[ys]

I decided to start this poll exposing those who have no clue about this sport whatsoever .. :lol:

 

[thrust]

Winning Slams, perhaps unfortunately, is today the main criteria as to who is a great player. I would agree that winning Slams are very important to a player^s legacy. If a player wins none or only one, I would not call him a great player. For me, to be considered a great player one should have won at least 20 tournaments which include 4 slams on at least two different surfaces. There has to be some measure of greatness to be eligible to be in the tennis HOF. For me, there are too many one slam wonders now in the HOF.

 

[Paul Banks]

perhaps unfortunately

Why unfortunately? Tennis players are actually quite lucky (comparing to some other sports) to have 4 chances every year to make history.

 

[Timariot]

Not really. Whilst most fans seem to think regular Tour titles as meaningless, things like career high ranking, weeks as #1 etc are also very important.

 

[ys]

Not really. Whilst most fans seem to think regular Tour titles as meaningless, things like career high ranking, weeks as #1 etc are also very important.

Those are no more than a tiebreakers.. Rank in terms of legacy Rafter, Kafelnikov, Muster and Chang..

First and foremost anyone would say that Rafter&Kafelnikov>Muster&Chang.. Simply because 2>1. After that you can use those tiebreakers - like what kind of Slams they won, #1s, YECs, Davis Cups, titles, years in Top 10, doubles career, Olympics, etc. All of that will be hugely secondary after number of GSs won..

 

[Domino]

Those are no more than a tiebreakers.. Rank in terms of legacy Rafter, Kafelnikov, Muster and Chang..

First and foremost anyone would say that Rafter&Kafelnikov>Muster&Chang.. Simply because 2>1. After that you can use those tiebreakers - like what kind of Slams they won, #1s, YECs, Davis Cups, titles, years in Top 10, doubles career, Olympics, etc. All of that will be hugely secondary after number of GSs won..

Only to people who just look at numbers as a way to measure status and wealth. I'd put Marcelo Rios above all of them, simply on his amazing play and wide talent.

 

[ys]

Only to people who just look at numbers as a way to measure status and wealth. I'd put Marcelo Rios above all of them, simply on his amazing play and wide talent.

If only anyone would remember him in 5 years time.. :lol: Talking with Chilean fans at the Open was kind of funny "Fernando and Nicholas are wonderful players and the pride of Chile" "What about Marcelo?" "Marcelo? Marcelo? Ugh.. Ogh.. Oh yeah, yeah, Marcelo".. :lol:

 

[Tennis Fool]

Chang only won one Slam but has a shitload of Grade A titles. He will always be known as a great champion.

Rios will also be remembered as a great player.

 

[vincayou]

No, the highest ranking is very important as well, and Davis Cup (not really my thing).
And real fans of tennis remember as well exceptional talent even if this one didn't translate to grand slam success. For these see Mecir, Rios, Leconte, etc...

 

[Paul Banks]

Rios will also be remembered as a great player.

He won't be remembered at all, only by tennis fanatics.

Career high ranking, huh? WTF cares The (flawed) ranking system is there to make entry list and to know who's going to be seeded. It has nothing to do with tennis legacy.

"Real" tennis fans will remember basically almost every player who entered a Slam in his career. That hardly means all those players are "great".

C'mon, this is a no brainer, I'll start to think MTF deserved to be trolled by ys if some people think there's something else than Slams that makes a true legacy in tennis.

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

one's who voted NO
either deluded or have no clue what so ever

Slams is the ONLY thing that matters in tennis

everything else is just a bit-part.

 

[Timariot]

I'm sure that's why Sampras - who won more Slams than any other man - considered his #1 record so important. But hey, what did he know...

 

[Jimnik]

In the modern game, it's the only fair way of creating a player's legacy because there's 1 grass, 2 hard and 1 clay slam. But the smaller tournaments are about 50% hard courts, 45% clay and 5% grass courts. So, if you count the number of weeks as world no.1 or the number of titles, you get the best hard and clay court players. Grass court players are at a disadvantage in terms of Masters Series titles and ranking points.

 

[TennisLurker]

Slams are the only thing that matter in tennis indeed

 

[Timariot]

In the modern game, it's the only fair way of creating a player's legacy because there's 1 grass, 2 hard and 1 clay slam. But the smaller tournaments are about 50% hard courts, 45% clay and 5% grass courts. So, if you count the number of weeks as world no.1 or the number of titles, you get the best hard and clay court players. Grass court players are at a disadvantage in terms of Masters Series titles and ranking points.

...which is bad because...?

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

I'm sure that's why Sampras - who won more Slams than any other man - considered his #1 record so important. But hey, what did he know...

you think he would have done that without winning slams

 

[Timariot]

you think he would have done that without winning slams

I don't recall anyone saying that Slams are not relevant or most important in creating tennis legacy. The poll isn't about that. The question is whether they are ONLY relevant thing - which they plainly are not, otherwise ppl would not bring out things like year-end #1, total number of titles, weeks as #1, h-2-h records, Olympic Gold medals in debates. Certainly, I think Rios is greater AND better remembered player than one-Slam wonders like Costa or Johansson.

In the old days, Slams were valued quite differently compared to today. McEnroe lamented once that had he played and won some of those then-irrelevant Australian Opens, he would be viewed more highly by today's audiences. Back in the '70s, it was Wimbledon victories and prize money list which were used to evaluate greatness (which is why Borg was considered greatest by enormous margin). Concept of 'career Slam' would have been totally alien then - who cares if you win each of the Slams, if you don't win them in same year?

 

[Billy Moonshine]

I think that a player needs to win 4/5 slams, have reached the world number one and been a top player for five/six years to have a legacy. From a list of players from the last 25 years I would say that Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Borg, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Federer will all leave a legacy. And though he only won three slams, i would include Kuerten too because he was a clay court king and finished the year at number one beating Sampras and Agassi on a fast court. i'm also biased because he's my favorite.

 

[ys]

Unbelievable.. Team Sanity takes the lead.. :lol:

 

[YoursTruly]

Both unfortuately yet fortunately it is.