who are the atp's 'true' one-slam wonders? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

who are the atp's 'true' one-slam wonders?

anticaria
06-24-2011, 08:19 PM
these are a few players who come to mind who have won only one major.. however, would the proper definition of a 'one-slam wonder' truly apply to those who have made more than one slam final or who are former number ones?

the reason i ask is because it seems totally unfair to lump someone like andy roddick(*) [who's a 5-time slam singles finalist] or andrés Gómez [who's a 2-time slam doubles champion, '86 uso and '88 french open] with a true 'flash in the pan' like gastón gaudio.. :confused:

michael chang, 1989 french open, 4-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

andrés Gómez, 1990 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 4

michael stich, 1991 wimbledon, 3-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

thomas muster, 1995 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

richard krajicek, 1996 wimbledon, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 4

petr korda, 1998 australian open, 2-time slam singles finlaist, highest singles ranking: 2

carlos moya, 1998 french open, 2-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

goran ivanisevic, 2001 wimbledon, 4-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

thomas johansson, 2002 australian open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 7

juan carlos ferrero, 2003 french open, 3-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

*Andy Roddick, 2003 us open, 5-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

gastón gaudio, 2004 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 5

Pirata.
06-24-2011, 08:28 PM
Anyone who has made more than two slam finals, excluding the one they won, I don't think you can call a one-slam wonder, especially if they've reached the finals on two different surfaces. They've shown that they at least have the capability to make multiple slam finals, whereas other guys had a great run in one slam and then didn't do much after that.

Gaudio immediately comes to mind. One slam final at RG, two fourth rounds there in the following two years, but never went past the third round at any other slam before or after then.

krakenzero
06-24-2011, 08:38 PM
these are a few players who come to mind who have won only one major.. however, would the proper definition of a 'one-slam wonder' truly apply to those who have made more than one slam final or who are former number ones?

the reason i ask is because it seems totally unfair to lump someone like andy roddick(*) [who's a 5-time slam singles finalist] or andrés Gómez [who's a 2-time slam doubles champion, '86 uso and '88 french open] with a true 'flash in the pan' like gastón gaudio.. :confused:

michael chang, 1989 french open, 4-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

andrés Gómez, 1990 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 4

michael stich, 1991 wimbledon, 3-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

thomas muster, 1995 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

richard krajicek, 1996 wimbledon, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 4

petr korda, 1998 australian open, 2-time slam singles finlaist, highest singles ranking: 2

carlos moya, 1998 french open, 2-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

goran ivanisevic, 2001 wimbledon, 4-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

thomas johansson, 2002 australian open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 7

juan carlos ferrero, 2003 french open, 3-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

*Andy Roddick, 2003 us open, 5-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

gastón gaudio, 2004 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 5

Here they are. I missed Albert Costa in the chart. Anyway, I'll add a new relevant dimension, that would be "big victories". That way guys like Krajicek or Gomez could have more consideration.

I think doubles victories has nothing to do with this.

anticaria
06-24-2011, 08:50 PM
Here they are. I missed Albert Costa in the chart. Anyway, I'll add a new relevant dimension, that would be "big victories". That way guys like Krajicek or Gomez could have more consideration.

I think doubles victories has nothing to do with this.

here's the revised list (including costa):

michael chang, 1989 french open, 4-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

andrés Gómez, 1990 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 4

michael stich, 1991 wimbledon, 3-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

thomas muster, 1995 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

richard krajicek, 1996 wimbledon, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 4

petr korda, 1998 australian open, 2-time slam singles finlaist, highest singles ranking: 2

carlos moya, 1998 french open, 2-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

goran ivanisevic, 2001 wimbledon, 4-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 2

thomas johansson, 2002 australian open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 7

albert costa, 2002 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 6

juan carlos ferrero, 2003 french open, 3-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

*Andy Roddick, 2003 us open, 5-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 1

gastón gaudio, 2004 french open, 1-time slam singles finalist, highest singles ranking: 5

btw, if i missed anyone else, please feel free to point it out..

and as per the doubles reference, point duly noted.. i simply put that in as i felt it shows said player didn't just 'luck into' a one-time slam singles final appearance.. i.e., they were competent and versatile world-class players to begin with..

LawrenceOfTennis
06-24-2011, 08:54 PM
I really hope Djokovic will end up as a two slam wonder.

krakenzero
06-24-2011, 09:00 PM
Oh right, you forgot Del Potro too!

--Pissing off the other guy mode on--

AnnaK_4ever
06-24-2011, 09:04 PM
Gaudio in a class of his own. Never past 4th round at slams excluding his title run. Not even a final at Masters Series. Only 12 top-10 wins overall.

yesh222
06-24-2011, 09:13 PM
Gaudio is the epitome of a 1-slam wonder.

Costa, Johansson and Gomex are probably right above that.

Bleeth
06-24-2011, 09:29 PM
Gaudio, Costa, Johansson tough battle.

Should probably add Gomez but i won't 'cause he made a great impression on me bossing Agassi in that match.

MariaV
06-24-2011, 09:34 PM
Gaudio *just to piss off AJ*

bobbynorwich
06-24-2011, 09:51 PM
Roddick should hang it up, go back to Austin, and live off Brooklyn's mega earnings.

Saberq
06-24-2011, 09:52 PM
I really hope Djokovic will end up as a two slam wonder.

Del Potro is the answer to this thread's question

AnnaK_4ever
06-24-2011, 09:54 PM
Gaudio, Costa, Johansson tough battle.

