Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
this might be one of Nadal greatest records of his career of course Nadal winning the French-Us open 4 times in the same season is also a record which is shown on Wiki.com. which means Nadal also won clay, hard courts 4 times in the same season also the only player in open era. but they forgot Nadal is also the first and only player in open era to win 5 majors on both Clay-Hard courts 2 out of 3 surfaces in tennis just like Federer, Djokovic on Grass, hard courts. anyway that do you guys think ? of this great record by Nadal .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,266 Posts
this might be one of Nadal greatest records of his career of course Nadal winning the French-Us open 4 times in the same season is also a record which is shown on Wiki.com. which means Nadal also won clay, hard courts 4 times in the same season also the only player in history. but they forgot Nadal is also the first and only player player in history to win 5 majors on both Clay-Hard courts 2 out of 3 surfaces in tennis just like Federer, Djokovic on Grass, hard courts. anyway that do you guys think ? of this great record by Nadal .
Open Era, yes. Not in history. Ken Rosewall won 9 on hardwood, 6 on clay, and 8 on grass.

Respectfully,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Well in open era until today only 5 players won more than 10 Slams and all of them won 5 or more in two surfaces but the most common combo is HC-Grass.

Federer 11HC-8G
Djokovic 11HC-5G
Nadal 13C-5HC
Sampras 7HC-7G
Borg 6C-5G

Seems the most near surfaces are grass and hard.

I don't know if in the future will see a player winning 5 on each surface.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,266 Posts
hardwood what? wrong get your facts right hard courts was not even a thing in majors until 1977 us open, so that your saying makes NO sense, you making up stuff up. Nadal is the only in history to win 5 majors on each clay, hard courts as hardwood :ROFLMAO: is a different surface and not played in majors ever LOL. AO grass until 1988, hard court 1988-2020 RG sand-clay, Wimbledon grass ,1887-2019 Us open 1881-1974, clay 1975-77, Hard courts 1977-2020 as you see there's no hardwood in majors ever I think your just trolling me LOL. Nadal the only player in history to win 5 majors on hard-clay courts.
Before you can talk about "history" of tennis, you should learn about it. Wood or hardwood was indeed a surface and it was used at Wembley Championships(1934-1967) and at the French Pro (1963-67), and other venues. The French Pro was mostly held on the Roland Garros clay previous to 1963. US Pro moved around a lot prior to the Open Era and was held on a variety of surfaces. Pro Slams were the pro majors prior to the Open Era and the best players were playing them, while amateurs were playing in the amateur majors, which of course locked out the pros, until the "OPEN era", when they were opened to all.

Back in the day, the hardwood courts could be quite fast, especially in the USA, think of them as converted basketball courts. But if I remember correctly, Wembley painted their courts to slow them down a bit, and used a heavier ball, so they played at a fair medium pace for attackers and defenders. Connors credits his superb return game to having played on wood courts, and developing quick reactions. There were also linoleum courts which were probably the fastest hard courts around. Of course most of these were indoor surfaces.

Informatively,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
Curiously, RAFA has a 53-12 (81.5%) match record at Wimbledon. 100-2 (98%) at Roland Garros, and 129-25 (83.8%) record on hard , (65-14, 82.3% at AO), (64-11, 85.3% at USO)

Player.....................Win Pct. at......AO........FO........WC.........US...
Nadal...............................................82.3.....98.0.......81.5.........85.3...87.9 (321 matches)
Federer............................................87.2.....80.5.......88.6.........86.4...86.0 (421 matches)
Djokovic...........................................90.4.....83.1.......87.8.........86.2 86.8 (341 matches)




Before you can talk about "history" of tennis, you should learn about it. Wood or hardwood was indeed a surface and it was used at Wembly (1934-1967) and at the French Pro (1963-67). The French Pro was mostly held on the Roland Garros clay previous to 1963. Pro Slams were the pro majors prior to the Open Era and the best players were playing them, while amateurs were playing in the amateur majors.

Informatively,
masterclass
Pro Slams can't really be considered as majors in my opinion, the draws were very small. In those days you chose the personal glory of the amateur majors or chased the money in the pro ranks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Borg feat was harder. clay and grass, being 3 ate consecutive slams. As grass has less slams than hard in our times and how it's always been the biggest constrast, I do think it's the great feat diversity-wise.

I do think that with the little draws, the value of pro slams should be factored at a (amount)(0.a) basis. 6 perhaps? Just like we inherently do Emerson and Court Smith amateur slams(those should be factored with a small multiplier than the pro slam ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Before you can talk about "history" of tennis, you should learn about it. Wood or hardwood was indeed a surface and it was used at Wembley Championships(1934-1967) and at the French Pro (1963-67), and other venues. The French Pro was mostly held on the Roland Garros clay previous to 1963. US Pro moved around a lot prior to the Open Era and was held on a variety of surfaces. Pro Slams were the pro majors prior to the Open Era and the best players were playing them, while amateurs were playing in the amateur majors, which of course locked out the pros, until the "OPEN era", when they were opened to all.

Informatively,
masterclass
I Already know this but was clearly talking About the four grand slams AO RG WB USO. its different surface anyway played on wood so it does not matter Nadal would still be only player in open era to win 5+ majors on hard courts and clay .
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
49,190 Posts
Borg feat was harder. clay and grass, being 3 ate consecutive slams. As grass has less slams than hard in our times and how it's always been the biggest constrast, I do think it's the great feat diversity-wise.

