Do you see anybody else surpassing 17 Slams in the sport of tennis at any point?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. R.Federer

    R.Federer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    637
    17 slams is a tall order someone will need to dominate and get between 2 or 3 slams per year 3 or 4 times i think but who knows someone could come up and take that mantle, as people who idolise, nadal, fed, joker ,murray etc will try and imitate there game styles and maybe become successful and even evolve into a better player than what we see today, the world evolves and so does tennis
     
  2. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    No, you misunderstand me. I wouldn't be surprised if all of Federer's records are broken (except maybe the 18/19 Grand Slam finals one). I think they will be. But all of them by the same player? I don't think so. What makes Federer's records more impressive is that he has all of them. I mean 4 Australian Opens alone isn't that impressive. Nor is 5 US Opens. Or 7 Wimbledons. Federer holding the record at all 3 of these Grand Slams is what's that impressive. I hope I made some sense.
     
  3. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,540

    Great post.. I agree.. I give Fed credit.. he has a great career.. An all time great career.. But some overall resume thats going to stand the test of time and dominance that will stand the test of time (not even mentioning the GOATS that came before him who are just as deserving of the top spot as Rog).. Please.. These Fed fanatics need to beam back down to earth with the rest of us.

    Hes an all time great.. But he isn't on the level of a Phelps, Ruth, Jordan, Gretzky and Nicklaus and Woods etc.


    Hell I got him a clear 4th behind Pancho, Laver, Rosewall at the very least.. Yet were talking about how he has unattainable records. ROFLMAO

    Laver has UNATTAINABLE records.. Fed sure as hell doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  4. Gonzo_style

    Gonzo_style Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,897
    What if we have five Majors in the future? It's possible, and chances for someone to break Fed's record will be higher...
     
  5. Ralph

    Ralph Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,048
    You do seem to spend a lot of time on the floor, if this thread is anything to go by.
     
  6. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,566
    Location:
    Weak era
    Saying someone had a great career isn't really giving credit all that much, I could say Justin Bieber has had great career so far (based on the number of sold records) but think him to be an utterly annoying talentless hack.

    Saying he's a great player is giving credit.

    But here since you'll probably have trouble understanding my point, I'll translate it to a language you can understand - If I for example said Sampras achieved a lot on grass, what is clear is that I'm stating a fact but it's unclear whether I'm giving him credit/complementing him or not, I could say he achieved a lot on grass but add (or think to myself) because Goran was a headcase and Krajicek was very inconsistent and injured all the time.

    So they're just as deserving of the top spot but at the same time "clearly" ahead of him (at the very least, there might be more clearly ahead players I guess :) ), what you meant to say is more deserving right? In the same venue you won't take offense if I or someone else says how Sampras fanatics need to beam back down to Earth if they're comparing Fed and Sampras because Fed (at the very least) is clearly ahead of him.
     
  7. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    yes, some player will break the 'magic 17' at the french open in the year 2466. :)
     
  8. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,540


    I have all three ahead of Roger at this point time but arguments can be made. Thats my own opinion. But the point here is people talking as if Roger is the supreme "GOAT" the universal tennis GOAT with unattainable records.. The measuring stick so to speak.. Thats the nonsensical part of that.. As I have already mentioned he hasn't dominated the entire field and attained records to a degree the universal GOATs from other sports have

    And I said I already said, "slam count" is a 13 year old record of importance. Not an "all time" record of importance.. We count pro slams (which we should) 17 is NOT the record. Not even CLOSE to the record
     
  9. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    more prepubescent drivel...

    If what initially got your panties in a bunch is me saying I'm certain and you ignorantly misconstruing it as me saying its a certainty; well theres very little hope for you.

    I said I was certain; as in I'm very confident of (x): i.e. Nadal if he stays healthy and fit for the next 5 years would surpass 17 slams! Since you clearly were unable to understand that; the foundation of your delirious diatribe is not at all sound and therefore not worthy of any response and not worth my time.

    So continue on with your mutual stroking with dudeski; he's clearly a willing and wanting participant...
     
  10. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,566
    Location:
    Weak era
    Of course and you're entitled to it.


    So those people don't have a right to their opinion that Fed is clearly ahead of other tennis legends? Why is that?

    Other sports are other sports, it's comparing apples and oranges.

    Actually, all the players boycotting slams/majors and split fields makes it pretty hard to pinpoint the exact number of slam/major equivalents players from those eras won.

    But I'm glad you're now having a more open mind when it comes to this, given the circumstances (such as AO not being a "real" slam and the flawed computer ranking system) I presume you won't have an issue anymore with people ranking Borg above Sampras?
     
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,540


    I may have had Borg above Sampras.. if he didn't retire at 25. But overall Sampras has a better resume then Borg. Whats Borg got thats superior to Pete other then clay?

