Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

With these guys there are allways if's. What I mean with this is that we allways say, Borg got 11 slams but what "IF" he hadn't retired so young? how many would he have had in total? or... how many would he have had if he played the australien more often? (which was played on grass at the time)

with Laver, could he have less slams "IF" the two grand slams he won would have been played in 3 different surfaces instead of two? at the same time, Laver didn't play for a long long time, he had a big pause in his carreer... what if he had played those years? how may slams would he have?

with sampras I think there is no "if" his carreer is as straight forward as his game. 14 slams is what he got and what he desserved, i don't think he could have goten any more or any less.

With Federer, there's allways the what if the greatest clay court player in history (Nadal) wasn't around in his same era? Roger would already have 2 calendar year grand slams and 15 total. but of course Roger's carreer is still ongoing and we can't know what's gona happen in the future.

so I guess with Roger and Sampras we pretty much know what would have happened but what about Borg and Laver?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

Borg was in some serious trouble losing 3 straight finals to Mcenroe, but Mcenroe is not a stable player and would go up and down in form. Borg could easily have won 8 RGs, I am quite sure of that. I dont know if he would have won any more wimbledons but I think if he would have played AO from the beginning of his career he would end up with 3, maybe 4 AOs. I dont think he would ever win the USOPEN.

So he would have 11+2+4 grand slams=17 grand slams if he had just hanged in there but not as the nr1 of tennis anymore (like Sampras did) and put some effort to go all the way to Australia in the beginning of every year.

Laver would have won about as many slams more as he won pro slams, which is +8 grand slams making it 19 grand slams.

Now there were only 3 pro slams and none in Australia, the Australian open he would probably have won 4 more times during those 5 years in the pro tour. But I make it even by taking away some of Lavers 1st amateur grand slams which he would not have won as other players were better than him at the time but playing the pro tour.

So Laver would have 11+4 AOs+8 other slams-4 amateur slams=19

Lets round it 20 as Laver would surely find a way to a slam nr20 to end his career. The question about the surface, I really dont think it mattered that much for Laver, he was quite a complete player and would have won just as many on hardcourt.

Federer is just not really fair to just take away one opponent. Actually I think it is not fair to question Borgs retirement or missed AOs, only Lavers pro tour slams are fair to take into consideration.

But yes, Federer would have won 10 straight grand slams by now if Nadal had never been born and a total of 15 slams including 2 calendar slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

there are no ifs. everyone got what they deserved. IF i was as good as federer, i would have at least 1 slam by now.:rolleyes:

there really should be no ifs, thats just stupid
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

there are no ifs. everyone got what they deserved. IF i was as good as federer, i would have at least 1 slam by now.:rolleyes:

there really should be no ifs, thats just stupid
Laver, Rosewell, Gonzalez deserves ifs, slam counts are too limited to measure their greatness
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

yeah n what if federer sampras laver and borg played in the same era, how many slams would they have? ifs are stupid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,354 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

surely if you take out the 'ifs' then they just have the amount of slams they have now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,618 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

****
...
Laver couldn`t play any slams from 1963-67, so he misses 20 succesive slams><.
>>>
considering Rod won all-4 majors `the slam` in 1962 & 1969 it`s totally realistic to say he would have won atleast half of the slams between 63-67... so Lave should have atleast 21-slams in my opinion!!


Bjorn Borg would have won atleast 3 AOs if he had played during his peak years, plus he would have won atleast one more FO if he hadn`t retired so young>>> so 15-slams for Borg!!

McEnroe would have won atleast 2-AOs if he had played there more>>> so 9-slams for him!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,385 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

IF doesn't exist in sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,070 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

Borg was in some serious trouble losing 3 straight finals to Mcenroe, but Mcenroe is not a stable player and would go up and down in form. Borg could easily have won 8 RGs, I am quite sure of that. I dont know if he would have won any more wimbledons but I think if he would have played AO from the beginning of his career he would end up with 3, maybe 4 AOs. I dont think he would ever win the USOPEN.

So he would have 11+2+4 grand slams=17 grand slams if he had just hanged in there but not as the nr1 of tennis anymore (like Sampras did) and put some effort to go all the way to Australia in the beginning of every year.

Laver would have won about as many slams more as he won pro slams, which is +8 grand slams making it 19 grand slams.

Now there were only 3 pro slams and none in Australia, the Australian open he would probably have won 4 more times during those 5 years in the pro tour. But I make it even by taking away some of Lavers 1st amateur grand slams which he would not have won as other players were better than him at the time but playing the pro tour.

So Laver would have 11+4 AOs+8 other slams-4 amateur slams=19

Lets round it 20 as Laver would surely find a way to a slam nr20 to end his career. The question about the surface, I really dont think it mattered that much for Laver, he was quite a complete player and would have won just as many on hardcourt.

Federer is just not really fair to just take away one opponent. Actually I think it is not fair to question Borgs retirement or missed AOs, only Lavers pro tour slams are fair to take into consideration.