I do think that with the little draws, the value of pro slams should be factored at a (amount)(0.a) basis. 6 perhaps? Just like we inherently do Emerson and Court Smith amateur slams(those should be factored with a small multiplier than the pro slam ones.
Never been a fan of the multiplier, too easy to spin to fit a narrative and too subjective. Tell the people all the numbers then we do context
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
29,280 Posts
I think this is a pretty underrated achievement. People talk about Borg's success on clay and grass and really talk it up, and this achievement is just as amazing. That said, we have to always remember now how similar a lot of the surfaces have become.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Well in open era until today only 5 players won more than 10 Slams and all of them won 5 or more in two surfaces but the most common combo is HC-Grass.

Federer 11HC-8G
Djokovic 11HC-5G
Nadal 13C-5HC
Sampras 7HC-7G
Borg 6C-5G

Seems the most near surfaces are grass and hard.

I don't know if in the future will see a player winning 5 on each surface.
It is not surprising that there is a strong correlation between the titles on grass and on HC. The CPIs for AO, WB and USO are in the mid-late thirties (early forties for AO at times). RG is in the early twenties.

In that sense, Borg and Rafa are the only anomalies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,266 Posts
yes I Alreadly know this but was clearly talking About the four grand slams AO RG WB USO, Wembley champships, the French pro are secondly slams which are not counted towards Ken Rosewall major count. but you want to count it that's fine by me, its different surface anyway played on wood so it does not matter, the concrete-Asphait hard courts and clay Nadal the only player in history to win this 5 times. do you understand Talking about Asphait-concrete hard courts not wood which is a different surface WOW you really have NO sense.
So just change your title to say the first player in the "Open Era" and be done with it and I will agree with you whole-heartedly. :) Don't try to encompass the "History" of tennis. You will find it much harder to do and compare.

Wembley, French and US Pro were legitimate slams/majors for the pros. People should stop trying to denigrate the pro slams. They were not secondary or second-rate, they were simply the pro version of amateur majors/slams, the only ones the pros could play, and the pros were clearly better than the amateurs. It doesn't matter much if they had fewer rounds and fewer players; the competition was much stiffer. It would be something like comparing players at the level of winning challenger events or perhaps 250's to top players playing in the year end championships.

Most tennis historians will count Rosewall as having 23 majors/slams (4 amateur and 15 pro, and 4 Open), Laver had 19 (6 amateur, 8 pro, and 5 Open). The simplistic view says to not count their pro slams, so that they would have only 8 and 11, respectively. But is that fair?


Respectfully,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
So just change your title to say the first player in the "Open Era" and be done with it and I will agree with you whole-heartedly. :) Don't try to encompass the "History" of tennis. You will find it much harder to do and compare.

Wembley, French and US Pro were legitimate slams/majors for the pros. People should stop trying to denigrate the pro slams. They were not secondary or second-rate, they were simply the pro version of amateur majors/slams, the only ones the pros could play, and the pros were clearly better than the amateurs. It doesn't matter much if they had fewer rounds and fewer players; the competition was much stiffer. It would be something like comparing players at the level of winning challenger events or perhaps 250's to top players playing in the year end championships.

Most tennis historians will count Rosewall as having 23 majors/slams (4 amateur and 15 pro, and 4 Open), Laver had 19 (6 amateur, 8 pro, and 5 Open). The simplistic view says to not count their pro slams, so that they would have only 8 and 11, respectively. But is that fair?


Respectfully,
masterclass
happy now or is the topic title still not right in your eyes :rolleyes:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,266 Posts
happy now or is the topic title still not right in your eyes :rolleyes:.
Better, but I still don't like "in history" due to context and lack of comparative value. Players prior to the Open Era played 3 of the Amateur slams on grass and 1 on clay, so they had no chance to play those slams on hard, So why compare all of history?
So I would remove the concrete-asphalt, and just say "Open Era": instead of "history". :) Anyway the top surface of the slam "hard" courts since the 80's has been some variation of Acrylic, not asphalt or concrete. Usually there is a concrete base (for Flushing Meadows and Melbourne), followed by sand, topped off with an acrylic layer to protect the courts. Other hard courts have a wood base with Acrylic on top. But I suppose there is no need to provide those details. :)

Respectfully,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Better, but I still don't like "in history" due to context and lack of comparative value. Players prior to the Open Era played 3 of the Amateur slams on grass and 1 on clay, so they had no chance to play those slams on hard, So why compare all of history?
So I would remove the concrete-asphalt, and just say "Open Era": instead of "history". :) Anyway the top surface of the slam "hard" courts since the 80's has been some variation of Acrylic, not asphalt or concrete. Usually there is a concrete base (for Flushing Meadows and Melbourne), followed by sand, topped off with an acrylic layer to protect the courts. Other hard courts have a wood base with Acrylic on top. But I suppose there is no need to provide those details. :)

Respectfully,
masterclass
are you happy with the main topic title NOW, and thanks for teaching me tennis history honestly did not know about Pro-slams or wood courts Until he told me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,266 Posts
are you happy with the main topic title NOW, and thanks for teaching me tennis history honestly did not know about Pro-slams or wood courts Until he told me.
Thanks for changing it! (y) 👑:D Always glad to provide some background. :) I'm probably one of the few here who lived in those years prior to the Open Era. The only challenge now is remembering it all. Hahaha. :ROFLMAO: 😉

Appreciatively,
masterclass
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top