Costa and Johansson reached multiple slam QFs and won Masters titles. Though Johansson is unique in the sense that he's the only one-time slam champion who won the title without facing a single Top-10 player.

SerialKillerToBe
06-24-2011, 10:23 PM
Anyone who's made more than one slam final isn't a one slam wonder. Because then that would mean that they performed well more than once.

Fedex
06-24-2011, 10:31 PM
I like Gaudio but he pretty clearly fits the bill.

SheepleBuster
06-24-2011, 10:50 PM
Gaston Gaudio did not win a slam. Coria lost it. So Coria is a 1 time slam loser wonder.

samanosuke
06-24-2011, 11:04 PM
Actually at Gaudio's time I was always considering him as the man who could win FO and for Johansson I have never thought he could do it

thrust
06-24-2011, 11:39 PM
One Slam winner, is a one slam winner. Semis, finals, etc. are not important. Winning is what counts!

EliSter
06-24-2011, 11:41 PM
I really hope Djokovic will end up as a two slam wonder.

Keep dreaming mug :o

Anyways Roddick.

alfonsojose
06-25-2011, 12:07 AM
Tojo has 1 AMS, and GS QF and SF at USO and Wimby

MaxPower
06-25-2011, 12:30 AM
Johansson even chocked the swedes. No one saw that coming. Most swedes were busy discussing the decline of Swedish tennis and how it was so long ago a slam was won and no player good enough atm and then baaaam. He got the opportunity and didn't let it slip away.

It's pretty much like Monfils would go take a slam this year or something. Not unthinkable and the player can indeed defeat most on a good day but you are happy if they can even claim a Masters. It's strange how unusual it is for a #7-10 career high to just step it up. Many have reached SF/F but those last wins are always so difficult. Johansson could have choked his slam win away too but he looked like the mentally stronger player in the Final which was very odd because in reality he should have been the most nervous

Bleeth
06-25-2011, 01:01 AM
Tojo has 1 AMS, and GS QF and SF at USO and Wimby

So what, that still doesn't make him a good tennis player. Nothing was saying "this guy deserves to be a grand slam winner, look at him play" when i watched his matches. Though 1 thing must be said, he totally destroyed Mad Russian in that final.

Topspindoctor
06-25-2011, 04:36 AM
Del Potro.

Action Jackson
06-25-2011, 04:43 AM
One Slam better than none, so clown thread.

tommyg6
06-25-2011, 06:57 AM
Gaudio takes this one.
/thread

Purple Rainbow
06-25-2011, 09:48 AM
So what, that still doesn't make him a good tennis player. Nothing was saying "this guy deserves to be a grand slam winner, look at him play" when i watched his matches. Though 1 thing must be said, he totally destroyed Mad Russian in that final.

The Mad Russian did a pretty good job self-destructing the night before. In spectacular fashion, it must be said!

Bleeth
06-25-2011, 10:13 AM
The Mad Russian did a pretty good job self-destructing the night before. In spectacular fashion, it must be said!

Indeed he lived life to the fullest in those days :D

Dmitry Verdasco
06-25-2011, 12:28 PM
Gaston Gaudio did not win a slam. Coria lost it. So Coria is a 1 time slam loser wonder.

Just like Martin Verkerk, right?

stebs
06-25-2011, 01:28 PM
One Slam better than none, so clown thread.

Explain to me why the truth of the statement, 'one slam better than none', makes this thread a clown thread? What has that statement got to do with anything. Have you missed the point here or are you just being a Gaudio fanboy and upset because he is being mentioned consistently. :p :wavey: There's actually a valid question at hand here, which of the players who have only won a single slam should realistically be considered as one slam wonders? This is a more interesting thread than many.

For me, 'one slam wonder' entails not only that the player never won another slam but also was never considered amongst the top band of favourites for another slam deep into it. Only Gaudio, Costa, ToJo, Krajicek and Gomez can even be considered in my opinion. Which combination of those five are eligible depends on which criterion you select but Gaudio is the stand out example with all but the most contrived criteria.

n8
06-25-2011, 02:02 PM
I think what AJ is saying is that the fact that Gaudio won a Slam is something that should be complemented, not harassed. First and foremost, Gaudio's Slam makes him a hero among tennis players (and not a peasant among Slam winners).

stebs
06-25-2011, 02:10 PM
I think what AJ is saying is that the fact that Gaudio won a Slam is something that should be complemented, not harassed. First and foremost, Gaudio's Slam makes him a hero among tennis players (and not a peasant among Slam winners).

He's not being harassed. Yes, Gaudio is a hero for winning slam. What's your point? Do you agree that we shouldn't discuss which of the players with one slam only can be considered a one slam wonder? This is a ridiculous point to make, this thread is not about what Gaudio is 'first and foremost'. It is about which players could accurately be described as 'one slam wonder'. A legitimate discussion in my opinion and whether or not it irritates Gaudio fans is irrelevant.

AnnaK_4ever
06-25-2011, 02:38 PM
I think what AJ is saying is that the fact that Gaudio won a Slam is something that should be complemented, not harassed. First and foremost, Gaudio's Slam makes him a hero among tennis players (and not a peasant among Slam winners).