But yes, Federer would have won 10 straight grand slams by now if Nadal had never been born and a total of 15 slams including 2 calendar slams.
Combining the Pro Slams, Amateur Era Slams and Open Era Slams, Laver has 19 slams, Rosewall has 23. If you deduct Rosewall^s 4 Amateur Slams he would still has 19 Slams. Laver had 6 Amateur Era Slams, therefore, he winds up with 13. Gonzalez had only 2 Amateur Slams, but a buch of Pro Slams. I know he won Wembly and the US Pro several times and probably the Frenc Pro too, but don^t know how many of each. Rosewall^s Slams were on Grass, Clay and carpet, as were Laver^s and probably Poncho^s.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

It is obvious too me that pro slams need to be counted, it sure as hell counted more than Emersons amateur slams. Are anyone considering Emerson to be a greater player than Rosewall?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

Going on StgJohn's criteria, Emerson won NO majors. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167531

Rosewall won 21. Laver won 18. Gonzalez won 19.

Gimeno is quite underrated and by that criteria has 3 hypothetical majors.

Rosewall, due to his longevity, may be the most accomplished pro in tennis history. He was never really as good as Gonzales or Laver, but in a span of about 20 years he was a consistent threat to win big titles.

I counted Borg's results by SgtJohn's list and he comes out with 13 grand slam wins and 9 runner-ups.

Lendl also comes out favourably with 11 wins.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

If my father wasn't my father, he'd be someone else's father or he might not be.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

If my father wasn't my father, he'd be someone else's father or he might not be.
But if he was your father for your whole life and was the one who was there when you needed him the most and some bum comes along saying he is your father because officialy he has the same genes as you have, you might consider your old fake father actually your real father.

Amateur slams really are the same, the pro slams were the real deal, while amateur slams where for ameteurs now officialy recognized historicaly as the real slams, but I consider the pro slams the real slams. So this is not really about what ifs, but about who you want to aknowledge as your real father.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

But if he was your father for your whole life and was the one who was there when you needed him the most and some bum comes along saying he is your father because officialy he has the same genes as you have, you might consider your old fake father actually your real father.

Amateur slams really are the same, the pro slams were the real deal, while amateur slams where for ameteurs now officialy recognized historicaly as the real slams, but I consider the pro slams the real slams. So this is not really about what ifs, but about who you want to aknowledge as your real father.
:wavey: Herr Strindberg

No need to try analyse the existentialistic view of parentage, when it comes down to the fact that each of these individuals won the Slams they deserved under their circumstances at that given moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

Going on StgJohn's criteria, Emerson won NO majors. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167531

Rosewall won 21. Laver won 18. Gonzalez won 19.

Gimeno is quite underrated and by that criteria has 3 hypothetical majors.

Rosewall, due to his longevity, may be the most accomplished pro in tennis history. He was never really as good as Gonzales or Laver, but in a span of about 20 years he was a consistent threat to win big titles.

I counted Borg's results by SgtJohn's list and he comes out with 13 grand slam wins and 9 runner-ups.

Lendl also comes out favourably with 11 wins.
Great post. It has long been my belief that Rosewall should be the most decorated player in mens tennis history. We must consider that he missed 44 Slams during his peak years over a 11 year period - despite this he still won 8 Singles Slams. And when you check his Pro record (they played 3 equivilent tournaments to the Grand Slams each year) he definately comes out on top of ALL the players in history. There is a book called "Twenty Years at the Top" which lists all of Rosewall's achievements and presents a strong and compelling argument that he was the greatest player in history (up until when the book was written anyway). Not the most powerful or not with the most incredible array of shots, but I guess he was more like the Evert of the tour in terms of his consistency over such a long career, his precision and incredible court sense and strategy.

Laver and Gonzales also would both feature highly in the all time list as you have mentioned based on their records during their years on the Pro tour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

No need to try analyse the existentialistic view of parentage, when it comes down to the fact that each of these individuals won the Slams they deserved under their circumstances at that given moment.
That's not the only point. Some people are wondering who won the most important titles, rather than simply 'official' majors.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

That's not the only point. Some people are wondering who won the most important titles, rather than simply 'official' majors.
That goes back to circumstances doesn't it? Players playing on the Pro and the others in the official tour, they had their respective majors.

Important titles is very subjective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

That goes back to circumstances doesn't it? Players playing on the Pro and the others in the official tour, they had their respective majors.

Important titles is very subjective.
Of course it's subjective, but it sure is a whole heck of a lot better than counting a late 70s Australian Open as anything worth giving a damn about.

It's about establishing a dialogue and doing research and not taking things for granted. No major is simply a major and people should realize this.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

Of course it's subjective, but it sure is a whole heck of a lot better than counting a late 70s Australian Open as anything worth giving a damn about.

It's about establishing a dialogue and doing research and not taking things for granted. No major is simply a major and people should realize this.
Who is taking what for granted? For example Borg won 11 Slams and that is the amount he deserved no more no less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: How many slams would Laver, Borg, Feder, Sampras have if you remove the "IF's"

Who is taking what for granted? For example Borg won 11 Slams and that is the amount he deserved no more no less.
He won 11 majors at a time when there were three real majors per year. If we re-evaluate his era in terms of the four most important tournaments per year he won 13 adjusted majors. This is subjective, but this provides us with appropriate context as an adjustment of the old era towards contemporary standards.

I agree with you about the amateur years. Taking the results for pro tournaments alone inflates the accomplishments of the likes of Laver and Rosewall. They are listed as having won 18 and 21 respectively, but if the likes of Emerson had been participating the numbers would have been lower by a couple or three or four.
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top