You must remember that during the 60's, tennis was split between the amateurs and the pros.  Until 1968, pros were NOT allowed to play in Grand Slam events.  Rod Laver won all four Grand Slam tournaments in 1962, and then turned pro.  From 1963-1967, he couldn't play in Grand Slam tournaments, although during that period he won many of the major pro tournaments.  Then, in 1968, tennis was opened to all, and Laver won the Grand Slam AGAIN in 1969.  In all, Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles, but he likely would have won many more had he been able to compete in them during his PRIME YEARS of 1963-1967.

French courts are the slowest and Wimbledon is the fastest. Borg is the only one who won 5/5 on both.

When laver played tennis wasn't so competitive as it became during Borg's time and even more nowadays.

He was the original genius.

the other posts didn't specifically mention gender. Didn't she have 18 major wins and a gazillion overall titles? She was an absolute machine. I do miss the 70s & 80s for both men and women. Great tennis and great characters by both genders.

Rod Laver's time.  Ken Rosewall, Roy Emerson, Lew Hoad, Pancho Gonzales, John Newcombe, Fred Stolle, Neale Fraser, Tony Roche and Arthur Ashe were among the great players of that time.  Indeed, I think it was the most competitive period ever in tennis!

Laver was  the best relative to the opponents of his time. But there was little money in tennis is those days and relatively few elite players outside of the United States and Australia. Following the tennis boom of  the 1970s, money came into the game, tennis truly became an international sport and any champion had to compete with the elite players from all over the world. So I think you have to give the edge to players post-1970.

     I think I would go with Borg who is the only player to dominate on both grass – the fastest surface -and clay - the slowest. I’m not sure we will ever see anyone do that again. But for his strange inability to play well at the US Open, he would be regarded as the best of all time.

They all played serve and volley and Laver was  the best because he had the best grounds strokes, at least on days that Ken Rosewall was a little off on his backhand.

      Laver could not have competed with the elite baseliners as is evident in the early 1970s when the serve and volley players began to lose badly to Connors and then Borg and Vilas.

     But I agree he was the best of all time relative to the pool of players against whom he competed. Annointing him the best of all time is sort of like giving the top miler award to Roger Bannister based on that first 4 minute mile.

In 1988 she won all four majors, PLUS an Olympic Gold medal.

Martina overall played a LOT more matches than Steffi, especially doubles and mixed doubles.

I would find it difficult to pick the "better" of these two. Maybe Steffi is the best Singles player, while Martina is the best overall player.

Steffi was the best tennis player, male or female.

b-

I could have seeen him play. He is someone I could really root for. Today's players are so boring, because they are all the same, with the same coach, steroids, etc.

Though I never saw Pancho play, I agree with you he is better than Federer.

performance enhancing drugs.

Steffi was great, but she emerged at the end of Martina's run.

Just when Monica Seles was becoming a foil for her, the stabbing took place.

I can't regard Sabatini or Sanchez-Vicario as being close to on par with her during her reign.