It all depends. One could argue never getting past 4R at other slams is the better testament to Gaudio's true abilities than his lone slam win.

n8
06-25-2011, 02:54 PM
He's not being harassed. Yes, Gaudio is a hero for winning slam. What's your point? Do you agree that we shouldn't discuss which of the players with one slam only can be considered a one slam wonder? This is a ridiculous point to make, this thread is not about what Gaudio is 'first and foremost'. It is about which players could accurately be described as 'one slam wonder'. A legitimate discussion in my opinion and whether or not it irritates Gaudio fans is irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I like this thread :). I'm continually finding (often obscure) avenues to explore. I was just trying to see things from AJ's point of view.

It all depends. One could argue never getting past 4R at other slams is the better testament to Gaudio's true abilities than his lone slam win.

Yep. His lack of good results in other Slam events is astonishing.

Roddickominator
06-25-2011, 03:31 PM
He's not being harassed. Yes, Gaudio is a hero for winning slam. What's your point? Do you agree that we shouldn't discuss which of the players with one slam only can be considered a one slam wonder? This is a ridiculous point to make, this thread is not about what Gaudio is 'first and foremost'. It is about which players could accurately be described as 'one slam wonder'. A legitimate discussion in my opinion and whether or not it irritates Gaudio fans is irrelevant.

The thread is a joke because the concept of a "One Slam Wonder" is a joke in itself. It's basically a derogatory term in the first place....it leads all discussions it involves to basically calling Slam champions some sort of fluke.

You want to respectfully compare Grand Slam champions...fine, there is a lot of good discussion to be had there. But finding reasons to bash the ones with less stellar careers is pretty low class IMO. And even if that isn't the intent, that's what invariably happens in these threads. So they're basically a joke.

n8
06-25-2011, 03:44 PM
^While the terminology is questionable, I think it is interesting to discuss the Grand Slam champions who have been the least successful overall. It shows how amazing they were to capture that Slam or unearths interesting circumstances which aided in their victory (like Johansson not facing a top 10 player).

Nathaliia
06-25-2011, 03:54 PM
At least everyone remembers how Gaudio won the slam, or Costa (all his 5 setters fom 0-2...)...

Libertango
06-25-2011, 03:57 PM
Indeed he lived life to the fullest in those days :D

What did Marat get up to pre-AO final??

Chase Visa
06-26-2011, 01:09 AM
Gaudio, IMO.

Johannson has a case too.

anticaria
06-26-2011, 01:29 AM
Oh right, you forgot Del Potro too!




i didn't forget delpo.. at the tender age of 22, i just think his career is far from over at this point so it may be a tad 'premature' to speak of him as a mere one-slammer.. however, if in 5 or 6 years he's still failed to add a second slam title to his record, then i might reconsider.. in the meantime, let's just wait and see what happens and hope he's able to fully recover to his '09 level..

don't forget it took pete sampras almost 3 years to win his 2nd major.. and it hasn't even been 2 years since delpo's uso triumph..

Lee
06-26-2011, 01:43 AM
i didn't forget delpo.. at the tender age of 22, i just think his career is far from over at this point so it may be a tad 'premature' to speak of him as a mere one-slammer.. however, if in 5 or 6 years he's still failed to add a second slam title to his record, then i might reconsider.. in the meantime, let's just wait and see what happens and hope he's able to fully recover to his '09 level..

don't forget it took pete sampras almost 3 years to win his 2nd major.. and it hasn't even been 2 years since delpo's uso triumph..

The response you quoted is not for you but for the other poster :angel:

anticaria
06-26-2011, 02:06 AM
Explain to me why the truth of the statement, 'one slam better than none', makes this thread a clown thread? What has that statement got to do with anything. Have you missed the point here or are you just being a Gaudio fanboy and upset because he is being mentioned consistently. :p :wavey: There's actually a valid question at hand here, which of the players who have only won a single slam should realistically be considered as one slam wonders? This is a more interesting thread than many.

For me, 'one slam wonder' entails not only that the player never won another slam but also was never considered amongst the top band of favourites for another slam deep into it. Only Gaudio, Costa, ToJo, Krajicek and Gomez can even be considered in my opinion. Which combination of those five are eligible depends on which criterion you select but Gaudio is the stand out example with all but the most contrived criteria.


perfectly well stated!

anticaria
06-26-2011, 02:08 AM
The thread is a joke because the concept of a "One Slam Wonder" is a joke in itself. It's basically a derogatory term in the first place....it leads all discussions it involves to basically calling Slam champions some sort of fluke.

You want to respectfully compare Grand Slam champions...fine, there is a lot of good discussion to be had there. But finding reasons to bash the ones with less stellar careers is pretty low class IMO. And even if that isn't the intent, that's what invariably happens in these threads. So they're basically a joke.


first of all, if you'd read the op, you'd realize that i did state very clearly and up front that i don't think it's fair to lump andy (a 5-time slam finalist) in with folks like gastón gaudio.. it is the very reason i posed the question to begin with.. i.e., i feel there must be a distinction between 'multiple' slam finalists like andy and one-time finalists like gaudio.. i even highlighted his name in red..

that said, whether you like the terminology or not, the term does have its merit for the sake of discussion, which is after all why we are all here..

btw, since you seem to be a huge roddick fan, here's an article in which andy discusses just this very thing.. i think you'll find he doesn't necessarily dismiss the notion at all:

Roddick: One-Slam wonder? Well, that's one more than most

Andy Roddick of the USA, the No. 8 seed, is a three-time Wimbledon runner-up. He breezed past Victor Hanescu 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 Wednesday in the second round. He'll check in with USA TODAY's Douglas Robson throughout the fortnight.

