PDA

View Full Version : who's the worst player to win a grand slam?


The Gorilla
12-09-2006, 10:43 AM
jeremy bates gets my vote!

federermcenroeagassi
12-09-2006, 10:57 AM
none, because if you win a grand slam, your one heck of a player ;D

The Gorilla
12-09-2006, 11:55 AM
none, because if you win a grand slam, your one heck of a player ;D

..........jeremy bates?

Ripper
12-09-2006, 02:05 PM
Jmac......

sypl
12-09-2006, 06:01 PM
Gaston Gaudio

federermcenroeagassi
12-09-2006, 06:03 PM
..........jeremy bates?

i havent heard of him, but that doesnt change my mind. winning a grand slam = awesome player. just because your not the best in the world, doesnt mean you suck when you win a grand slam does it? ;D

superman1
12-09-2006, 06:05 PM
Jeremy Bates seems to be most famous for being the guy that beat Agassi in Agassi's first US Open.

The Gorilla
12-09-2006, 06:10 PM
i havent heard of him, but that doesnt change my mind. winning a grand slam = awesome player. just because your not the best in the world, doesnt mean you suck when you win a grand slam does it? ;D

You don't have to suck to be the worst player to win a grand slam

slice bh compliment
12-09-2006, 09:06 PM
Mark Edmondson was fairly low on the totem pole when he won his slam at Kooyong.

Feña14
12-09-2006, 09:45 PM
Jeremy Bates won a Grand Slam??? :confused:

That's news to me! I always thought he only managed 2 Grand Slam mixed doubles in 1987 (Wimbledon) and 1991 (Australian)

If Jezza had of won a slam I don't think we would of heard the last of it from him over here in England :)

carrwash13
12-09-2006, 10:01 PM
You don't have to suck to be the worst player to win a grand slam

exactly......its the worst TO win a grand slam. Not who was a bad player that won a slam. I'd have to say gaudio off the top of my head....but I'm sure there is a better one.

JW10S
12-09-2006, 10:14 PM
Bates's only Grand Slams came is mixed doubles. If you're talking singles without question Mark Edmondson is the worst player to win a Slam.

Rhino
12-11-2006, 03:01 AM
Andy Roddick

superman1
12-11-2006, 03:04 AM
Well, if doubles counts, then Anna Kournikova. That girl can barely get her serves in these days in charity events. It's amazing when she keeps the ball in play.

Andy Roddick? Yeah...keep dreaming. Isn't that the guy who just recently beat Federer to a pulp for almost 2 sets?

Duzza
12-11-2006, 03:06 AM
Tony Withers- 1983 Aus Open boys Doubles. Well, he's my coach and I can make him run all over now :p

bluegrasser
12-11-2006, 06:31 AM
Jmac......

You can't be serious !!!:p

Clecwm
12-11-2006, 06:46 AM
Mark Edmondson --- but he still gains my respect for winning a Grand Slam after all.

Ripper
12-11-2006, 08:22 AM
Gaston Gaudio

You can't be serious... Like someone said to me...

ilovecarlos
12-11-2006, 09:26 AM
Gaston Gaudio



Another vote for Gaudio

AndrewD
12-11-2006, 09:31 AM
The worst player to win a Grand Slam. Not sure there is one as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Court and Graf were all pretty decent.

The 'least accomplished' player to win a major (one of the four) in the open era would have to be Brian Teacher on the men's side and Chris O'Neill on the women's (also, overall).

I think people aren't giving Edmondson enough credit. He never really did justice to his talents - mainly due to a lack of fitness- but he was a perpetually dangerous player who had a lot of success in doubles, back when it wasn't a specialised and diluted field. Also had quite a few excellent Davis Cup results in singles - on all surfaces- and that really is a test of a player's ability.

christo
12-13-2006, 05:42 PM
How about the guy who won Wimby the year of the player's strike. Stan Smith was the defending champ and struck with the other players so never had a chance to defend. With the spoiled a**holes out there now that'll never happen again

The Gorilla
12-15-2006, 10:58 AM
How about the guy who won Wimby the year of the player's strike. Stan Smith was the defending champ and struck with the other players so never had a chance to defend. With the spoiled a**holes out there now that'll never happen again
you don't mean arthur ash do you?

LowProfile
12-15-2006, 11:42 AM
you don't mean arthur ash do you?

No I think he meant Jan Kodeš. He's a bit of an oddity. He reached 5 grand slam finals, winning three of them (two French and a Wimbledon) yet only ever reached no. 5 in the world.

naffi
12-15-2006, 01:05 PM
Right. Heckuva player that Gaston Gaudio and Anatasia Myskina turned out to be, huh?

******************.blogspot.com

Jonnyf
12-15-2006, 02:02 PM
Em this crappy federer dude, i think his first names roddy or rog. or something who's heard of him.?!?!?!?

ricomon
12-15-2006, 02:47 PM
Take your pick:
Albert Costa '02 French
Andres Gomez '90 French
Johan Kriek '82 Australian
Roscoe Tanner '77 Australian

patrick922
12-15-2006, 04:11 PM
Take your pick:
Albert Costa '02 French
Andres Gomez '90 French
Johan Kriek '82 Australian
Roscoe Tanner '77 Australian

i dont think costa deserves to be on that list. i mean in '98 when moya won the french costa was the favorite to win the french that year becasue he won rome and a couple other big clay court tournaments. also if you look at costa's resume he has won a number of big clay court tournaments. i think costa paved the way for spanish tennis

dennis1188
12-15-2006, 06:54 PM
The least accomplished, IMO in my time was 'Chris Lewis'.

Fedace
12-15-2006, 07:03 PM
Another vote for Gaudio

NO definitely Thomas Johansson.

chiru
12-16-2006, 12:14 AM
i say thomas johansson over gaudio. dude, safin shudda owned that match. but i guess so should've coria, tough call.

slice bh compliment
12-16-2006, 05:38 AM
The least accomplished, IMO in my time was 'Chris Lewis'.
I do not think he actually WON a slam, did he?
I remember when he got the the Wimbledon final ... lost quickly to Johnny Mac. 1983, iir.

Kirko
12-18-2006, 05:06 PM
Robert Falkenburg. wimbeldon; I think 1949.

The Gorilla
07-20-2007, 12:44 PM
. .

Mickey Finn
07-20-2007, 01:32 PM
Gomez was an excellent clay court player. In the last twenty years, the worst to win a slam is clearly Guadio.

vive le beau jeu !
07-20-2007, 03:02 PM
Robert Falkenburg. wimbeldon; I think 1949.
hey I AM robert falkenburg !
i can not let you say that, you little impertinent... http://re3.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3260214718
come and take a wooden racket if you are a real man, we will debate about it like in the good old times !!! :rolleyes:

JohnnyF
07-21-2007, 03:17 PM
Jmac......