    Winning Percentage? Hell when you retire at 25, I would hope you had a great winning percentage. LOL

    Sampras has him at longevity, top at #1, Slam count, more dominance at his best slam, better on more surfaces, winning h2h over his main contemporary rivals (Borg couldn't figure Mac out though its not as bad as Roger's issues with Nadal overall of course), Slam win 12 years apart which is insane.
     
  12. nikdom

    nikdom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,725
    Location:
    Tennisville
    I would actually like to see this happen. The year end WTF needs to become a Grand Slam. That would complete the surface/conditions circle as far as the slams go - we'll have a true indoor slam.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  13. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,566
    Location:
    Weak era
    Who cares when he retired? It's about what he achieved in the time he spent on tour, I mean you don't hold Agassi in higher regard than Sampras because he retired 4+ years after?

    Much better performance in his weakest slam (4 finals compared to one SF), greater dominance over the field (by all accounts had better winning percentage in his best years than Sampras, won 3 slams without losing a set etc.), 5 Wimbledons in a row (was considered to be one of his most important achievements at the time).

    All achieved in a much tougher era of course which amplifies Borg's achievements compared to Pete's.

    Actually when you compare winning percentages in their best years, Borg comes out on top.

    Sampras won atleast one slam 8 years in a row, Borg did so for 7 years, negligable difference.

    Tsk, tsk, as I said we have to take circumstances into consideration.

    Debatable.

    Also debatable, especially considering how Borg wasn't as bad on any surface as Sampras was on clay.

    Ehm, Sampras played his main rivals almost exclusively on his prefered surface as a consequence of him being a non-factor (for tennis great standards of course) on clay, Borg never faced Mac at the FO (luckily for Mac he didn't).

    Trivia, not to mention how weak the field was in 2002 by your own admission.
     
  14. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I'm actually all for someone completely wiping out Federer's records and then some, like how Federer did with Sampras. Hopefully he's someone less arrogant and more gracious ;-) If that happens, I'll be the first to call him the GOAT.
     
  15. wangs78

    wangs78 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,904
    Location:
    New York
    On the men's side, I think you need 22+ Slam titles to really put yourself out of reach. Think about it. If you get a once every 30-40 year talent who is absolutely dominant - he can definitely win 3 of 4 slams per year for every year of his prime period. Suppose a male player has 5 prime years of performance (say age 23-27), that gives him 15 Slams already. Then say for another 5 years (say when he is 21-22 and 28-30) he wins an average of 1 Slam a year. That gives him 20. Federer could have surpassed this already if not for (1) existence of Nadal (-5 FO titles) and (2) some close nailbiters that he could easily have won (Wimby '08 and USO '09 and who knows had he beaten Djokovic in those two USO SF's I think he could have taken at least one of those two USO finals against Nadal). That would already bring him to nearly 25. It would also mean that he'd be nearly undefeated in GS finals. A very tall ask and practically impossible. But that's what I think would be a record impossible to break. About 22+ Slam titles.

    And don't get me wrong, I think Fed's 17 and counting tally will be extremely hard to break as well, but do I think someone will break it someday? Yes. If Fed gets to 22+ Slams, I would likely be willing to bet the house that we won't see anyone break that ever.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  16. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I think, practically, the limit is 25. That's how many Federer would have won if not for Nadal.
     
  17. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    Nice post. Yeah something like that will stand the test of time. Rosewall played till his 40s and ended up with 23 combined majors (including the pro majors from his era). That's crazy longevity that would be damn near impossible to replicate today. I think if Fed can reach 20, and I think he probably will considering he will play at least until 2016, he can really put the open era record out of reach. He'll be 35 by then and will def be at the end of his career.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  18. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Yeah if it's someone whose game I really like, why wouldn't I want to see him break records? I'm not related to Federer lol. I'd want Fed to keep a few though, like I like Djokovic having the 5 masters in a season record and I wanted him to do the 4 slams at once when he got the chance. It's boring if someone has every record.
     
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    actually borg also won a slam atleast for 8 years in a row (1974-1981) ...
     
  20. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,566
    Location:
    Weak era
    Ah, my mistake.

    Taking into factor Borg's much stronger competition -McEnroe, Connors, Lendl Vilas, Nastase- are certainly much stronger than Pioline, Chang, Todd Martin, Vladimir Voltchkov, Todd Woodbridge etc. - I think it's safe to say that Borg's 8 years of wining atleast one slam in a row are worth as atleast 10 in comparison to Pete's 8 years in a row in a weak era so this is just one more proof of Borg's superiority and him being clearly ahead of Sampras in the all-time great standings (whomever disagrees with me needs to beam back to planet Earth).
     
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    agreed ....... :)
     
  22. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    [​IMG]
     
  23. edmondsm

    edmondsm Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,904
    Location:
    In an in between place.
    Not sure if you're serious.
     
  24. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    He's making fun of the Sampras fanatics and their methods of discrediting Federer.
     
  25. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Don't forget meth-addicted Agassi who couldn't even stay inside the top 100. :lol:
     

Share This Page