By Susan Mullane, US Presswire

Day 3

I was pretty happy with everything in my match (Wednesday). I played clean, a lot better than my first round. I was sticking returns, hit 15 aces and won 93% of my first serves. Although I was on Centre Court, I didn't want to play under the retractable roof. I've heard it makes the conditions a little slower. The air is more humid, and the balls get a little bit bigger and don't travel as fast. I was happy when they said they were going to open the roof before my match since the day started with rain and it was closed.

On the other hand, it was a good feeling knowing I was guaranteed to play. I was here Monday ready to play all day. My match got canceled late. Played Tuesday, played Wednesday. I didn't want to get canceled (Wednesday) and wake up with that mentality of having to play for five consecutive days. So it was a little bit of a relief knowing that I was going to get my match in no matter what.

Actually, I was surprised I was scheduled on Centre Court with (Rafael) Nadal and (Andy) Murray on the docket. My camp and I always try to predict where and what time I'm going to play. We were 0-fer. No one got that one. We normally have a pretty good idea. Later in the day is better for U.S. TV (since we are five hours ahead of ET) and I'm behind Murray and Nadal on my side of the draw pecking-order wise. You can get a pretty good gauge on where you're going to be but we were wrong on this one. I can't predict where I'll be Friday because I haven't seen all the matchups yet.

It's my 11th Wimbledon and a lot has changed and much hasn't. There is new player dining area, new courts like No. 2 last year and this year the newly built No. 3. Court 1 was new when I first arrived here. The thing that's cool is that a lot of changed but they're still able to make it feel like the old place. They do a great job of incorporating the new with tradition.

My coach Larry Stefanki and I have been together a few years now, too. It's always a challenge to keep it fresh, but we haven't tried to do anything consciously about that. I have a lot of faith in his opinion on tennis. He's seen a lot. He's coached every different style from (Tim) Henman to (Marcelo) Rios to (John) McEnroe. He's meticulous as far as notes and remembering matches. He literally has notes from every match I've ever played, certain points, tendencies, etc. He's just well studied. I respect that.

I don't care when people use the term "one-Slam wonder" with me. (Actually, nearly half of the major winners in the Open era — 24 of 51 — fit that category). People say it as a bad thing. The people who say it I swear don't have a Grand Slam title. I think the term "wonder" suggests you have won one and gone away. I've played in five Grand Slam finals. I haven't gone anywhere. I've been here the last decade. You'd better be pretty good if you're going to throw that term around nonchalantly.

But I do wonder about the lack of statistical awareness in our sport. I'd like to see us get fired up in tennis about other numbers besides the Slams — 500 homers in baseball, things like that. Or a certain number of match wins that was magical or more celebrated. I wish we had those hallowed marks. We have one mark, which is tough. It would be like judging Karl Malone on nothing but one stat.

I have a day off before my next match. I'll probably have a light hit of 30-45 minutes. My wife Brooklyn wants to go to a movie in the afternoon. She's been eager to take me to this movie Bridesmaids for a while. I think she's already seen it three times.

Next up is Feliciano Lopez. I've never lost to him (7-0), but we've had some really close matches. Very tough. Lefty. Chips the ball around, likes to volley. His game is almost tailor-made for grass. He likes playing on the surface as much as I do. He's been to the quarterfinals here a couple times and we just played at Queens in the first round. I was down a break in the third and won.

anticaria
06-26-2011, 02:56 AM
Tennis’ one-slam wonders
By John Figaro, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Mar 23, 3:10 pm EDT


Less than one percent of all professionally ranked tennis players in the open era have reached the finals of a Grand Slam tournament, let alone winning an Aussie, Wimbledon, French or U.S. Open title. But yet, the players who've managed to win one Grand Slam, a monumental sporting achievement, are at times looked down upon, for perhaps being lucky; a fluke win. They failed to legitimize their title by showing that they can do it again and are forever known as one-slam wonders.

The one unique characteristic of all one Grand Slam wonders (except one) is that they were all at one time a top ten player. They may not have been super champions, but champions just the same.

Here's a list of all the one slam wonders in the open era, organized by the best ranking that they achieved:


Top 15

Mark Edmondson, Australian open
Congratulations Mark Edmondson, at number 15 ranking, you're the worst open era grand slam winner ever. A valiant effort by a player who went to a gunfight with a butter knife and won the 1976 Australian open.

Top 7

Thomas Johansson, Australian open
The last Swedish winner of a Grand Slam, - Thomas's One slam came at the 2002 Australian Open, then injuries got in the way of him reaching his full potential.

Brian Teacher, Australian Open
He's the forgotten Grand Slam winner who beat Kim Warwick in the 1980 Australian Open, and a top seven player to boot.

Top 6

Gaston Gaudio, French Open
The unlikeliest winner of the 2004 French Open who needs to will a chunk of his fortune to should have been champion Gulliermo Coria.

Albert Costa, French Open
A dirt baller who got hot for two weeks to win the 2002 French Open, while the favorites lost.

Top 4

Adriano Pannata, French Open
Call him the Borg Beater. The only player to stop Bjorn at the French Open and he did it twice, including 1976 on his way to his only Grand Slam title at the French Open.

Juan Martin Del Portro, U.S. Open
He took down Roger Federer in the finals of the 2009 US Open. He's young and talented enough to win several more Grand Slam titles.

Andres Gomez, French Open
He deserved more French open titles than his lone victory in 1990, but we can't all be legends.

