Total number of Slams won, all time list - Page 3 - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-11-2013, 11:11 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave View Post
this. exactly. there is a reason they are considered different eras and the stats not compared...
dumb thread because you can't assume things based on periods with multiple leagues and totally different formats
wayyy too many variables throughout pre Open Era
the slam count is what it is, those who plays prior to 1970 or whatever can have their stats compared against each other to see who was the best, but tennis afterwards was practically a different sport, not only was their only one tour but a lot of rules and tournaments dramatically changed. things are continually changed, but the distinction between pre and Open era is just too extreme

sorry
Already made this adjustment after StevieMardenboro post. Not a problem at all.
densuprun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-11-2013, 11:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by asmazif View Post
nice work! though the French definitely was not counted as a major tourney pre-1925, just the French club members' percursor to the FO - i.e. don't think it should even qualify for 1/3 a slam. that's just for tournament record books, not major winners.
TRUE. There was though a very important tournament at that time, before 1925, called The World Hard Court (clay) Championships played in France and Belgium. Some called it the real French Championships. It seems that most of the top players of the day competed in this tournament. Suzanne Lenglen is sometimes given slam credit for the 4 times she won there. The tournament is listed on Wikopedia and can be googled. The main point though is that the French, before 25, should not be considered a slam.
thrust is offline  
post #33 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 01:45 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Overall, an excellent list, though I would elevate Rosewall to 17 at least. Where are Lacoste and Cochet? Both won 7 slams, 1925 and after. Lacoste beat Tilden in two slam finals, the French and US. There was no significant pro tour at that time, so these two players slams should be included. Any slam winners before 1920 should not be included, as the game was very limited then.
thrust is offline  
 
post #34 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 01:49 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 47
Posts: 3,574
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Interesting stats. It was not till 08 that Nadal reached his near peak and Novak became a major factor. It proves that between 03-07 Federer had weak competition. In 08, Roger was 25-26, an age that most great players are in their prime. Roger was a young 30 year old player. I would say his decline began after last year's Wimbledon. Like Rosewall though, he could have a resurgance at 31 and win some more slams. Rosewall won 4 after turning 33.
Negative the era was the same from 03-10.
The era only changed from 2011. With gluten free Novak.
A players Absolute Prime is from 22-25. After 26 is Prime but just past absolute Prime.
During 08-10. Novak won one slam. He lost to the likes of melzer ,Safin ,kohli at slams.
He was hitting more double fault than aces.
Nadull entered his absolute prime in 08 but fed was just past his because he was routinely losing to his pigeons ,like fish, steps, Dr Ivo etc.
The era was "weak " because federer not because of nadull or Novak.
Thought nadull Prime he only cost fed 2 slams . Apart from Feds prime.
Heck Safin and nalbandian cost him 2 slams.
How come nadull can't win off clay now.

The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline  
post #35 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 02:01 AM
Registered User
 
barbadosan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: I hear my Bimshire calling . . .
Age: 68
Posts: 10,562
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Interesting stats. It was not till 08 that Nadal reached his near peak and Novak became a major factor. It proves that between 03-07 Federer had weak competition. In 08, Roger was 25-26, an age that most great players are in their prime. Roger was a young 30 year old player. I would say his decline began after last year's Wimbledon. Like Rosewall though, he could have a resurgance at 31 and win some more slams. Rosewall won 4 after turning 33.
My God! The logic! Because 2 players weren't at their peak, it proves the period before them was weak! Using that "argument" you could take the absence of any two decent players to prove that another era was "weak". Funny though how at the time when Fed began to win majors and it was thought that he'd probably win "a few majors", there was no contemporaneous talk about it being a weak era. Only when it began to look as if - gasp - he might actually mount a real assault on the Holy Grail of 14 slams that was supposed to last for decades, if not centuries, that we began to hear from certain quarters about this "weak era". And so the mantra began.

Poor Einstein, we didn't even realise it wasn't that he was a genius - it was that the scientists of his era were lamebrains. lol



The stars have AL19NED!

Now we look to the future with 20-20 vision!!
barbadosan is offline  
post #36 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 02:05 AM
Registered User
 
swisht4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,532
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

You can equate today's WTF's to pro slams, seems reasonable.


Then the wars had an effect, during the war and after.
During a war very few were worried about tennis and right after people were getting back to normal.
At this time kids didn't have this very high on their agenda, or the parents.

No one was worried about getting kids to tennis lessons for years during and after the war, the effects were felt 20 years later resulting in pools that were small in the sixties.

It wasn't till the seventies that deeper talent pools started to emerge, with TV exposure and normalization of daily life in the fifties.

