundstrokes on the rise like lightning bolts.

Hoad was an immensely strong human being with an oxlike wrist that allowed him, like Rod Laver to flick shots like he was playing Ping Pong.

So many people have called him the GOAT. Pancho Gonzalez said Lew Hoad was the greatest he ever faced. Hall of Famer Richard Evans, a good friend of both men, told Tennis Now “Lew Hoad was really the only player Pancho Gonzalez really respected.”

Vainqueurs has Hoad at 42 total tournament victories. This includes four amateur majors. They are the 1956 Australian, French and Wimbledon and the 1957 Wimbledon. The year 1956 was his best amateur year in that he won 13 tournaments. He was two sets from winning the Grand Slam after winning the first set of the United States Nationals from Ken Rosewall. Unfortunately for Hoad, his arch nemesis Rosewall won the last three sets to deny him the first Grand Slam since Don Budge in 1938.

Here's a description of Hoad’s game from Ellsworth Vines’ book Tennis Myth and Method.

Style-Overwhelming, sometimes erratic court dynamo, whose career was cut short by back injury. Crushing first serve. Wrist of steel lets him hit shots beyond the capacity of the normal human being. Forehand steadiest side, but backhand equally severe. Rarely varies pace and given to lapses of concentration. Pulverizing consistent net game and overhead. On best days invincible.

Sounds impressive and he was. Unfortunately, back injuries curtailed his career and greatness. Years later, rivals said Hoad, a tremendously strong man, exacerbated his back issues by doing push-ups while training partners put weights on his back.

Probably the most impressive feat was when he turned professional and soon afterwards played a World Championship Tour against Pancho Gonzalez. Hoad led Gonzalez by at least 18 matches to 9. Some thought Gonzalez was finally going to be dethroned as the World Professional Champion. Gonzalez made some adjustments, apparently including a change in his backhand grip so he could be more effective in passing Hoad and using his drop volley more frequently. Gonzalez won the Tour going away 51-36.

To be honest, I put Hoad here because of my respect for many of the greats and experts of the game. Rod Laver has called Hoad his tennis idol. Pancho Gonzalez repeatedly stated Hoad was “the best I ever faced.” And obviously the injuries lowered his level of play.

You can’t rank him high for peak level and for career level. You can only go by opinions of his greatness in several matches and his ability to hit Superman type shots.

Rod Laver

Rodney George Laver aka Rod Laver is one of the most unique and brilliant tennis players that ever lived. The left-handed player had no weaknesses as a player and great strengths. He was a unique player for his time and for any era.

One of the first things you might notice if you saw Laver in his playing days was his enormous left arm and wrist. It was so large that it almost looked deformed. Laver’s wrist was larger than the heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson at the time and his forearm was as large as another heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano. Because of the great strength in his wrist, Laver was able to flick back shots that a normal World Class Player could not hit. He was also one of the few players at the time who could hit with heavy topspin if he wanted to with a tiny heavy wood racquet.

Laver was relatively small at I believe 5’8.5 inches but he had an excellent serve with great variety. No it was not the serve of a Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer or a John McEnroe but it was a fine attacking serve.

Laver of course could hit with topspin off both sides which was much harder years ago with the tiny 65-inch wood racquets which were about 13 to 14 ounces in weight. Nowadays racquets are much lighter with bigger frames and better strings to hit with great spin and power.

Laver had an excellent volley with the backhand volley his better side. His overhead was excellent in his prime.

Laver is often mentioned as one of the all-time greats due to the fact that he won two Calendar Year Grand Slams in 1962 and 1969.

As Hall of Famer Tony Trabert told Tennis Week Magazine: “If you had an athlete in any sport who held a record no one ever matched, as Laver did with two Calendar Grand Slams, then you’d have to say that player is the best.”

The Grand Slam in 1962 was an amateur Grand Slam so not all the top players competed. It’s highly probable that Laver would not have won the Grand Slam in 1962 if players like Pancho Gonzalez (who was retired but if there was Open Tennis I’m sure he would not have retired), Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Frank Sedgman, Gimeno for example were playing. That’s speculation of course. Perhaps if there was Open Tennis from the start of Laver’s career, The Rocket would have risen to the top anyway by 1962 with the improved competition.

The Grand Slam in 1969 was an Open Grand Slam, however. Laver faced all the top players like Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Okker among others. The year Laver had in 1969 is still arguably the greatest single season in tennis history. Laver won 18 tournaments that year in 32 attempts. He won the strongest hard-court tournaments, the strongest clay court tournaments, grass and indoor tournaments. He was the top player on all surfaces.

Laver generally hit a heavy slice on his backhand side in normal groundstroking rallies. The backhand return, however, was extremely dangerous because Laver had so many ways to counterattack off his backhand.

Here’s a little excerpt from the excellent book Tennis Strokes and Strategies, this section of the book is written by John Alexander.

“Laver’s return is a very different matter. He has an infinite amount of returns, and when they are all working, his opponents find it impossible to settle down. Serve wide to Laver’s backhand in the deuce court (which is not the best place to serve to Laver) and he has the perfect return---in six varieties. His three most noted are his full-swing topspin backhand—down the line and crosscourt—and a very sharply angled crosscourt chip. He also has a moderately angled crosscourt chip which usually lands very close to the sideline a little deeper than the service line. He has a full-blooded backhand that can really give you a shock. And, there is his punishing slice return down the line, a softer version of which will draw you a little too close to the net for comfort.”

Some thought Laver’s topspin forehand was as good as anyone’s in the game at his peak. Possibly, because he was able to hit with great topspin despite the small heavy wood racquet Laver could hit angles that no one else could hit at the time.

Arthur Ashe believed Laver’s forehand was better than his backhand and his backhand was perhaps as good as anyone’s in the game with only Rosewall’s backhand able to rival him. I would say that later in the early 1970s the Jimmy Connors backhand was clearly superior to the Laver backhand.

Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles in his career. That doesn’t seem like much compared to the Big Three of recent years. Federer has 20 majors, Nadal 22 and Djokovic is currently at 24 as of June 6, 2025. Yet you have to consider that Laver was playing on the Old Pro Tour for five years, in which he was generally the dominant player. He probably left a ton of majors on the table and perhaps another Calendar Year Grand Slam or more.

Just think of it this way, how is a player so strong that he won 2 Calendar Year Grand Slams 7 years apart yet only win 11 majors? Well, aside from the obvious fact that Laver wasn’t able to play in the Classic Majors for 5 years, the other reasons were that there was many boycotts of the majors in the early days of Open Tennis.

Laver for example was not able to play the 1970 Australian Open and the 1970 French Open because he was a member of the WCT (World Championship Tennis) which boycotted those two majors because the prize money was not enough.

So Laver did participate in a few tournaments that may be about as strong as a major. For example in February of 1970 Laver played in a 64-player tournament called the International Tennis Players Association tournament at the Philadelphia Spectrum. For the times the prize money was excellent with $10,000 to the winner which is probably pocket change today. It shows how the players had to fight to get the monetary situation that they have today.

All the top players participated including Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Tom Okker, Roy Emerson, Andres Gimeno, Fred Stolle, Butch Buchholz, Stan Smith, Ilie Nastase and Cliff Richey were among them.

Laver won the tournament over Tony Roche in the final 6-3 8-6 6-2.

Laver also won the Dunlop Open on grass in Australian which some had called the substitute for the boycotted Australian Open over Ken Rosewall in 5 sets 3-6 6-2 3-6 6-2 6-3.

Remember this was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The top tennis players were not rich and did not have the support teams they have now to help them. In many ways, the top tournaments in prestige were simply the tournaments with the most prize money available.

The WCT Championship Finals were essentially a major in the 1970s.

The most ridiculous tournament for Laver and when I write ridiculous, I mean that it seemed like Laver got virtually all the huge prize money for winning the event was the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

This tournament was not technically a classic major but it was a super prestigious tournament and arguably the toughest tournament of all time.

No one was expected to win every match because it was a round robin tournament with a super tough field. The field was filled with great players, many of them would be Hall of Famers. All very strong.

The field, aside from Laver, had Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Roy Emerson, Arthur Ashe, Tom Okker, Roger Taylor, and Dennis Ralston. The matches were all best-of-five sets.

Laver proceeded to defeat them all! He defeated Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Roy Emerson, Arthur Ashe, Tom Okker, Arthur Ashe again, Roger Taylor, Tom Okker again, Dennis Ralston, Roy Emerson again, Dennis Ralston again and finally Tom Okker again in the final.

The second Okker match was interesting because to quote the book The Fireside Book of Tennis:

“I feel I’m better prepared for this match than I was for our first,” said Tom Okker as he went out on the court to challenge Laver once again. And Okker was right. The young Dutchman played perhaps the finest tennis of his life. He had every shot, every move—but Laver had the answer for every shot, every move. It was, to date, the greatest tennis Laver had played, and it was after this match that the grizzled veteran observer had said that maybe, just maybe, Tilden might have had a chance. At one point, Okker caught Rod flat-footed in the forecourt but Laver, in desperation, raced backward, caught up with the ball, ran around it and put it away.

"Okker dropped his racket in astonishment and the spectators, even the umpire in the chair, howled in disbelief and admiration. In the locker room, Okker declared flatly that he had played as well as he had ever played, perhaps better than he had ever played, “but I was never even in the match. I couldn’t believe some of those shots. He couldn’t believe them himself,” Okker moaned.”

Laver won this match 6-1 6-4 6-3. Okker was a great player so to defeat him when he said he was playing his best by such a margin is amazing.

Laver won all 13 best of 5 matches and $160,000. A massive sum at that time.

Laver had some injury problems starting in the late 1960s and up to the 1970s. He had a back injury which had to have affected his serve and overhead I believe. And he had wrist problems that I believe affected him for the rest of his career.

The statistic about Laver to me that is totally unreal is that Laver won over 200 top tennis tournaments in his great career.

Now the skeptic may say that if there was Open Tennis during his whole career, he could not have won that many tournaments. I would counter that, starting in 1968, the first year of Open Tennis to 1970, Laver won 12, 18 and 15 tournaments for a total of 45 tournaments won. He slowed down his activity in tennis starting in 1971 but still would regularly win five to seven tournaments a year until he played his last full year in 1975.

Laver clearly had, if you look at his history, an unbelievably high average level of play for his career and at his peak. There was no way to really attack him. He had no weaknesses.

We can talk about counting major tournaments. Laver is clearly way behind the Big Three there and Sampras. However, when we discuss greatness we talk about dominance in his time and level of play.

Laver won over 200 tournaments in his career! The number is shocking. Just think, if a player won 10 tournaments a year for 20 years he would still be behind Laver.

His career level of play was astounding and his peak level, especially in big tournaments, was breathtaking.

Laver is another player you can rank as one of the best, if not the best in peak and career level.

Here’s Laver defeating Tony Roche in the finals of the 1969 US Open to win the Open Grand Slam.



Raymond Lee is a Tennis Now contributing writer, tennis historian and avid tennis player who lives in New York. He has written about tennis for more than three decades serving as a contributing writer for Tennis Week Magazine and TennisWeek.com. Raymond Lee joined the Tennis Now staff in 2010.

Check out Raymond Lee's Articles: The Greatest Over Age 30 Players of All Time, Star Turns: Top Tournament Performances in Tennis History, One for One: Who is the GOAT for One Match? Celebrating 50th Anniversary of John Newcombe's 1973 US Open Win, Why Novak Djokovic Can Win 30 Slams and Holy Grail: Why Winning the Calendar Grand Slam is Toughest Task in Sport and The Greatest Men Clay-Court Champions Of All Time