Richard Krajicek, Wimbledon
He feasted on sacrificial lamb Mal Washington, who reached the 1996 Wimbledon finals when Todd Martin choked up a large gag of nerves. A streaker ran on court and the match was over soon thereafter.

Pat Cash, Wimbledon
Signs of Cash's eminent victory over Ivan at the 1987 Wimbledon came earlier that year when he won his first match in four tries against the father of modern day tennis, on the grass courts of the Australian Open.

Roscoe Tanner, Australian Open
The 1977 Australian Open champion almost won another Grand Slam, had it not been for the great Bjorn Borg finding a way to break his serve in the fifth set of their 1979 Wimbledon battle.

Top 3

Yannick Noah, French Open
The lasting image of the 1983 French Open finals against Mats Willander is that of Yannick straddling the net to shake Mats' hand and rush into the congratulatory arms of his elated and ecstatic father.

Top 2

Petr Korda, Australian Open
Many avid fans will remember Petr winning the 1998 Australian open, but few will recall that he was just one spot away from the number one ranking.

Goran Ivanisevic, Wimbledon
The fact that he never reached the top and only won the 2001 Wimbledon is a testament to his underachieving career. He has "bad Goran" to blame for his one slam wonder status.

Manuel Orantes, US Open
He took out Jimmy Connors at the 1975 US Open in three easy sets, albeit on American green clay, but a decisive victory just the same.

Michael Stich, Wimbledon
He's a one slam wonder for winning the 1991 Wimbledon, but perhaps his best crown achievement was reaching the finals of the French open.

Michael Chang, French Open
After his five set triumph over Ivan Lendl where he used everything from fake injuries to serving under hand, Michael went on to defeat Stefan Edberg in the finals of the 1989 French Open

Number 1

Thomas Muster, French Open
What a magical year he had on the clay courts in 1995, winning 40 straight clay court matches on his way to his only Grand Slam title at the French Open.

Carlos Moya, French
Carlos was one of the players who challenged the then ban on sleeveless shirts by the ATP. His 1998 French Open title makes him one of the more colorful, pioneering one slam wonders of all-time

Juan Carlos Ferrera, French Open
The mosquito had a nice run to the top of the tour rankings becoming one of four number one players to be a one slam wonder by winning the 2003 French Open

Andy Roddick, US Open
Andy's had the most successful career of all one slam wonders. Some say he played in the wrong era, for had it not been for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal he would have won more Grand Slams. I say he played in the perfect era, because the world would have been an unfortunate sporting place had Andy Roddick been a dominating champion.

Roddickominator
06-26-2011, 03:24 AM
first of all, if you'd read the op, you'd realize that i did state very clearly and up front that i don't think it's fair to lump andy (a 5-time slam finalist) in with folks like gastón gaudio.. it is the very reason i posed the question to begin with.. i.e., i feel there must be a distinction between 'multiple' slam finalists like andy and one-time finalists like gaudio.. i even highlighted his name in red..

that said, whether you like the terminology or not, the term does have its merit for the sake of discussion, which is after all why we are all here..

It doesn't have any merit for the sake of discussion any more than any other insult or backhanded compliment. It's much better for trolling or starting a flame war. Pretty similar to mediter using the "transitional champion" term, and just as silly a discussion when it gets brought to that level.

btw, since you seem to be a huge roddick fan, here's an article in which andy discusses just this very thing.. i think you'll find he doesn't necessarily dismiss the notion at all:

I don't care when people use the term "one-Slam wonder" with me. (Actually, nearly half of the major winners in the Open era — 24 of 51 — fit that category). People say it as a bad thing. The people who say it I swear don't have a Grand Slam title. I think the term "wonder" suggests you have won one and gone away. I've played in five Grand Slam finals. I haven't gone anywhere. I've been here the last decade. You'd better be pretty good if you're going to throw that term around nonchalantly.

He's basically saying what i'm saying. That calling someone a "one-slam wonder" is an attempted insult. Andy is smart enough to realize that anyone using that term is much less than a "one-slam wonder", so it doesn't bother him. Which is obviously the right attitude to have.

But Roddick isn't the guy that needs defending here. He has a pretty good resume. Bringing up guys like Gaudio only to insult them when they accomplished something great is the issue.

stebs
06-26-2011, 10:26 AM
He's basically saying what i'm saying. That calling someone a "one-slam wonder" is an attempted insult. Andy is smart enough to realize that anyone using that term is much less than a "one-slam wonder", so it doesn't bother him. Which is obviously the right attitude to have.

But Roddick isn't the guy that needs defending here. He has a pretty good resume. Bringing up guys like Gaudio only to insult them when they accomplished something great is the issue.
Doesn't have to be an insult at all. Rather, it is a case of trying to define a specific category of tennis player and then seeing who fits that category.

Har-Tru
06-26-2011, 10:29 AM
Gomez, ToJo and Gaudio.

Action Jackson
06-26-2011, 11:00 AM
Explain to me why the truth of the statement, 'one slam better than none', makes this thread a clown thread? What has that statement got to do with anything. Have you missed the point here or are you just being a Gaudio fanboy and upset because he is being mentioned consistently. :p :wavey: There's actually a valid question at hand here, which of the players who have only won a single slam should realistically be considered as one slam wonders? This is a more interesting thread than many.