In the sixties there wasn't enough money to support deeper talent pools, players who did have talent but were slow to hit their peak had to get a job to live and give up tennis.
The result was talent that never matured quick enough and subsequent loss of depth in tennis.


It's conjecture but a valid point IMO.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXÈ


Federer

Del Potro

Gulbis

Janowicz
swisht4u is offline  
post #37 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 02:12 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Overall, an excellent list, though I would elevate Rosewall to 17 at least. Where are Lacoste and Cochet? Both won 7 slams, 1925 and after. Lacoste beat Tilden in two slam finals, the French and US. There was no significant pro tour at that time, so these two players slams should be included. Any slam winners before 1920 should not be included, as the game was very limited then.
Lacoste was hurt by having 4 slams in 1927-29 that became 2 slams after adjustment for the presence of 2 tours. His total is 5 adjusted slams.

Similarly, Cochet has: 1 FO in 1922 (1/3 slam), 1 FO in 1926 (1), 1 Pro (1/2*4/3 = 2/3), 6 amateur (6/2 = 3) for the total of 1/3+1+2/3+3 = 5 adjusted slams.

Both didn't make it into the top list.
densuprun is offline  
post #38 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 02:17 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 47
Posts: 3,574
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

How could nadull entering his Prime change Feds era.
Fed always lost nadull on clay so that's out of the equation.
He cost fed Wimby 08 and AO 09.
Safin cost fed AO 05 and Nalbandian USO 03.

Sampras is exactly 10 years older than fed. So we can make a direct Open era comparison .
1997 Sampras had won 10 of his 14 slams.
Did the era suddenly get stronger.
It is well known 1995 was stronger era than post 1996.
2007 fed won 12 of 17 slams.

The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline  
post #39 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 02:22 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by swisht4u View Post
You can equate today's WTF's to pro slams, seems reasonable.


Then the wars had an effect, during the war and after.
During a war very few were worried about tennis and right after people were getting back to normal.
At this time kids didn't have this very high on their agenda, or the parents.

No one was worried about getting kids to tennis lessons for years during and after the war, the effects were felt 20 years later resulting in pools that were small in the sixties.

It wasn't till the seventies that deeper talent pools started to emerge, with TV exposure and normalization of daily life in the fifties.

In the sixties there wasn't enough money to support deeper talent pools, players who did have talent but were slow to hit their peak had to get a job to live and give up tennis.
The result was talent that never matured quick enough and subsequent loss of depth in tennis.


It's conjecture but a valid point IMO.

All this is quite possible.

What I try to do in my calculations is to minimize subjective estimates of the strength of the tour as much as possible. I only make adjustments for clearly defined things: existence of Pro tour (1927-1967), wars (1915-19, 1940-45), slams that were not open to foreigners, repeat winners of early slams that were seeded into the final match.

I don't want to try to estimate how weak the Pro tour was in its beginning or how strong it was in the 60's. That is all very subjective. I try to get as close to the objective list as possible without making that kind of subjective judgments.

Last edited by densuprun; 07-12-2013 at 02:28 AM.
densuprun is offline  
post #40 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 02:29 AM
Registered User
 
swisht4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,532
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by densuprun View Post
All this is quite possible.

What I try to do in my calculations is to minimize subjective estimates of the strength of the tour as much as possible. I only make adjustments for clearly defined things: existence of Pro tour (1927-1967), wars (1915-19, 1940-45), slams that were not open to foreigners, repeat winners of early slams that were seeded into the final match.

I don't want to try to estimate how strong the Pro tour was in its beginning or how weak the Amateur tour was in the 60's. That is all very subjective. I try to get as close as possible to the objective full list without making that kind of subjective judgments.
My post was just like a side note, not to take anything away from the original post.

Very good thread BTW.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXÈ


Federer

Del Potro

Gulbis

Janowicz
swisht4u is offline  
post #41 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 05:53 AM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 44
Posts: 61,472
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Interesting stats. It was not till 08 that Nadal reached his near peak and Novak became a major factor. It proves that between 03-07 Federer had weak competition. In 08, Roger was 25-26, an age that most great players are in their prime. Roger was a young 30 year old player. I would say his decline began after last year's Wimbledon. Like Rosewall though, he could have a resurgance at 31 and win some more slams. Rosewall won 4 after turning 33.
26 is not prime anymore. Look here:


If we look at the red line, the three-year rolling average, we see the age of slam winners has stayed below 26 years for the entire Open Era with two exceptions, 1968-73 and 1999-2002.

So it was normal Federer began to win less.

