Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Most people with any real historical knowledge of the game will know that the rule of there being 4 dominant tournaments at the top of the game is a pretty recent one. Prior to the open era pro players weren’t even allowed to play grand slams. It’s safe to say Rosewall and Laver would’ve won a lot more. Other players as well such as Pancho Gonzales often get underlooked due to only winning 2 slams but that was only because he played professionally for most of his career.


I think when looking at slam count, it’s only fair to apply it to the open era. Even then though, most players didn’t even play the Australian till the late 80’s. Players like Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe get massively underlooked because of it. Only since the late 80’s have the slams been played on the same surfaces as they are now.


And surprise, when this change happened and there was more emphasis on there being 4 major events Pete Sampras comes and beats Roy Emerson’s slam count. I think most will know that Laver is greater than Sampras. Roy Emerson as well?. Not a bad player but he only won 12 because Laver and Rosewall were pro. This period of dominance in the slams was inevitably going to come at some point but there is way too much emphasis on the historical value of these tournaments.


Just to clarify I’m not saying this as a Federer fan, I’m saying it as a non big 3 fan. It’s still fun seeing who will win the most amount of slams amongst the big 3 but only for the sake of the rivalry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
I don't find that Pancho, Laver, or Rosewall are overlooked here, they are often cited by those in the know, and also know how to relativize the recency bias.

It is surely not the number of slams that Pancho is quoted among the goats

All this is correct regarding the AO, revalorised from the mid 80's.

However, I would not minimize Sampras' 14 slams, because on the one hand, he made most of his slam record at Wimbledon and the US Open, and on the other hand, the surfaces were much more differentiated, the material racket and rope did not allow the slightest technical approximation.

For example, with his game at the time, Lendl could have at least 2 Wimbledons. Serve and volley is no longer a must.

We knew the exact performance of the 11 Laver and Borg slams.

It was simply noted that Sampras had then equaled and then passed Emerson's 12.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,222 Posts
Obviously the slam count is for the simple minded, limited people.

To come up with an answer, someone would need a very thorough analysis, an analysis that take everything into account from medicine to tennis equipment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
Slams are the biggest titles in the modern era, there is no doubt that the slam count is important. Its not everything, but it is the biggest criterion in comparing players success in the open era. If we compare the players of the pre open era to todays than its not that important, the game was completely different back then and one can't really make an objective assessment of that era compared to todays(IMO).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chicot

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
If Slam count doesn't really matter for GOAT discussion you can pack it up and it's Djokovic anyway, but would be kinda boring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
It's an overrated stat when it comes to historical comparisons. The period of time from the late 60s to about the mid-80s was a transitional period when the form of the open era was becoming solidified. If Bjorn Borg had felt compelled to play the Australian Open on grass, he could have won 16 slams instead of 11. (In fact, if he also hadn't retired he could have broken 20, but that's another discussion.)

However, from the 80s to the present day, it's a perfectly valid metric of comparison. For the players at the top of the game, tennis as a sport is winning grand slams. Nothing else comes close to being as important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,186 Posts
pre open era doesnt matter,only open era matters

but I do agree that slam is overrated and world no.1 ranking underrated
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Most people with any real historical knowledge of the game will know that the rule of there being 4 dominant tournaments at the top of the game is a pretty recent one. Prior to the open era pro players weren’t even allowed to play grand slams. It’s safe to say Rosewall and Laver would’ve won a lot more. Other players as well such as Pancho Gonzales often get underlooked due to only winning 2 slams but that was only because he played professionally for most of his career.


I think when looking at slam count, it’s only fair to apply it to the open era. Even then though, most players didn’t even play the Australian till the late 80’s. Players like Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe get massively underlooked because of it. Only since the late 80’s have the slams been played on the same surfaces as they are now.


And surprise, when this change happened and there was more emphasis on there being 4 major events Pete Sampras comes and beats Roy Emerson’s slam count. I think most will know that Laver is greater than Sampras. Roy Emerson as well?. Not a bad player but he only won 12 because Laver and Rosewall were pro. This period of dominance in the slams was inevitably going to come at some point but there is way too much emphasis on the historical value of these tournaments.


Just to clarify I’m not saying this as a Federer fan, I’m saying it as a non big 3 fan. It’s still fun seeing who will win the most amount of slams amongst the big 3 but only for the sake of the rivalry.
Disagree...the top players taylor there schedule to peak at Majors...its the most important to them...and the pressure is ina different stratosphere compared to any other tournamemt...and best of 5..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
I think majors are the main thing to look at starting when everybody started playing the Australian Open. Guys before that you have to look at other factors. Nowadays you can look at accomplishments more or less objectively when comparing resumes. At the same time I think just saying 20<19 conversation is a bit overly simplistic at the same time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,362 Posts
While it could be unfair for pre Open Era players. The thing is that Sampras was called the GOAT ( not sure when that started ) by american media.
Once Federer tied and then beat Sampras mark he was called the GOAT but still lacked weeks#1 and WTF ( but would break those later )
And for years things maintained calm. Nobody was breaking Federer counts. Even after AO14 but day after day. Win after win a shift started here to disregard the GOAT title because Federer was under fire niot just from Rafa but from Nole.
We always knew last few years it as a matter of time before Federers records would crumble, one by one.

Everyone here know the records and number from all big 3. But at the end of the day there is always 1 number that counts more then others.
Slam titles.

And mark my words.Once someone puts a mic in front of Federer to comment on Rafa overtaking his slam title , Federer will have no choice but to call Rafa the Goat. Then its game over.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top