Who's better? Murray or Hewitt

-Both have same number of Slams
-Murray has reached more Slam finals, reached the slam semis more often; and also has won more Masters Titles

There are many people saying 'Hewitt reached the number 1 ranking while Murray didn't'; but:
-I've done a quick check, and if we were to use the rankings points of today, and compare Hewitt's results of 2002 (when he was number 1) and Murray's results of 2012, Murray had MORE ranking points. 
Murray to get to number 1 has to get above Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal in the rankings (in 2012 he was behind Djokal), and he actually had more ranking points than Hewitt at peak... so for me in terms of ranking points I'd give Murray the edge, not Hewitt. 
Furthermore when Hewitt was number 1 he didn't have to fight with ATGs like Murray had to fight with, so double edge to Murray. 
-In terms of consistency, Murray has been more consistent, only dropping his ranking outside the top 5 due to taking time out for back surgery.

No disrespect to either players, both fantastic competitors and brilliant players; but I'd pick Murray if I had to choose.

Maybe you should try to compare their games and conditions they played in, rather than what they won.

I think Murray has a greater array of shots in his arsenal, although he doesn't show it at times.

Hewitt and Murray players of different generations. Who is better of the 2 can't be concluded just by comparing their career success. 

1. Playing style is counter punching for both.
2. Murray has a better 1st serve. But Hewitt has a better 2nd serve and less prone to attacks
3. Murray defends better, but Hewitt can transform the defence into attack better than Murray. 

etc.

Quite similar players I agree...with similar records. I'd say Hewitt edges easily cause he simply was the man to beat for a year at least. Murray never was the player to beat. Never got to number 1 and never was close to.

However, Murray's career is not over while Hewitt's is.

To me, Murray's  tennis is much more negative than Hewitt's, plus it's quite artificial.

Hewitt is a lot smaller, but manages to squeeze blood out of stone with his grit and spirit.
He is a counterpuncher  with no weapons, but made most of what he had.

I find him more watchable than Murray, because you know they'd have to drag him off the court before he gave you anything for free.

Murray is an overgrown mummy's boy with no heart, which is reflected in the way he plays.
For all his over-hyped "arsenal" I think he has shown nothing that will go to tennis history.
The only time I saw him play well was once against Nadal in AO.

It's the Eye of the Tiger

To me Hewitt is the first "Armstrong" of tennis actually....so not much of a fan actually. He is the one who can really take the guilt off the current generation's shoulders.

Not Borg or Lendl?

No. Doping was probably there, but there was no drug able to make such a difference. They were more or less all taking some or not but nothing like Armstrong where they can built an athlete from scratch with supplements. Lendl was a shot maker, and a very good one, not a retriever like Wilander and that is why he lost so many finals cause his shots had very little margins for errors.

Tenez wrote:No. Doping was probably there, but there was no drug able to make such a difference. They were more or less all taking some or not but nothing like Armstrong where they can built an athlete from scratch  with supplements. Lendl was a shot maker, and a very good one, not a retriever like Wilander and that is why he lost so many finals cause his shots had very little margins for errors.

Not quite blood doping, but not a steak and a glass of red for dinner followed by a cigar, either...

http://www.rense.com/general43/syeriod.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19891017&id=FVpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IZADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6735,441074

Hewitt. But conditions being as they are, Murray now has a Wimbledon title. But based on actual talent, it's Hewitt every time.

noleisthebest wrote:

Not quite blood doping, but not a steak and a glass of red for dinner followed by a cigar, either...

http://www.rense.com/general43/syeriod.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19891017&id=FVpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IZADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6735,441074

Well I am not impressed by this rense article. Throwing names like Lendl cause he is not popular but not mentioning all the other US tennis players is crass. As I said Lendl may have used a bit of drug but no more than McEnroe, Connors, and the rest....so why pick on him? The thing is Lendl's game was not based on fitness but on his devastating FH. Connors outlasted him in 2 finals Wilander in a few others and Borg in 5 sets too....so whatever he was taking was not as good as the others.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Not quite blood doping, but not a steak and a glass of red for dinner followed by a cigar, either...

http://www.rense.com/general43/syeriod.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19891017&id=FVpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IZADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6735,441074

Well I am not impressed by this rense article. Throwing names like Lendl cause he is not popular but not mentioning all the other US tennis players is crass. As I said Lendl may have used a bit of drug but no more than McEnroe, Connors, and the rest....so why pick on him? The thing is Lendl's game was not based on fitness but on his devastating FH. Connors outlasted him in 2 finals Wilander in a few others and Borg in 5 sets too....so whatever he was taking was not as good as the others.

Ten, absolutely agree. They should focus on the present players and try to improve the tennis purity currently.
Ivan is a man, who has worked very hard in his life and is famous by his iron will, but also by his fairness.
The passing of this information is driven intentionally and selectively. They should ask Mac and Connors whether they know something about it by chance.

Yes and Lendl had one of the best FH in history....probably top 2 or 3....and that ain't to do anything with drugs.

Tenez wrote:Yes and Lendl had one of the best FH in history....probably top 2 or 3....and that ain't to do anything with drugs.

I also remember that quite well   

erm, now it's not even a contest.. hewitt is 33 at the end of his career
so it's murray

Yeah, but different conditions and competition.  Hewitt played in faster conditions.