Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is kind of extending the TMC/slam comparing thread. Many people will say that a slam cant be compared in value to anything else, still I have seen most consider Muster's achievment on clay as greater than Courier despite winning a slam less than Courier, most consider Coria greater than Gaudio on clay and so it goes.

I would guess that any specific amount would be silly here, but an estimate could be given like somewhere between 15-25 "normal" titles surely makes a slam or 5-10 master series?

Muster won +40 titles on clay and 6 master series but only 1 RG, Courier won 2 RGs, 2 master series and a total of 5 titles on clay. Who had the greater career on clay?

You could also extend the question to how many runner ups makes up for a slam? Like Borg's 4 RUs in Usopen could be worth more than Del Potro's 1 Usopen title?

It surely all comes up to what is more difficult, win 25 smaller tournaments or 1 slam? Win 6 master series or 1 slam? 4 RUs or 1 slam?

Surely winning Grand slams cant be given absolute value over all other feats in tennis? No polls, I just wanted to start a discussion here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mateya

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
slam is worth about 5 M 1000, 12 M 500, 25 M 250 I'd say
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,208 Posts
How many slams is Umag worth? :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
It's really quite simple if you apply a little logic and work it out



....thus showing slams don't mean shit. It's all about UMAG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I will tell you one thing, you can win a slam by having a good 2 weeks or a lucky draw but to win 25 titles you have to be pretty good over an extended period of time. At the same time you can win 25 titles beating alot of bad players in obscure parts of the world while to win a slam most often you need to be able to beat the best or at least you have to play someone in a really hot streak in the finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
I will tell you one thing, you can win a slam by having a good 2 weeks or a lucky draw but to win 25 titles you have to be pretty good over an extended period of time. At the same time you can win 25 titles beating alot of bad players in obscure parts of the world while to win a slam most often you need to be able to beat the best or at least you have to play someone in a really hot streak in the finals.
LOL what a nihilist you are!:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEmvf_6k0pM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,529 Posts
Btw, now that it's a talk about points, how many points would you award (if it were possible) for winning a GS in doubles? And winning a GS in mixed doubles? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
this is getting rather dumb because Grand SLams are what people remember through history, they are what players care most about, they are what fans care most about.

when 4 huge tournaments have garnered this much respect and prestige comparing becomes useless because even if you had 40 ATP 250's (despite the effort to achieve the number being so much harder than ONE GS) it still would not mean as much through time as one Gran Slam.

Grand SLams are unique and there is no set amount of other tournaments that equal them. sure we could divise a way with how many points they are worth, but how do you calculate the number of extra thousands of points all of the prestige and historical value that Grand Slam victories have?

Grand SLAM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else. it is what is it. useless trying to gauge
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Btw, now that it's a talk about points, how many points would you award (if it were possible) for winning a GS in doubles? And winning a GS in mixed doubles? :)
Problem with doubles is that it is a team effort, but it should be taken into consideration for greats to have accomplished both in doubles and singles. Mcenroe gets elevated a little bit by his many doubles slams, maybe 1 slam. Mixed doubles not so much, to me it seems to me like a gimmick.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,529 Posts
Problem with doubles is that it is a team effort, but it should be taken into consideration for greats to have accomplished both in doubles and singles. Mcenroe gets elevated a little bit by his many doubles slams, maybe 1 slam. Mixed doubles not so much, to me it seems to me like a gimmick.
Yeah, I know, but if you had to give some points, how many?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Yeah, I know, but if you had to give some points, how many?
I dont think I would put a quantity, if you had a succesfull doubles career it counts for +1 slam at most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
You could make arguments about the points these lesser tourneys give or how difficult they are to win in comparison to Slams....but at the end of the day the Slams are by far the most prestigious events and the winners will be remembered forever for winning them. Some guy might win Miami 5 years in a row and make himself the answer of a nice trivia question, but nobody is really thinking that is comparable to a Slam.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
None.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,371 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
You could make arguments about the points these lesser tourneys give or how difficult they are to win in comparison to Slams....but at the end of the day the Slams are by far the most prestigious events and the winners will be remembered forever for winning them. Some guy might win Miami 5 years in a row and make himself the answer of a nice trivia question, but nobody is really thinking that is comparable to a Slam.
That is all true, but remember that everyone knows Courier won 2 RGs and Muster 1 RG and no one really remembers what clay titles Muster won but still everybody have in the back of their mind that Muster was a greater clay legend than Courier.

I will tell you one more thing, guys like Connors and Lendl with 100 titles wont be remembered just for their 8 slams, there is a reason why most people have them up there with or above Nadal in terms of greatness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,337 Posts
2 masters= 1 slam
4 ATP 500's=1 slam
8 ATP 250's=1 slam

The ATP already did the math for you :wavey:
 
Joined
·
3,728 Posts
slams have only mattered since 68

otherwise emmerson> laver

/thread

edit*- of course there have been years before 68 where slams have mattered- and they have always had prestige no matter what- but on the whole- i feel that the professional game didnt really treat slams like we do- and so they werent considered in the same sort of way as they are now-

p.s- of course there is also the fact that there wasn't ever really a big 4 slams- like there is now
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top