Ummm... What!?!?

rjkardo
07-21-2007, 03:47 PM
Gomez was an excellent clay court player. In the last twenty years, the worst to win a slam is clearly Guadio.

I have to agree. Gomez only won that one French, but he was an excellent clay court player, and also famous for taking Connors to a 5th set tiebreak in a wonderful US Open match.

I always liked what Gomez said after he beat Agassi in the final at the French. Seems that he had lost to Lendl in the quarters 4 times at the French. That year, Lendl sat out to prepare for Wimbledon. Asked what was the big difference that year, Gomez thanked Lendl for not beating him in the quarters. :)

Rjkardo

Trinity TC
07-21-2007, 05:26 PM
Robert Falkenburg. wimbeldon; I think 1949.

Bob Falkenburg was good enough to be in the International Tennis Hall Of Fame. He was in the US top 10 as a junior and a great player during a very good period of tennis where his contemporaries were slam winners Jack Kramer, Ted Schroeder, Don McNeill, Pancho Gonzales etc.

diggler
07-21-2007, 06:19 PM
The worst player to win a Grand Slam. Not sure there is one as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Court and Graf were all pretty decent.

The 'least accomplished' player to win a major (one of the four) in the open era would have to be Brian Teacher on the men's side and Chris O'Neill on the women's (also, overall).

I think people aren't giving Edmondson enough credit. He never really did justice to his talents - mainly due to a lack of fitness- but he was a perpetually dangerous player who had a lot of success in doubles, back when it wasn't a specialised and diluted field. Also had quite a few excellent Davis Cup results in singles - on all surfaces- and that really is a test of a player's ability.

Agree. Chris O'Neill, last Australian woman to win a slam was rubbish. If the top players turned up, she wouldn't have won a round.

Mark Edmondson on the other hand beat John Newcombe in the final who was number 1 about a year before. I think Brian Teacher and Johan Kreik are shabbier winners.

SDTENNIS
07-21-2007, 07:35 PM
Thomas *Johannson(spelling)* by far

Connelly
07-22-2007, 09:15 PM
i kindof think this is a dumb topic unless u think u can beat who u picked i dont think u should post...which is y im not choosing lol.

Rodditha
07-22-2007, 09:18 PM
Thomas Johansson, Sharapova and Ana Kournikova.

35ft6
07-23-2007, 03:23 PM
i kindof think this is a dumb topic unless u think u can beat who u picked i dont think u should post...which is y im not choosing lol. i kindof think this is a dumb post.

Nobody here can beat anybody on the ATP tour, so maybe we should just completely shut this site down. And while we're at it, people shouldn't talk about the NFL, boxing, MMA, basketball, etc...

Gaudio or Johannson.

ktownva
07-23-2007, 05:38 PM
Iva Majoli

The Gorilla
07-23-2007, 05:57 PM
gaudio is an amazing player when he's 'on'.A bit like the safin of clay.

35ft6
07-23-2007, 06:59 PM
gaudio is an amazing player when he's 'on'.A bit like the safin of clay. Most if not all the Grand Slam winners are great players, but we're talking about the worst of the very best. But now that you mention it, maybe Costa and Noah were arguably "worse." Gaudio, Costa, Noah, and Johannson are my picks, and I could add Korda in there but IMO he was the most talented of the bunch. Most other one slam wonders of the past 25 years or so were significantly better or more talented IMO. Muster, Chang, Cash, and Stich for example. And even Kraijeck.

gmonfils
07-24-2007, 09:29 AM
Take your pick:
Albert Costa '02 French
Andres Gomez '90 French
Johan Kriek '82 Australian
Roscoe Tanner '77 Australian

First of all I don't think any of these players should be on the list but if I had to pick one it would be Johan...actually Brian Teacher or Gaston Gaudio get my vote.

Gomez you got to be kidding me, he spent most of his career in the top 20 with mutliple years in the top 10 and won over 20 career titles and way more than that in doubles.... just because he only won 1 singles slam doesn't mean he was the worst. There are a few guys out there that have won 2 or 3 and the careers didn't amount to much.

randomname
07-24-2007, 09:44 AM
i kindof think this is a dumb topic unless u think u can beat who u picked i dont think u should post...which is y im not choosing lol.

alright, im tired of people making stupid posts like this, why does the fact that any pro could kick the tar out of us matter? also, while were on the topic of idiots, how on earth can anyone say roddick is the worst to win a slam? hes been to #1 in the world, and has spent very little time since then outside of the top 5, and has made 3 slam finals. chang didnt have that good of results and everyone here loves him to death

Pleepers
07-24-2007, 09:58 AM
What do you guys think about Peter Korda? I don't think I had ever heard the name untill Rios choked in the AO final to him.

Moose Malloy
07-24-2007, 10:03 AM
hes been to #1 in the world, and has spent very little time since then outside of the top 5, and has made 3 slam finals. chang didnt have that good of results and everyone here loves him to death

Uh, except for the #1, Chang equaled all the stats you mentioned by Roddick.
He even may have done more, seeing that he was in the final of 3 of the 4 slams, while Roddick has only been in 2 of the 4.

But now that you mention it, maybe Costa and Noah were arguably "worse."

Costa was one of the best claycourters of the 90s. And Noah spent most of the 80s in the top 10.

They were far better than gaudio or johansson.

Moose Malloy
07-24-2007, 10:06 AM
What do you guys think about Peter Korda? I don't think I had ever heard the name untill Rios choked in the AO final to him.

I hope this is a joke.

Clive Walker
07-24-2007, 01:31 PM
My knowledge of the slam winners outside of W isn't extensive enough to comment on them, but my choice of least accomplished player to win in in my lifetime would be Pat Cash.

Moose Malloy
07-24-2007, 02:03 PM
but my choice of least accomplished player to win in in my lifetime would be Pat Cash.

cash was in 3 slam finals!
and beat the world #1 in all 3 of those slams.

anointedone
07-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Worst player to win each slam:

Australian Open: Thomas Johansson
French Open: Gaston Gaudio
Wimbledon: Richard Krajicek
U.S Open: Andy Roddick

You can see how much stronger the worst guys to win U.S Open and Wimbledon are to the worst guys to win the French and Australian Opens. Just goes to show why many people value Wimbledon and the U.S Open more even today. Notice those two "worst ever" winners at the Australian and French Opens are recent ones, despite all 4 slams being generaly played by all now.

keithchircop
07-24-2007, 02:37 PM
Thomas Johansson aka Mr One-Time Australian Open winner and One-Time Wimbledon semi-finalist. What a 13 year long career for a slam winner.

martin
07-24-2007, 03:01 PM
Worst player to win each slam:

Australian Open: Thomas Johansson
French Open: Gaston Gaudio
Wimbledon: Richard Krajicek
U.S Open: Andy Roddick

You can see how much stronger the worst guys to win U.S Open and Wimbledon are to the worst guys to win the French and Australian Opens. Just goes to show why many people value Wimbledon and the U.S Open more even today. Notice those two "worst ever" winners at the Australian and French Opens are recent ones, despite all 4 slams being generaly played by all now.

Krajicek was a very good player who had so much injuries. One injury after another. I'm sure this has cost him many matches. If healthy he was a very good player who has a winning head to head record against Sampras. He beat Sampras and Stich at Wimbledon and Sampras admitted that Krajicek was unstoppable. Injuries unfortunately ruined his career. He deserved to win Wimbledon.

anointedone
07-24-2007, 03:14 PM
Krajicek was a very good player who had so much injuries. One injury after another. I'm sure this has cost him many matches. If healthy he was a very good player who has a winning head to head record against Sampras. He beat Sampras and Stich at Wimbledon and Sampras admitted that Krajicek was unstoppable. Injuries unfortunately ruined his career. He deserved to win Wimbledon.

I did not say he was a weak player, I said he was the weakest to win Wimbledon. You are right he was quite good. That is most of my point though. The weakest people to win Wimbledon and the U.S Open are quite strong, and much stronger then the weakest people to win the Australian or French Opens.

He still is the weakest player to win Wimbledon. Can you name me a single player who won Wimbledon who he is better then.

Pleepers
07-24-2007, 03:28 PM
I hope this is a joke.

No Moose, I'm not joking. Was korda ever that good? Enlighten me here.

martin
07-24-2007, 05:33 PM
I did not say he was a weak player, I said he was the weakest to win Wimbledon. You are right he was quite good. That is most of my point though. The weakest people to win Wimbledon and the U.S Open are quite strong, and much stronger then the weakest people to win the Australian or French Opens.

He still is the weakest player to win Wimbledon. Can you name me a single player who won Wimbledon who he is better then.

He is better than Pat Cash. Krajicek won more tournaments than Cash. Krajicek won 17 tournaments and Cash 7. Krajicek has won tournaments on all surfaces. Krajicek has won 411 matches and lost 219. And many matches he gave up because of an injury or he played just after surgery without good preparation. In 2002 he even played wimbledon without any preparation. No preparation at all and still reached the quarterfinal but lost in five sets. He was that talented. Cash had the same problem ofcourse. Cash won 242 matches and lost 149. Both were number four in the world and Krajicek was even close to being number one in the world but again a knee injury ended everything. Because of the three knee injuries he couldn't move so well anymore and because of the two elbow surgeries his serve became much weaker. he could only serve at 70 percent and that became worse after every match. He played like this for too long.

anointedone
07-24-2007, 05:50 PM
He is better than Pat Cash. Krajicek won more tournaments than Cash. Krajicek won 17 tournaments and Cash 7. Krajicek has won tournaments on all surfaces. Krajicek has won 411 matches and lost 219. And many matches he gave up because of an injury or he played just after surgery without good preparation. In 2002 he even played wimbledon without any preparation. No preparation at all and still reached the quarterfinal but lost in five sets. He was that talented. Cash had the same problem ofcourse. Cash won 242 matches and lost 149. Both were number four in the world and Krajicek was even close to being number one in the world but again a knee injury ended everything. Because of the three knee injuries he couldn't move so well anymore and because of the two elbow surgeries his serve became much weaker. he could only serve at 70 percent and that became worse after every much. He played like this for too long.

Fair enough. You make alot of good points. I consider Cash a greater player then Krajicek because of his success at other slams though. Krajicek never reached another slam final. Cash reached 2 other slam finals. He has reached 4 total semis of slams to Richard's 3. His Grand Slam record of 88-37is definitely superior to Cash's 68-33.

martin
07-24-2007, 06:36 PM
Fair enough. You make alot of good points. I consider Cash a greater player then Krajicek because of his success at other slams though. Krajicek never reached another slam final. Cash reached 2 other slam finals. He has reached 4 total semis of slams to Richard's 3. His Grand Slam record of 88-37is definitely superior to Cash's 68-33.

If Cash had won one of those finals and he was pretty close i would have agreed but he lost them and the tournaments outside the slams that he won were not that big. Krajicek won some big tournaments. Key Biscayne is one of them. That's why i think Krajicek is greater.

User Name
07-24-2007, 06:36 PM
bates.......

PERL
07-25-2007, 07:42 AM
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9789/worstslamwinnerea9.th.jpg (http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=worstslamwinnerea9.jpg)

Source : atptennis.com

Mark Edmondson is the weakest player to have ever won a slam. No doubt. Teacher, Johansson and Gaudio follow. And then Kriek, Costa.
Cash ? Twice Davis cup winner I believe (one of the very best Davis Cup players in history) and twice more a slam finalist. Korda : talented as hell and ex n°2. Korda was regularly quoted among the best players ever without a slam before he won one at age 30. Now he could arguably be in a group among « the worst slam winners ever ». This tells a lot about the gap between a very good player and a slam winner. Two different worlds.

Pleepers
07-25-2007, 04:18 PM
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9789/worstslamwinnerea9.th.jpg (http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=worstslamwinnerea9.jpg)

Source : atptennis.com

Mark Edmondson is the weakest player to have ever won a slam. No doubt. Teacher, Johansson and Gaudio follow. And then Kriek, Costa.
Cash ? Twice Davis cup winner I believe (one of the very best Davis Cup players in history) and twice more a slam finalist. Korda : talented as hell and ex n°2. Korda was regularly quoted among the best players ever without a slam before he won one at age 30. Now he could arguably be in a group among « the worst slam winners ever ». This tells a lot about the gap between a very good player and a slam winner. Two different worlds.

Good post -thanks for the info.

BTURNER
07-27-2007, 10:33 PM
Australian - Barbara Jordan (not Kathy) French - Virginia Ruzici, Us - Ellis Lizana Wimbledon - Hantse Susman.

DavidGarcia
07-28-2007, 12:59 PM
Take your pick:
Albert Costa '02 French


You do not have a clue about playing in clay to add Albert Costa to that list.

He would certainly be on the list of best spanish clay court players ever.

CyBorg
07-28-2007, 01:27 PM
Costa was a fantastic clay courter. His win was no fluke either - many forget his run to the French semi in 03. He defended his win quite well until losing to the brilliant Ferrero.

Costa was legit. Judging French Open winners all in all is delicate business - many of them were victorious only once and had little to no success on other surfaces. But when it came to red clay and the Roland Garros grounds they were extremely good and often better than most of the top-10 points leaders.

This accounts for the likes of Costa, Gomez, Noah.

Gaudio was a bit of a fluke in my opinion. A fantastic talent but he always had a questionable head. His results leading up to 04 RG did not suggest that he would be in the running. All in all, I would say that amongst men you'd have to look at some of the Aussie Open winners circa mid-70s-to-early 80s. Edmondson, Teacher, Kriek all come to mind. They won against **** poor draws, unlike Costa.

aramis
07-29-2007, 09:05 AM
Costa's run to the FO semis in 2003 was so exciting. How many 5 set matches did he have to win? I believe he was down two sets to none in all of them before coming back. Now that's heart.

heycal
07-29-2007, 09:37 AM
The worst player to win a Grand Slam. Not sure there is one as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Court and Graf were all pretty decent.

The 'least accomplished' player to win a major (one of the four) in the open .

I think you need to accept that the term "grand slam" has a few different meanings now, and is widely and often used to describe a single "major", not just winning all four of them. The terminology has changed and broadened, my friend, and you must accept and ackknowledge that change like the rest of the tennis world has.

If it's any consolation, keep in mind that the original term "grand slam" is relatively new in comparison to other words that have been around for hundreds of years, and was adopted from another sport's use of it, so it's hardly sacreligious that it has evolved.

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 09:43 AM
I think you need to accept that the term "grand slam" has a few different meanings now, and is widely and often used to describe a single "major", not just winning all four of them. The terminology has changed and broadened, my friend, and you must accept and ackknowledge that change like the rest of the tennis world has.

If it's any consolation, keep in mind that the original term "grand slam" is relatively new in comparison to other words that have been around for hundreds of years, and was adopted from another sport's use of it, so it's hardly sacreligious that it has evolved.

The grand slam is four majors won consecutively - depending on who you ask perhaps in one year only.

A major is, well, one major championship. Just because a number of posters and or television announcers do not know the difference does not mean that we should simply accept the ignorance as fact.

Look into any sport - a slam is a number of accomplishments, not one. A grand slam in baseball, for example, would refer to hitting a home run with three men on base. No one calls a one-run shot a grand slam. That would make no sense. We can also refer to the pitcher's slam - leading the league in strikeouts, wins and innings. That means all of the key categories rather than one.

Hence the word slam - it signifies a collection of accomplishments. It's common sense.

UW_Husky88
07-29-2007, 09:51 AM
Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf

heycal
07-29-2007, 10:17 AM
The grand slam is four majors won consecutively - depending on who you ask perhaps in one year only.

A major is, well, one major championship. Just because a number of posters and or television announcers do not know the difference does not mean that we should simply accept the ignorance as fact.

Look into any sport - a slam is a number of accomplishments, not one. A grand slam in baseball, for example, would refer to hitting a home run with three men on base. No one calls a one-run shot a grand slam. That would make no sense. We can also refer to the pitcher's slam - leading the league in strikeouts, wins and innings. That means all of the key categories rather than one.

Hence the word slam - it signifies a collection of accomplishments. It's common sense.

So let me get this straight: Are you claiming that all us tennis buffs, as well as TV commentators, many of them ex-pros, call a single major a 'grand slam' because we don't know the difference and are ignorant?

We know the difference, Cyborg. We are just smart enough to realize that the term has evolved in the tennis world and come to mean different things in different contexts, and we are sophisticated enough to move easily between the different meanings, just as we do with many other words and terms.

Using your logic, one could argue that the term "grand slam" used in ANY tennis context makes no sense: After all, how could a tennis player hit a ball over wall and score four runs for this team?? Isn't that what a "grand slam" really means?

suwanee4712
07-29-2007, 10:22 AM
Australian - Barbara Jordan (not Kathy) French - Virginia Ruzici, Us - Ellis Lizana Wimbledon - Hantse Susman.

I think Barbara Jordan must be the true "one hit wonder" because I don't think she did anything at all before or since. In fact, the only time I ever saw her was when she was sitting in the stands watching her sister Kathy beat Chris at Wimbledon in 1983. I've never seen her even strike a ball much less play.

I do think Virginia Ruzici is a weak French Open champion. But I don't think she's the worst. She and Mima Jausovec, whom she beat for the French, did spend a fair amount of time in their careers in the top 10. Ruzici was also a French r/u to Evert in 1980. She won 15 titles including the US Clay Courts in 1982. She was also a QF at all slams at least twice with the exception of the Australian which she hardly played.

It's debatable, but I would say that Ruzici, as well as Jausovec and Sue Barker, had just as good of a career as Iva Majoli did.

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 10:33 AM
So let me get this straight: Are you claiming that all us tennis buffs, as well as TV commentators, many of them ex-pros, call a single major a 'grand slam' because we don't know the difference and are ignorant?

We know the difference, Cyborg. We are just smart enough to realize that the term has evolved in the tennis world and come to mean different things in different contexts, and we are sophisticated enough to move easily between the different meanings, just as we do with many other words and terms.

Using your logic, one could argue that the term "grand slam" used in ANY tennis context makes no sense: After all, how could a tennis player hit a ball over wall and score four runs for this team?? Isn't that what a "grand slam" really means?

The mis-use of 'grand slam' is an epidemic - like bad grammar. Many people know the diffference but use the term anyway because they're so used to hearing it.

Most of the culprits are tv commentators who are hardly tennis historians. Most of them have their jobs because they can speak without stuttering.

No true tennis expert - a genuine lover of the sport - would use the term 'grand slam' to refer to a major.

slice bh compliment
07-29-2007, 10:38 AM
...No true tennis expert - a genuine lover of the sport - would use the term 'grand slam' to refer to a major.

I agree, but the word ''major'' is kind of a golf term, as I see it. So, I'm ''Pesci'' on that one. I like saying Slam for one individual title. And naturally GRAND Slam for all four.

Maybe a better term is the one they used way, way, way back in the ol' days, "Big Four''.

Anyway, it's all semantics.

Back on topic, yeah, Eddo is a good one on the men's side. I remember what a big deal it was that he got the semis of Wimbledon years later. He looked like five or six middle-aged guys at the club (balding, slight gut, white tennis shirt tucked in)...but man could he hit an angled volley.

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 10:44 AM
Wikipedia has the basics on the grand slam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

It's pretty obvious where the trouble originated. It is correct to refer to a major as a grand slam title - which figures that a major is part-and-parcel with the calendar year itself and hence the potential grand slam. Hence, grand slam title means a title as part of the grand slam.

The completely erroneous shortcut is in dropping the word title and simply calling a major a 'grand slam' - this is illogical and ignorant of the meaning of the original term itself.

There is only one grand slam and that is the four majors altogether - whether in one year or in one career. In cards a slam refers to "the winning or bidding of all the tricks or all the tricks but one in a deal." - not one trick, but all tricks.

The general sporting definition has always been and will always be "the winning of all the major or specified events, especially on a professional circuit."

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 10:48 AM
I like saying Slam for one individual title. And naturally GRAND Slam for all four.

That's wrong. If I kill three or four birds with one shot I can call that a slam. Killing one bird is just killing one bird.

I respectfully recommend adding one word and calling a major instead a 'slam title'. For the sake of logic.

heycal
07-29-2007, 10:57 AM
Most of the culprits are tv commentators who are hardly tennis historians. Most of them have their jobs because they can speak without stuttering.

No true tennis expert - a genuine lover of the sport - would use the term 'grand slam' to refer to a major.

So all these ex-pros and others involved in devoting their lives to the sport of tennis by playing and commentating on it don't know anything about tennis nor have a genuine love of the sport? Okay...



It's pretty obvious where the trouble originated.

Who says it's "trouble"? The vast majority of both the professional and amatuer tennis world doesn't have a problem using and understanding the term based on different contexts, so why should you?

FYI -- According to the dictionary, the word "slam" can mean to "insult someone" or to "strike forecefully". It doesn' say anything about the French or Australian Open in Webster's... What's up with that? I'm so confused now.:confused: :confused:

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 11:04 AM
So all these ex-pros and others involved in devoting their lives to the sport of tennis by playing and commentating on it don't know anything about tennis nor have a genuine love of the sport? Okay...

You know, many of them use proper terminology. I've heard some terrible misuse on the part of the likes of ESPN and CBS, but I am happy to say that most of the time I hear correct terminology - that is 'major'.

Who says it's "trouble"? The vast majority of both the professional and amatuer tennis world doesn't have a problem using and understanding the term based on different contexts, so why should you?

The majority of the professional and amateur tennis world uses proper terminology. I don't recall Mats Wilander ever calling a major a 'slam'.

FYI -- According to the dictionary, the word "slam" can mean to "insult someone" or to "strike forecefully". It doesn' say anything about the French or Australian Open in Webster's... What's up with that? I'm so confused now.:confused: :confused:

Do a little reading as to the 'slam' in regards to sporting history. You will find some enlightening information.

rommil
07-29-2007, 11:13 AM
No Moose, I'm not joking. Was korda ever that good? Enlighten me here.

Yes Korda was that good. If he didn't have those injury problems, I think the guy could have won more titles.

heycal
07-29-2007, 11:23 AM
You know, many of them use proper terminology. I've heard some terrible misuse on the part of the likes of ESPN and CBS, but I am happy to say that most of the time I hear correct terminology - that is 'major'.

Why is that "correct terminology"? Can't you accept the fact that the term "grand slam" has evolved from its original meaning in tennis to encompass other tennis meanings? There's an old saying, "if enough people call it a fish, it's a fish". So if someone says "Maria Sharapova has won two grand slams", everyone knows exactly what is meant by that.

Times have changed since 1939, Cyborg. Get with the program. (Incidentally, the phrase "get with the program" probably didn't exist 50 years ago, but you still undertand its meaning, correct?)

heycal
07-29-2007, 11:30 AM
I think Barbara Jordan must be the true "one hit wonder" because I don't think she did anything at all before or since. .

Are you saying you missed her keynote address at the 1976 Democratic convention? Chick rocked the house!

welcome2petrkordaland
07-29-2007, 11:54 AM
gaudio is an amazing player when he's 'on'.A bit like the safin of clay.

i totally agree. these guys just don't have the temperment for tennis, but talent wise. . . wow! We all know Safin's got sick talent, but yes, Gaudio can PLAY when focused, which almost never happens. both are nuts

heycal
07-29-2007, 01:37 PM
The majority of the professional and amateur tennis world uses proper terminology. I don't recall Mats Wilander ever calling a major a 'slam'.


This Mats Wilander? Here's what your beloved Wikipedia has to say about him:

"Mats Wilander (born August 22, 1964) is a former World No. 1 tennis player from Sweden who won seven Grand Slam singles titles and one Grand Slam doubles title."

And from the International Tennis Hall of Fame:

"At 17 years, 9 months, Wilander upset Guillermo Vilas to win the 1982 French Open and became the youngest man to win a Grand Slam singles title."

And finally, from the man himself:

"To win three Grand Slam titles in one year is beyond my wildest dreams", said Wilander. (Malcolm Folley, Daily Express, 13th September 1988 ).

Why didn't he say "major" instead of "slam", cyborg? What's wrong with this idiot??

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 04:00 PM
This Mats Wilander? Here's what your beloved Wikipedia has to say about him:

"Mats Wilander (born August 22, 1964) is a former World No. 1 tennis player from Sweden who won seven Grand Slam singles titles and one Grand Slam doubles title."

And from the International Tennis Hall of Fame:

"At 17 years, 9 months, Wilander upset Guillermo Vilas to win the 1982 French Open and became the youngest man to win a Grand Slam singles title."

And finally, from the man himself:

"To win three Grand Slam titles in one year is beyond my wildest dreams", said Wilander. (Malcolm Folley, Daily Express, 13th September 1988 ).

Why didn't he say "major" instead of "slam", cyborg? What's wrong with this idiot??

Geez Louise, you're dense. I don't want to be rude but I keep encountering incredibly ignorant people on these boards recently.

"Grand Slam title" is correct terminology in regards to a major - this has already been discussed. "Grand slam", conversely, is not correct terminology, neither is 'slam'.

There is nothing wrong with the above quotes.

slice bh compliment
07-29-2007, 06:33 PM
...I respectfully recommend adding one word and calling a major instead a 'slam title'. For the sake of logic.

I can respect that. Slam title it is. ''Slam'' for short.;)

CyBorg
07-29-2007, 07:43 PM
I can respect that. Slam title it is. ''Slam'' for short.;)

ahahaha - you b@stard.
;)

(I can't believe b@stard is censored)

heycal
07-29-2007, 10:31 PM
Geez Louise, you're dense. I don't want to be rude but I keep encountering incredibly ignorant people on these boards recently.

"Grand Slam title" is correct terminology in regards to a major - this has already been discussed. "Grand slam", conversely, is not correct terminology, neither is 'slam'.

There is nothing wrong with the above quotes.

Why is "grand slam title" acceptable to you? If a player doesn't win all four majors in a year, he hasn't won a grand slam according to your strict definition, so the term "grand slam title" would be presumptious and erroneous. By your rules, allowing the term "grand slam title" to refer to a major makes about as much sense as allowing a home run with runners on first and second in baseball to be called "half of a grand slam".

Why can't you accept that the terminology has evolved? "Grand slam", and/or "slam", originally meant one thing in tennis, and now it can mean several things. We all know the different meanings of the term as it used these days depending on context -- and so do you -- so why not just embrace it?

I'm a bit of a traditionalist in many areas (including language and grammar), but the evolution of a slang term relateed to tennis just doesn't qualify as something worth complaining about.

Gorecki
07-30-2007, 02:55 AM
I see a lot of jades minds here. if you win a grand slam, man... you got to be a damn fine player. who was worse? i would say that roughly 99% of the people posting here are underachievers (tennis wise; me included) and are discussing who was the worst to win a grand slam?

lets all get real...

paulfreda
07-30-2007, 06:11 AM
Brian Teacher of San Diego won the 1980 or 81 Australian.
Not sure he ever won again.

The Gorilla
07-30-2007, 06:14 AM
imagine if clement had beaten agassi...

CyBorg
07-30-2007, 10:02 AM
Why can't you accept that the terminology has evolved? "Grand slam", and/or "slam", originally meant one thing in tennis, and now it can mean several things. We all know the different meanings of the term as it used these days depending on context -- and so do you -- so why not just embrace it?

Say this three times fast and we'll see if it becomes true by that virtue alone.

heycal
07-30-2007, 10:27 AM
Say this three times fast and we'll see if it becomes true by that virtue alone.

Exactly! The term "Grand slam" has been used interchangably so many times now by so many different people that is HAS become true.

Glad you finally get it.

Wuornos
08-08-2007, 04:20 AM
I can't pick between Brian Teacher, Mark Edmondson or Gaston Gaudio in the men's game.

In the Ladies I would go for Chris O'Neil.

morten
08-08-2007, 04:38 AM
Andres Gomez...

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-08-2007, 04:56 AM
"who's the worst player to win a grand slam?"

Roddick.

morten
08-08-2007, 05:16 AM
"who's the worst player to win a grand slam?"

Roddick.
i agree....

Wuornos
08-08-2007, 05:47 AM
i agree....

You can't. You've already voted for Gomez!

morten
08-08-2007, 05:50 AM
Yes, but i forgot about Roddick.. I choose Roddick.

mauroed79
08-08-2007, 06:06 AM
No doubt, Gaston Gaudio!!!!

kashmonyklik
08-09-2007, 01:03 AM
imagine if clement had beaten agassi...

I would have been drunk the whole week;)

Viper
08-09-2007, 11:44 AM
"who's the worst player to win a grand slam?"

Roddick.

Yup, anyone who's gotten to 4 finals, has 23 titles, and has gotten to the number one spot is absolutely terrible.

TnTBigman
08-09-2007, 02:05 PM
Gaston Gaudio

drpepper4590
08-17-2007, 03:47 PM
thomas johannson won the australian a few years ago...he gets my vote

gj011
08-24-2007, 02:18 PM
Goran Ivanisevic

AznHylite
08-26-2007, 09:16 PM
Has to be Gaston Gaudio. For sure!

slice bh compliment
09-01-2007, 05:18 AM
Roddick plays Thomas Johansson today at the US Open.

Joeyg
09-01-2007, 05:49 AM
Iva Majoli. Mary Pierce.

freelancer
09-06-2007, 09:34 AM
I think the worst player (at least in the recent past) is Gaston Gaudio. I don't think he's a horrible player or anything. He just doesn't seem to have the game to win a grand slam. He's a top 50 player maybe, but not a top 5.

Shaolin
09-08-2007, 02:56 PM
The answer to this is easy: The slam winner with the least career titles. Whoever wants to look that up will put an end to the discussion.

vive le beau jeu !
09-08-2007, 05:05 PM
The answer to this is easy: The slam winner with the least career titles. Whoever wants to look that up will put an end to the discussion.
ummm not so easy, i think ! ;)

then would you put t. johansson or gaudio above cash ?
i wouldn't... certainly not.

2 Cent
09-09-2007, 07:48 PM
Thomas Johannson. 2002 Australian Open winner.

how the hell did he ever win anything?

morten
09-10-2007, 12:51 AM
Thomas Johannson. 2002 Australian Open winner.

how the hell did he ever win anything?

He is very underrated, great serve, backhand, able to volley and reads the game excellent, i like him a lot...

Shaolin
09-10-2007, 07:51 AM
Thomas Johannson. 2002 Australian Open winner.

how the hell did he ever win anything?

Awesome serve and excellent ground game off both sides.

johnkidd
09-10-2007, 08:08 AM
Johannson even at his age now still seems like he is always around a few rounds in the slams. My vote in the last 10 years would be Gaudio. He's dropped off the face of the earth it seems.

garcia_doomer
03-17-2008, 03:23 PM
Edmondson. Johansson.

soyizgood
03-17-2008, 03:37 PM
Krajicek won Wimbledon as an unseeded player but did little else. Rafter only has 11 singles titles, but 2 majors. Dig up a list of French Open winners over the past 20 years and you'll find LOTS of one-hit wonders.

yourmom08
03-17-2008, 04:09 PM
Federer. I mean 5 straight wimbledons? That mountain has already been summitted, nobody cares!

kungfusmkim
03-17-2008, 04:30 PM
I think Myskina was one of the worst and Capriati, Mary pierce and Iva Majoli IMO

zagor
03-17-2008, 05:01 PM
Goran Ivanisevic

Not by a longshot.Goran was a force to be reckoned with on grass and aside from Krajicek was the player that came closest to beating the greatest grasscourter of all time Pete Sampras during his prime(Goran was VERY close in 1995(semifinal) and 1998(final),especially 1995).If anything you could say that he was unlucky to be a part of Pete's era.He is one of the best one slam winners ever in my opinion.

matchmaker
03-17-2008, 05:19 PM
Not by a longshot.Goran was a force to be reckoned with on grass and aside from Krajicek was the player that came closest to beating the greatest grasscourter of all time Pete Sampras during his prime(Goran was VERY close in 1995(semifinal) and 1998(final),especially 1995).If anything you could say that he was unlucky to be a part of Pete's era.He is one of the best one slam winners ever in my opinion.

I agree. The worst one slam winner was undoubtedly Johanson. Even Gaudio was a lot better.

Ocean Drive
03-17-2008, 05:38 PM
Johansson was an excellent player who could serve really well for a smaller guy, both his groundstrokes are powerful and solid, good mover and he has a good perception at the net. He has slowed down now but he is still a pretty dangerous player.

Gaudio on the other hand can play some of the most attractive looking tennis you will ever see, I think. His triumpth in France was amazing, he deserved it, and I still believe he can play amazing tennis, just this year at Roland Garros he was rolling Hewitt in the first two sets before he kind of tanked the third and just lost momentum. He needs to get his head toghether.

Both of these guys deserved it, no question.

lambielspins
03-17-2008, 09:26 PM
Awesome serve and excellent ground game off both sides.

Johanssons forehand is far from excellent.

peluzon
03-18-2008, 05:05 AM
Björn Borg - Roger Federer - Pete Sampras - Andre Agassi :???:

Morrissey
03-18-2008, 05:29 AM
Thomas Johannson. 2002 Australian Open winner.

how the hell did he ever win anything?

The fact that we remember him well means he's not. Anyone remember Gaudiou still? Man now how he won I'll never know. He's literally done nothing since and is struggling to win matches in the last 2 years.

martin
03-18-2008, 05:48 AM
Krajicek won Wimbledon as an unseeded player but did little else. Rafter only has 11 singles titles, but 2 majors. Dig up a list of French Open winners over the past 20 years and you'll find LOTS of one-hit wonders.

Look up what he achieved. You're totally wrong especially considering he was injured most of his career.
Krajicek won 17 tournaments. Krajicek has won tournaments on all surfaces and he won important tournaments like Key Biscayne which is also known as the fifth grand slam. He reached various semi-finals of grand slam tournaments. Many matches he gave up because of an injury or he played just after surgery without good preparation. In 2002 he even played wimbledon without any preparation. No preparation at all and still reached the quarterfinal but lost in five sets. He was that talented. Krajicek was number four in the world and even very close to being number one in the world in 1998 but when he could take over as number one i believe in Hamburg he got a knee injury again and this ended everything. Because of the three knee injuries he couldn't move so well anymore and because of the two elbow surgeries his serve became much weaker. he could only serve at 70 percent and that became worse after every match. He played like this for too long.

challenger34
03-22-2008, 10:46 AM
another vote for thomas Johanson who was lucky when he won that title in australia. Johanson was a good top 20 player bur not a grandslam winner

matchmaker
03-23-2008, 05:49 PM
What about Andrés Gómez's French Open win against Agassi.

miniRafa386
03-23-2008, 06:22 PM
gaudio because he sucked before AND after he one it.

djokovicgonzalez2010
04-18-2010, 06:57 PM
I love him, but Olivier Rochus

David123
04-18-2010, 07:13 PM
oliver rochus won one haha?

quest01
04-18-2010, 09:03 PM
Johansson......

blaby
04-18-2010, 09:04 PM
gaudio. he was lucky coria choked

decades
04-18-2010, 09:26 PM
thanks to Willie Coria, the prize goes to Gaston Gaudio....

tennisdad65
04-18-2010, 10:23 PM
Who has the worst career high ranking of any slam winner? That would be my answer..

vwfye
04-18-2010, 10:25 PM
Noah or Roddick...

davey25
04-19-2010, 04:24 AM
Johansson is a better player than many give him credit for. I wasnt even as surprised as some he won a hard court slam, not that I ever predicted it, but I could also have imagined it happening. The only reason anyone would pick Johansson as a worse slam winner than Gaudio is since Gaudio's game is prettier with that sweeping backhand or since Johansson is "boring" with no charisma at all (not that Gaudio himself has much). Gaudio is nowhere near as good a clay court player as Johansson a hard court player. Johansson had a long winning streak over Kafelnikov on hard courts. He also dominated Moya and Corretja during their best seasons ever in the Davis Cup semis on hard courts on the way to Sweden's Davis Cup title. He played everyone of his era somewhat tough on hard courts, he won a Masters title on hard courts, and had he won that very tough match with Philippoussis at the 98 U.S Open would have been in the finals there too likely.

Johansson also won his hard court slam in a way Gaudio definitely did not win his French Open crown. Yes Safin didnt play his best in the Aussie Open fianl vs Johansson, he was tenative and almost certainly would have certainly won playing at 100% (or even closer to it). Even so Johansson still won that match by hitting alot of winners, and overall outhitting and outplaying a tenative and sluggish Safin that day. He also made his way to the final with agressive baseline tennis and big servng which overpowered his opponents even if his draw was a joke pretty much. Gaudio really just hung around, let slam semifinal chump Nalbandian beat himself with so many mistakes in the semis, then let Coria implode and throw away the final.

paulfreda
04-19-2010, 04:37 AM
Noah or Roddick...

Neither
The 1980 Australian Open winner was Brian Teacher
I doubt anyone had fewer wins than he or a poorer overall career rating.

paulfreda
04-19-2010, 04:39 AM
gaudio. he was lucky coria choked

Coria did NOT choke.
You apparently did not see the match.
Coria injured his leg near the end of the 2nd set which he did win.
But he courageously kept playing but lost the next 3 sets.

It was one of the sadest things to see given how much it meant to him and his family of tennis pros to have such bad luck.

anointedone
04-19-2010, 04:41 AM
Coria definitely did choke. He mysteriously began moving alot better in the 5th set with that same supposed injury. I dont doubt he had an injury of some kind but he was also starting to use alot of gamesmanship to try and cover the fact he was choking so badly. He always has been a mental midget, one of many reasons I laugh at people who think he would have continued doing so well on clay or even challenging prime Nadal on it.

Sentinel
04-19-2010, 06:31 AM
Tommy Johannson.

jean pierre
04-19-2010, 07:58 AM
What about Andrés Gómez's French Open win against Agassi.

Gomez was a great player ! In the top ten during several years, he won about 20 tournaments.

subban
04-19-2010, 08:16 AM
Tommy Johannson.

I don't know what it is with the Aussie Open. Korda and Kafelinakov won it too. I don't know if players are burnt out playing it or the extreme heat down under but you get no name top 20 players winning it that only a tennis fan would know who they are.

subban
04-19-2010, 08:33 AM
Whoops strike Kafelnikov, I forget he won a French so that would make him a two slam wonder.

jean pierre
04-19-2010, 10:34 AM
Neither
The 1980 Australian Open winner was Brian Teacher
I doubt anyone had fewer wins than he or a poorer overall career rating.

Teacher was a good player, but he was often injured.
For me, the worst is Johansson

anointedone
04-19-2010, 10:44 AM
LOL Kafelnikov could easily be a contender for the worst 1 slam winner yet he somehow won 2 slams. Funny stuff but so true.

Gizo
04-19-2010, 10:55 AM
Gomez was a great player ! In the top ten during several years, he won about 20 tournaments.

Agreed. Gomez was a much better player than many other one slam winners. It continues to amaze me that so many people regarded Agassi as the overwhelming favourite ahead of the 1990 French Open final. Gomez was the no. 4 seed at the grand slam held on his favourite surface. In my book that made him one of the favourites for the title. Gomez had completely outclassed Muster (a much tougher opponent on clay than Agassi, and the Mont-Carlo runner-up and Rome champion that year) in his semi-final a couple of days earlier. He had won 2 titles on clay earlier that year, at Barcelona and Madrid. Agassi on the other hand had only competed in 2 matches on clay that year ahead of RG, at Hamburg.
Gomez won 17 titles on clay during his career, was twice the Italian Open champion in 1982 and 1984. He certainly had experience on his side, and it wasn't a surprise that he beat Agassi. He had the misfortune of bumping into his bogeyman Lendl so often at Roland Garros, losing to him in the quarter-final stage there in 1984, 1986 and 1987, and in the 2nd round in 1981. Of course he was quick to thank Lendl for skipping the French Open that year to concentrate on Wimbledon.

NoTell
04-19-2010, 02:46 PM
Goran Ivanišević

djokovicgonzalez2010
04-19-2010, 02:50 PM
oliver rochus won one haha?

With Malisse in 04

jrepac
04-19-2010, 04:23 PM
Gomez was a fine clay court player; his win over Andre was well-crafted and well deserved

I'd lean towards Gaudio or Korda (he was a 1 timer, no?)...

Johanssen had some decent strokes, then got injured; let's face it, Safin should've beaten him but totally blew it

boredone3456
04-19-2010, 07:31 PM
I was thinking of Korda myself, although Gaudio is a pretty viable candidate.

dcdoorknob
04-19-2010, 08:20 PM
Fun fact: Gaston Gaudio has never even made the QF of a slam other than that one French Open he won.

He gets my vote easily. Johansson/Korda/Teacher/ pretty much anyone else who ever won a slam at least have a few slam QFs or better in their careers to go with their flukey slam wins.

hoodjem
05-15-2010, 06:10 PM
Margaret Court, then Mo Connolly, then Steffi Graf, then Don Budge.

Wuornos
06-08-2010, 03:14 AM
Post WWII major singles, I would have to go for Marcel Bernard.

Marcel Bernard Peak Rating 2501 achieved after the French Open of 1949
This rating puts him 304th on the Post WWII Men’s singles list

These ratings are derived as a function of domination over a limited time period with a diminishing return and the quality of competition faced and is calculated using a multi iterative system.

The methodology used is no more or no less important than anyone elses opinion. It's just that I like statistical rating systems and like to put a number on things.

Take care

Tim

obsessedtennisfandisorder
06-09-2010, 09:38 PM
Mark edmondson ao76 or jan kodes wim73

tj or gaudio get stick, but check out the above guys careers.

teacher ao80 is another one..I'd put them ahead of recent guys.

Korda was a brilliant player...not sure why he voted worst...you beat prime sampras at the us open a crap player?LOL..destroyed rios brilliantly too.

In fact had it not been for na wrist injury the guy would be permanent top 10 92 -99...

Datacipher
06-09-2010, 11:47 PM
Korda was a brilliant player...not sure why he voted worst...you beat prime sampras at the us open a crap player?LOL..destroyed rios brilliantly too.

In fact had it not been for na wrist injury the guy would be permanent top 10 92 -99...

He's a cheater and he got caught. His AO should be wiped from the books, as should every other accomplishment in his career. He deserves NO credit, and he should be forced to pay back all his prize money.

He was one of the most talented players, but that wasn't enough for him, he had to biochemically alter himself. (yes, I am certain many players do that, but he was stupid enough to get caught).

CHEATER. Plain and simple. Just as surely as if he had used an illegal racquet or doctored the balls, or set up his serve line 3 feet closer to the net. All his wins are invalid.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
06-10-2010, 05:18 AM
He's a cheater and he got caught. His AO should be wiped from the books, as should every other accomplishment in his career. He deserves NO credit, and he should be forced to pay back all his prize money.

He was one of the most talented players, but that wasn't enough for him, he had to biochemically alter himself. (yes, I am certain many players do that, but he was stupid enough to get caught).

CHEATER. Plain and simple. Just as surely as if he had used an illegal racquet or doctored the balls, or set up his serve line 3 feet closer to the net. All his wins are invalid.

yes, I remember the time well..especially before the AO99open

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/1999/01/17/atp_doping/

but, he was caught at wimby in 98..so there's really no proof he was cheating while beating pete or winning the open..

also..The ITF let him off for some circumstances..if he was clearly cheating the punishment would have been more severe...

anyway..his play was brilliant..I just think he's better player than tj or gaudio
the OP asked who was worst..it's definitely not him...his play at the aus98 open was astounding....drugs do not make you play tennis that way....talent does.

Coria was caught cheating too.. does that make him the worst rg finalist?

Mustard
06-10-2010, 07:42 AM
Korda actually took a drugs test after the 1998 Australian Open final and it came back negative. The one that tested positive was after he was hammered by Henman in the quarter finals of 1998 Wimbledon.

davey25
06-10-2010, 07:56 AM
He's a cheater and he got caught. His AO should be wiped from the books, as should every other accomplishment in his career. He deserves NO credit, and he should be forced to pay back all his prize money.

He was one of the most talented players, but that wasn't enough for him, he had to biochemically alter himself. (yes, I am certain many players do that, but he was stupid enough to get caught).

CHEATER. Plain and simple. Just as surely as if he had used an illegal racquet or doctored the balls, or set up his serve line 3 feet closer to the net. All his wins are invalid.

I always think athletes that are caught with a positive drug test were probably always cheating. However it would be pretty much impossible to prove when he began doping, so one couldnt erase all his results. It would be nice if his AO win was wiped out.

Mustard
06-10-2010, 08:04 AM
It would be nice if his AO win was wiped out.

No, it wouldn't.

2slik
06-10-2010, 05:39 PM
Del Potro....

jnd28
06-10-2010, 07:22 PM
No I think he meant Jan Kodeš. He's a bit of an oddity. He reached 5 grand slam finals, winning three of them (two French and a Wimbledon) yet only ever reached no. 5 in the world.

He beat Alex Metraveli in the strike year wimby finals. Kodes was chec, and Metraveli was russian. Their respective tennis federations did not allow them to honor the players strike.

classic tennis
06-10-2010, 11:45 PM
I think it's pretty amusing that anyone writing here would have the front to bag anyone for winning a Slam....most of the tennis tragics couldn't hit the backside of a barn with a cannon.