For me, 'one slam wonder' entails not only that the player never won another slam but also was never considered amongst the top band of favourites for another slam deep into it. Only Gaudio, Costa, ToJo, Krajicek and Gomez can even be considered in my opinion. Which combination of those five are eligible depends on which criterion you select but Gaudio is the stand out example with all but the most contrived criteria.

Why the need to put into categories in the first place stebney? Is it because you need stereotypes for instant recognition purposes or something else? That's it and nothing else, anyone who wins a Slam doesn't need it denigrated by 1 Slam wonder bullshit, doesn't matter if it's Roddick, Gaudio, Gomez, Costa, Johansson, Ivanisevic or any individual who has done it.

anticaria
06-26-2011, 02:11 PM
It doesn't have any merit for the sake of discussion any more than any other insult or backhanded compliment. It's much better for trolling or starting a flame war. Pretty similar to mediter using the "transitional champion" term, and just as silly a discussion when it gets brought to that level.



He's basically saying what i'm saying. That calling someone a "one-slam wonder" is an attempted insult. Andy is smart enough to realize that anyone using that term is much less than a "one-slam wonder", so it doesn't bother him. Which is obviously the right attitude to have.

But Roddick isn't the guy that needs defending here. He has a pretty good resume. Bringing up guys like Gaudio only to insult them when they accomplished something great is the issue.


no offense but that rationalization still reeks of political correctness run wild in an attempt to short-circuit discussion imo.. btw, who said anything about anyone 'needing defending'? if you think any of these guys' records needs defending just because an attempt is being made to simply determine which among such a vast group of players seems to have had the most meteorically and shockingly brief stint at slam glory, suit yourself..

also, i guess you failed to notice that even roddick understands that the term has its valid parameters.. in andy's own words:

I think the term "wonder" suggests you have won one and gone away. <---that right there tells us even he recognizes the concept has a valid basis and he just U]defined the parameters[/U] for us as he sees them (you have won one and gone away), which is what i was attempting to do in the op (sort out the parameters)..

again, if you're not interested in discussing why someone like gaudio only has one slam title to his name as opposed to why someone like andy has only one as well, that's your prerogative.. but stop trying to 'dictate' to others what they can or cannot discuss on account of some perceived pc notion that player x, y or z's credentials are somehow being 'dissed'.. in reality, the actual 'diss' on gaudio or anyone else would be to suggest they had no business winning even one major, yet, as far as i know, no one has stated that.. he's still a slam winner and no one will ever take that away from him..

but going back to andy's quote, notice how he merely says that he 'doesn't care when people use the term "one-Slam wonder" with [him]"..

naturally, a one-slam winner would be 'sensitively biased' on the subject, so nothing earth-shattering in andy's predictable touchiness.. the important thing is that even he understands there's a place for such and lays down what he views as the parameters.. i, however, fail to see the so-called 'insult' you point out for i don't see it as a 'bad thing' at all since most players aren't slam winners.. and the mere assumption that a harmless attempt to make distinctions among one-slam winners somehow constitutes a 'classless transgression' says a lot more about your paranoia than it does about my so-called 'classless' intent..

as i said, suit yourself.. but while you're drowning in indignation, perhaps you'd care to lead a global crusade to strike such terms as 'one-slam wonder,' 'one-hit wonder,' 'one-shot wonder' or 'flash in the pan' from the pop culture sports jargon.. godspeed!

AnnaK_4ever
06-26-2011, 02:27 PM
no offense but that rationalization still reeks of political correctness run wild in an attempt to short-circuit discussion imo.. btw, who said anything about anyone 'needing defending'? if you think any of these guys' records needs defending just because an attempt is being made to simply determine which among such a vast group of players seems to have had the most meteorically and shockingly brief stint at slam glory, suit yourself..


This.

For instance, my favorite player is Myskina but as much as I like her it's stupid to deny she is a one slam wonder. If a player's whole career is defined by a single extraordinary result how else could you call him/her?

anticaria
06-26-2011, 02:54 PM
Why the need to put into categories in the first place stebney? Is it because you need stereotypes for instant recognition purposes or something else? That's it and nothing else, anyone who wins a Slam doesn't need it denigrated by 1 Slam wonder bullshit, doesn't matter if it's Roddick, Gaudio, Gomez, Costa, Johansson, Ivanisevic or any individual who has done it.


i still don't get the knee-jerk reaction in rushing to take a harmless and perfectly descriptive little term out of context.. again: who's so-called 'denigrating' anyone? denigrating would be suggesting those folks had no business at all winning even one major.. now that is denigrating..

oh well, i guess everyone will ultimately see in a mere term whatever they personally want to read into it.. :rolleyes:

btw, aj, while you're still full of indignation, perhaps you ought to be calling or writing the tennis channel and giving them a piece of your mind:

One Slam Wonders

Best of 5 is a lighthearted walk down memory lane for the avid tennis fan and the casual observer. Each episode counts down 5 classic moments from all angles of the tennis universe.

In this edition of Best of Five we will examine so called one slam wonders. Find out why some of the game’s most memorable players were only able to claim the greatest honor in tennis just once. With testimony from writers, commentators, and players who witnessed the events firsthand, we will examine the careers of the players who have earned themselves the nickname of “one slam wonders”.

and while you're at it, don't forget to let john mcenroe and brad gilbert know how you really feel as j-mac called pat rafter a 'one-slam wonder' back in '97 and brad gilbert also used the term to refer to gastón gaudio a few years back..

makesmewonder
06-26-2011, 03:06 PM
Roddick should hang it up, go back to Austin, and live off Brooklyn's mega earnings.

