How important are Grand Slams... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How important are Grand Slams...

lleytonfan!
09-29-2007, 12:56 AM
in determining who is a greater tennis player?

For example, see my Laver-Sampras thread. Laver has three less Slams than Pete, but I consider him greater, because he won THE grand slam TWICE, which obviously meant he won every Slam, whereas Pete didn't win The French Open.

Another one is Kim Clijsters-Jennifer Capriati. Clijsters has 34 titles, but only one slam, whereas Capriati has only 14 titles, but three slams.

CyBorg
09-29-2007, 01:27 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_No._1_Tennis_Player

Burrow
09-29-2007, 01:39 AM
Capriati is far "greater" than Clijsters.

anny12
09-29-2007, 07:37 AM
I guess it depends on what's important to you, or how you value greatness. To me, rankings are more important than Slam titles. The tennis season is 11 months out of the year and there is only 4 slams. If a player consistently stays in the Top 10, but doesn't win slams, does that mean he's not a great player? The idea that Slam titles are more important than other titles is funny to me also. It's not like the tennis is harder in Slams. It's the same game no matter what tournament your playing in.

Pigpen Stinks
09-29-2007, 08:04 AM
I guess it depends on what's important to you, or how you value greatness. To me, rankings are more important than Slam titles. The tennis season is 11 months out of the year and there is only 4 slams. If a player consistently stays in the Top 10, but doesn't win slams, does that mean he's not a great player? The idea that Slam titles are more important than other titles is funny to me also. It's not like the tennis is harder in Slams. It's the same game no matter what tournament your playing in.

I'd have to disagree, Anny. The slam titles mean everything to the players. They are far and away the four most important events for the year. And yes, the tennis is much harder in the slams. For the men, at least, you are playing best of five throughout, and you also have all of the best players present. Not even mentioning the mental pressure that all the players feel compared to the other events.

tennis2tennis
09-29-2007, 09:19 AM
in determining who is a greater tennis player?

For example, see my Laver-Sampras thread. Laver has three less Slams than Pete, but I consider him greater, because he won THE grand slam TWICE, which obviously meant he won every Slam, whereas Pete didn't win The French Open.

Another one is Kim Clijsters-Jennifer Capriati. Clijsters has 34 titles, but only one slam, whereas Capriati has only 14 titles, but three slams.

sure...but I also have to add the BBS's anaylsis on putting the 2 GRANDLSAMS into perspective

There were far fewer players on the circuit and in the early rounds he was likely to come up against county standard players who would not get near the draw these days.

In addition, there were only two surfaces to contend with in the majors, grass and clay.

anny12
09-29-2007, 10:31 AM
I'd have to disagree, Anny. The slam titles mean everything to the players. They are far and away the four most important events for the year. And yes, the tennis is much harder in the slams. For the men, at least, you are playing best of five throughout, and you also have all of the best players present. Not even mentioning the mental pressure that all the players feel compared to the other events.
I'm sure the Slams are important to the players. I understand that the Slams are the most important events of the year, but I thought the question being asked was how important are Slams in determining the greatness of a player. I personally think a player can be great without winning a Slam. Yes, the competition is greater and the mental pressure is increased, but it's still tennis. I just don't think the greatness of a player should be determined by 4 tournaments when the tennis season is 11 months long.