It is only now we're entering an unusual period, since the youngsters now are worse than at any time since 1970, comparatively speaking.

Last edited by Litotes; 07-12-2013 at 06:04 AM. Reason: typo
Litotes is offline  
post #42 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 08:02 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 580
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by densuprun View Post

2. Available Slams adjustment.
To adjust up to the 4-slam year, I multiply every Pro slam...by 4/1 (=4) when only 1 pro slam was played (1927-29, 1940-48, 1954-55).
IMO you can't extrapolate like that because it's flawed reasoning. You're implicitly assuming that anyone who was capable of winning a single slam in a year, would have won all four if all of them were available. The difficulty of winning an additional slam in any given year increases exponentially with each slam already won. That is, winning all 4 slams in a single year is far more difficult than just '4 times' the difficulty of winning 1.
Benny_Maths is offline  
post #43 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 09:36 AM
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 43
Posts: 9,201
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by densuprun View Post
Lacoste was hurt by having 4 slams in 1927-29 that became 2 slams after adjustment for the presence of 2 tours. His total is 5 adjusted slams.

Similarly, Cochet has: 1 FO in 1922 (1/3 slam), 1 FO in 1926 (1), 1 Pro (1/2*4/3 = 2/3), 6 amateur (6/2 = 3) for the total of 1/3+1+2/3+3 = 5 adjusted slams.

Both didn't make it into the top list.
That seems unfair as there really wasn't a serious professional tour before the 1930s. In the 1920s the world's best players - Tilden, Johnston, & then the Musketeers - competed in slams & Davis Cup.

"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline  
post #44 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 10:41 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny_Maths View Post
IMO you can't extrapolate like that because it's flawed reasoning. You're implicitly assuming that anyone who was capable of winning a single slam in a year, would have won all four if all of them were available. The difficulty of winning an additional slam in any given year increases exponentially with each slam already won. That is, winning all 4 slams in a single year is far more difficult than just '4 times' the difficulty of winning 1.
I agree that the extrapolation from 1 slam to 4 is a weak point. Some adjustment must be done, though, and this one is in line with 4/3 (in case of 3 slams in a year) and 4/2 (in case of 2 slams).

I wasn't very happy about making that kind of adjustment until I saw that:

1. the only people who really got 4 adjusted slams because of that were the first 3 winners of Wimbledon in the 1870's. The strongest of them, John Hartley only got 6 adjusted slams in total and doesn't enter top 19 of my all time list.
2. For all the others who got a boost from 4/1 extrapolation there were additional adjustments (either 1/2 due to a war, or 1/2 due to split tour, or both). So, no other player got more than 2 adjusted slams in such a year.
3. This 4/1 extrapolation affects an extremely small number of top players.
Of the top 14 players, only Pancho Gonzales benefited from that kind of boost. In 1954 and 1955 he won the only Pro Slam on the tour, US Pro. He got 2 adjusted slams in each of these two years.

1 Roger Federer 17
2 Ken Rosewall 16.33
3-4 Pete Sampras 14
3-4 Bill Tilden 14
5 Rod Laver 13.33
6 Pancho Gonzales 13
7 Rafael Nadal 12
8 Björn Borg 11
9 William Renshaw 9
10 Richard Sears 8.67
11-13 Jimmy Connors 8
11-13 Ivan Lendl 8
11-13 Andre Agassi 8
14 Lawrence Doherty 7.33

Last edited by densuprun; 07-12-2013 at 10:45 AM.
densuprun is offline  
post #45 of 66 (permalink) Old 07-12-2013, 10:49 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
                     
Re: Total number of Slams won, all time list

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophocles View Post
That seems unfair as there really wasn't a serious professional tour before the 1930s. In the 1920s the world's best players - Tilden, Johnston, & then the Musketeers - competed in slams & Davis Cup.
I knew you would say that. That is why in another post I wrote:

"What I try to do in my calculations is to minimize subjective estimates of the strength of the tour as much as possible. I only make adjustments for clearly defined things: existence of Pro tour (1927-1967), wars (1915-19, 1940-45), slams that were not open to foreigners, repeat winners of early slams that were seeded into the final match.

I don't want to try to estimate how weak the Pro tour was in its beginning or how strong it was in the 60's. That is all very subjective. I try to get as close to the objective list as possible without making that kind of subjective judgments."

I know that some injustices are made in the process but we cannot look at every slam played and try to estimate somehow what the strength of that slam was compared to the total strength of the players living at that time.

Last edited by densuprun; 07-12-2013 at 11:32 AM.
densuprun is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome