PDA

View Full Version : Who won 5 Slams in 3 years ?


Aykhan Mammadov
07-14-2005, 12:11 PM
Who did win 5 Grand Slams in 3 consequitive years in open era ?

Federer - 2003,4,5 (5 GS)
Borg - 1978,79,80 ( 6 !!!)
Sampras - 1994,5,6 (5)
Lendl - 1985,86,87 ( 5)
Laver - 1968,69 (5)

Only 5 players. We are talking about complete dominance of Fed these years and demoralizing of others. Imagine how dominant was that great Borg at his days with his 6 slams in 3 years !

Kevin Patrick
07-14-2005, 12:51 PM
Aykhan, Sampras did win 6 majors in 3 years: '93 to '95

Another interesting stat: Borg & Sampras are the only male players to win at least 1 major for 8 consecutive years.

Babblelot
07-14-2005, 12:59 PM
Nice company. Nice post. ;)

FedererUberAlles
07-14-2005, 01:00 PM
I think Federer might win 6 majors over three years...

Babblelot
07-14-2005, 01:55 PM
Upon further review...

Pete Sampras-6 from 93-95, 5 from 94-96, 5 from 95-97
Roger Federer-5 from 2003-2005
Ivan Lendl-5 from 85-87
Rod Laver-5 from 68-70(all 5 in 1968 and 1969), 6 from 60-62
Bjorn Borg-5 from 77-79, 6 from 78-80, 5 from 79-81
Fred Perry-6 from 33-35, 7 from 34-36
Don Budge-6 from 36-38
Tony Trabert-5 from 53-55
Roy Emerson-7 from 63-65, 6 from 64-66, 5 from 65-67
Jack Crawford-5 from 31-33

Kevin Patrick
07-14-2005, 02:48 PM
I didn't realize Perry was that dominant. I would take Emerson's records of the mid 60s with a grain of salt though, due to the pro/amateur split & Laver's great record in the early & late 60s.

Aykhan Mammadov
07-14-2005, 03:36 PM
Aykhan, Sampras did win 6 majors in 3 years: '93 to '95

Another interesting stat: Borg & Sampras are the only male players to win at least 1 major for 8 consecutive years.

Yes, you are right. I made mistake in calculation.

Stuck
07-14-2005, 08:34 PM
Sampras' record of 14 will not be beaten by Fed

hyperwarrior
07-14-2005, 08:41 PM
Sampras' record of 14 will not be beaten by Fed

We'll see...Is that what you wish?

newnuse
07-15-2005, 12:11 AM
Laver is the man. The standard of which the great ones compare themselves to.

I can't imagine how many slams he would have won if it wasn't for that pro/amateur split. He still manage to win 2 grands slams abot 6/7 yrs apart.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-15-2005, 07:28 AM
I didn't realize Perry was that dominant. I would take Emerson's records of the mid 60s with a grain of salt though, due to the pro/amateur split & Laver's great record in the early & late 60s.

A question I have always wondered is would Emerson have even won 1 slam had it not been for the pro/am split?

federerhoogenbandfan
07-15-2005, 07:30 AM
Laver is the man. The standard of which the great ones compare themselves to.

I can't imagine how many slams he would have won if it wasn't for that pro/amateur split. He still manage to win 2 grands slams abot 6/7 yrs apart.

Keep in mind when Laver first turned pro in 63, he was beaten regularly by Rosewall, Gonzales and Hoad; especially Rosewall. I think there is a good argument he would have won no slams until 1964 but for the pro/am split, and none of the 6 slams he won in 60-62.

urban
07-15-2005, 02:24 PM
Laver, fresh from the amateur ranks, was beaten in the first half of 1963 by Rosewall and Hoad. Gonzales was retired in 1962/63 and returned to the pro circuit in 1964. It was the fate of all fresh pros, Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, that they all had difficulties to adjust to the different format and conditions (mostly indoors play) of pro tennis. They were all beaten at first by the older pros. Laver adjusted very fast, began to beat Rosewall and Hoad in the summer of 1963, was Nr. 2 behind Rosewall at the end of 1963 and had- so says Joe MacCauley, who has written the definitive book on the old pro circuit - one of the best rookie seasons of all pros. If Laver had played the older pros earlier under the conditions of regular tournaments on grass and clay in the majors format, I think he would have won his fair share of majors in 1960-62. In 1964 he was 12-3 against Rosewall and won the 2 most prestigious pro titles (Wembley, US pro), a feat he did in 1966 and 1967 as well. No other pro has done that. Laver was the most dominant amateur of all time (more dominant than Gonzales, Hoad and Rosewall, who all had successful amateur careers without the pros), he was equally dominant a a pro since 1964, and he was dominant like no other player in the first years of open competition.

Yours!05
07-15-2005, 06:33 PM
A question I have always wondered is would Emerson have even won 1 slam had it not been for the pro/am split?Me too. Answer to this specific question: see some of the one-slam-wonder threads. On any given day...;)