:haha:

makesmewonder
06-26-2011, 03:10 PM
Michael Chang could have gone futher.

Roddickominator
06-26-2011, 03:10 PM
no offense but that rationalization still reeks of political correctness run wild in an attempt to short-circuit discussion imo.. btw, who said anything about anyone 'needing defending'? if you think any of these guys' records needs defending just because an attempt is being made to simply determine which among such a vast group of players seems to have had the most meteorically and shockingly brief stint at slam glory, suit yourself..

Discuss all you want. But don't be surprised when you get called out for making a clown thread.

also, i guess you failed to notice that even roddick understands that the term has its valid parameters.. in andy's own words:

I think the term "wonder" suggests you have won one and gone away. <---that right there tells us even he recognizes the concept has a valid basis and he just U]defined the parameters[/U] for us as he sees them (you have won one and gone away), which is what i was attempting to do in the op (sort out the parameters)..

Recognizing that the term is used by mostly idiots, and recognizing the concept has a valid basis are 2 different things. Andy clearly leaned toward the former if you read the quote that you posted.

again, if you're not interested in discussing why someone like gaudio only has one slam title to his name as opposed to why someone like andy has only one as well, that's your prerogative

Regardless of your intent, you instantly lumped yourself in with countless trolls and morons the second you said "one-slam wonder". By all means, have your discussion. I personally find it in bad taste to basically make a list of "Worst Slam Champions" or any such nonsense, which is basically what your thread boils down to.

Start da Game
06-26-2011, 03:38 PM
gaudio without a shadow of doubt......before and after that french open 2004, he doesn't even qualify for being a full time clown on atp......

followed by johansson and costa......

Azurebi
06-26-2011, 04:19 PM
Thomas Johansson :bdaycake: It's like an accident.

Anyone who won a Wimbledon title is in history of Tennis. They are fine.
One Wimbledon >>>> several other slam titles.

selyoink
06-26-2011, 04:33 PM
Gaudio winning a slam almost devalues what a slam means since such a crappy player lucked into a slam win when the far more deserving Coria choked in epic fashion. The rest of Gaudio's career is that of a player ranked around 30-50 for his whole career.

MariaV
06-26-2011, 04:51 PM
Tojo has 1 AMS, and GS QF and SF at USO and Wimby

Yep, and I respect ToJo. :hatoff:

Johansson even chocked the swedes. No one saw that coming. Most swedes were busy discussing the decline of Swedish tennis and how it was so long ago a slam was won and no player good enough atm and then baaaam. He got the opportunity and didn't let it slip away.

It's pretty much like Monfils would go take a slam this year or something. Not unthinkable and the player can indeed defeat most on a good day but you are happy if they can even claim a Masters. It's strange how unusual it is for a #7-10 career high to just step it up. Many have reached SF/F but those last wins are always so difficult. Johansson could have choked his slam win away too but he looked like the mentally stronger player in the Final which was very odd because in reality he should have been the most nervous

That's right, and all kudos to him for that. :hatoff:

TheRafaelNadal
06-26-2011, 05:29 PM
Gaudio, the guy did nothing except win FO when he should have lost to Coria.

anticaria
06-26-2011, 07:55 PM
Discuss all you want. But don't be surprised when you get called out for making a clown thread.



Recognizing that the term is used by mostly idiots, and recognizing the concept has a valid basis are 2 different things. Andy clearly leaned toward the former if you read the quote that you posted.



Regardless of your intent, you instantly lumped yourself in with countless trolls and morons the second you said "one-slam wonder". By all means, have your discussion. I personally find it in bad taste to basically make a list of "Worst Slam Champions" or any such nonsense, which is basically what your thread boils down to.


i don't even know where to begin.. first of all, andy's hardly the most 'impartial' opinion on the subject as i'm sure he's dealt with enough one-slam grief throughout his career, so naturally he'd feel as though that's about the worst thing one could call him.. and yet, as i have already explained, even someone like him -who's had to live under such a dark cloud of scrutiny in the tennis community and who's no doubt grown quite paranoid about it by now- recognizes its use in providing at least one valid parameter for separating those one-time slam champions who have rapidly disappeared from the scene (i.e., 'you've won one and gone away') from those who have been at least able to back up their initial slam success with subsequent trips to majors' finals..

as far as the term being used by 'mostly idiots,' if you truly feel that strongly about it, why don't you take your utter moral indignation and delicately tasteful sensibilities and address your heartfelt view on the subject to the tennis channel powers that be, as it was them who obviously approved a 'one-slam wonders' segment as part of their 'best-of-five' series:

"Best of Five" One Slam Wonders (2008)
In this edition of Best of Five we will examine so called one slam wonders. Find out why some of the game's most memorable players were only able to claim the greatest honor in tennis just once. With testimony from writers, commentators, and players who witnessed the events firsthand, we will examine the careers of the players who have earned themselves the nickname of "one slam wonders". Written by Tennis Channel

at least then your efforts would be slightly less futile (as you'd at least be able to reach an infinitely greater level of media influence) than merely whining in helpless indignation on some web forum where your view on this issue has become totally outnumbered, quite frankly..

finally, i cannot tell you how much it means to me to finally have your blessing and permission to continue posting any further thoughts on the subject.. :rolleyes:

AnnaK_4ever
06-26-2011, 08:45 PM
Gaudio winning a slam almost devalues what a slam means since such a crappy player lucked into a slam win when the far more deserving Coria choked in epic fashion. The rest of Gaudio's career is that of a player ranked around 30-50 for his whole career.

"The far more deserving" Coria posted a grand total of 10 Top-10 wins in his career, yet that was enough to reach a GS final and semifinal and 7 AMS finals.
Coria's overall Top-10 record (10-28, 0.263) is the worst among Top-3 players and/or GS champions of the last 20 years. And his Top-10 record outside clay courts is an audacious 1-19.

stebs
06-26-2011, 10:21 PM
Why the need to put into categories in the first place stebney? Is it because you need stereotypes for instant recognition purposes or something else? That's it and nothing else, anyone who wins a Slam doesn't need it denigrated by 1 Slam wonder bullshit, doesn't matter if it's Roddick, Gaudio, Gomez, Costa, Johansson, Ivanisevic or any individual who has done it.

It's a tennis discussion board. One of the things that may be discussed is different ways of regarding players relative to each other. One way of doing this is considering which of the slam winners in tennis history should be considered as a one slam wonder relative to the other players who have also won a single slam.

It's only a denigration because you see it that way. If it would help you sleep better then the wording can be changed. If it's only an issue of wording then fair enough, 'one slam wonder' can be changed to 'unlikely champion' or some other less negatively charged terminology. The point is, its a valid discussion.

laurie-1
06-26-2011, 10:41 PM
Interesting question. Out of all the names you mentioned, I would go for Thomas Johannson because with many of the other players, the general public knew them, they were stars - like Chang, Goran, Krajicek, Muster, Roddick, Cash all well known. Korda did get to the French final in 1992. But not many Tennis fans will remember Johansson 10 years from now. And the public will have no idea who he is (other than in Sweden of course).

Crowdmaker
06-27-2011, 04:14 AM
Well I don`t know if there wasn`t enough survey in this thread or people are simply forgetting, but for me most notable one; has to be:

Thomas Enqvist

Runner-up at Australian Open 1999 (Kafelnikov winner)
Despite highest ranking as No. 4 in 1999 and as much as 19 ATP titles, he never shined at Grand Slam level...

Action Jackson
06-27-2011, 04:45 AM
stebs, we are never going to agree on this at all. I feel the same about the terms "one hit wonders" good them for having one hit and as I stated it's not cause of Gaudio fanboyism as you put it.

FairWeatherFan
06-27-2011, 09:17 AM
As much as I hate to the bottom of my heart Muster, Gaudio and Costa, they were consistently excellent players for some time (albeit on clay, an altogether worthless surface). I think Thomas Johansson has the best claim to being a one-slam wonder, as he is not a player who would have a chance at winning a grand slam excepting the depleted draw he faced.

Chase Visa
06-27-2011, 01:17 PM
Gaudio was not an excellent player even on clay itbt. He was always ranked around 30-something then broke through at RG.

anticaria
06-27-2011, 02:28 PM
stebs, we are never going to agree on this at all. I feel the same about the terms "one hit wonders" good them for having one hit and as I stated it's not cause of Gaudio fanboyism as you put it.


with all due respect, mere disagreement is not the issue here.. naturally, none of us are going to agree all the time about every single topic.. if we did, there would be little point to this forum..

the real issue here, especially from a moderator's perspective, is learning how to do so while maintaining a tone of civility, respect and moderation, instead of jumping into a topic in complete 'overreaction mode' screaming bullshite this and clown that in a mere attempt to short-circuit other members' right to discuss tennis-related topics on a tennis forum..

one would expect a moderator to grasp that very simple rule and set the proper tone for others to follow.. again, mere disagreement was never the issue here..

anticaria
06-27-2011, 02:37 PM
Gaudio was not an excellent player even on clay itbt. He was always ranked around 30-something then broke through at RG.

with comments such as this by gastón:

“I never thought I was going to be in the final of such a big tournament like this.” :eek:


it is hard to argue against him being 'one-slam wonder' material..

stebs
06-27-2011, 02:47 PM
stebs, we are never going to agree on this at all. I feel the same about the terms "one hit wonders" good them for having one hit and as I stated it's not cause of Gaudio fanboyism as you put it.

:shrug: I don't care about which terminology is used. It's like Anna_K said, if a player is defined primarily by one result or one tournament then that is a distinguishing feature worth pointing out. Slate the connotations of the old terminology by all means but don't erroneously call the discussion worthless unless you have substantial reasons for doing so. Just pre-emptively, the negative connotations of 'one-slam wonder' is not a substantial reason to render the whole discussion worthless because the discussion is not motivated by a desire to treat such players pejoratively.

If you think I am in disagreement with you about the loaded nature of calling someone a 'one x wonder' then you are missing the point massively. It's more about actually engaging in a discussion about the sport rather than just contemptuously dismissing it on shallow grounds.

SheepleBuster
06-27-2011, 06:36 PM
Del Potro. He should not have won a slam and won't win another one. He is just another guy who deserves to be on WTA. That's all

anticaria
06-27-2011, 08:39 PM
Del Potro. He should not have won a slam and won't win another one. He is just another guy who deserves to be on WTA. That's all

the thing about delpo that makes me hesitate is the fact that he's just 22, so a lot could happen yet in his career.. and then there's the fact of who he beat to claim his one slam title at the '09 uso: roger federer himself.. that alone puts him well ahead of gaudio, who merely beat coria imho..