ESPN Debate: 14 Majors or Career Slam: Bigger Achievement?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Tnsguy25, Jun 8, 2009.

?

Which one is the Bigger Achievement?

  1. Career Slam

    9 vote(s)
    28.1%
  2. 14 Majors

    23 vote(s)
    71.9%
  1. Tnsguy25

    Tnsguy25 New User

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    What do you think is the bigger achievement as discussed on ESPN.com?
     
    #1
  2. tennis_hand

    tennis_hand Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,427
    i take 14.
     
    #2
  3. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    I think the 14. It shows a longer period or greater period of dominance.
     
    #3
  4. vbranis

    vbranis Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,136
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    Career Slam. Nice to say you won every one, not just repeating at certain ones, even though some might consider the guy who won 14 "better". I would prefer variety in my trophy case.
     
    #4
  5. DarthFed

    DarthFed Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,468
    Location:
    Queens, NY
    I choose the career slam..

    I mean 14 Wimbys would be impressive but it wouldn't be THAT impressive
     
    #5
  6. BounceHitBounceHit

    BounceHitBounceHit Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    6,013
    Location:
    In the moment.
    How about both, in the modern era, against TRUE world-wide competition, under the pressure of unprecedented media scrutiny, after recently learning you are about to be a father, and are wed? ;) ;) :) BHBH
     
    #6
  7. ambro

    ambro Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,307
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    This is one of the rare cases where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Sampras won 14 slams, but not the career slam, because of his one-dimensional game. Agassi won the career slam, because his game was more versatile, but not as many slams. The fact that Federer was able to accomplish both is incredible, and I would say that the combination of the two is the greatest achievement.

    That said, individually, 14 slams is more impressive.
     
    #7
  8. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Are we talking Fed or in general.

    In general you can get a career slam by only winning 4 slams....
    In general you can also get 14 by winning one slam 14 times or two slams 7 times each like say someone won 7 AO and 7 USO on hardcourts and player 2 won 10 slams and say it was like 2AO, 3FO, 3W, 2USO.. who wins there

    It depends on the circumstances..so I don't want to vote.
     
    #8
  9. Joseph L. Barrow

    Joseph L. Barrow Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    The career Slam had already been accomplished by multiple players historically, including two in the Open Era in Laver and Agassi. The 14 Slam mark Federer reached yesterday, on the other hand, had only been achieved by one other player in history. This being the case, I believe the latter to be a substantially greater accomplishment.
     
    #9
  10. IvanAndreevich

    IvanAndreevich Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Is that 4 slams (one of each) vs 14? I'd have to go with 14.

    If it was, say 12 slams career slam vs 14 non-career slam I'd go with the first.
     
    #10
  11. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    It's the combination of both of course. But I think Pete Sampras' record is a lot more impressive than winning 4 majors only once.
     
    #11
  12. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    Glad Fed has both but I'd take 14 over 1 of each. That's obvious.
    14 Wimbledons wouldn't be that impressive? That means you won a slam per year over at least a 14 year period. How many players even get to play 14 years of proffesional tennis? If you had a 14 year career that means you won a slam every year you played and that 1 slam per year would make staying inside the top 10 for 14 years fairly easy. I am surprised at this post. Your posts are usually really good. Maybe you didn't think this one through.

    Like I said you usaully have great posts and I'm not trying to pick a fight. I respect you prefering a career slam but how is it that 14 Wimbys wouldn't be THAT impressive?
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
    #12
  13. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    This is like asking who's greater, Andre or Pete?
     
    #13
  14. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Exactly Andre has the career slam but Pete clearly had the better career.
     
    #14
  15. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    I don't know..maybe carreer slam though more people have achieved that.
     
    #15
  16. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    I think if you asked Fed if he would rather have 14 slams or just a career slam the answer would be 14 slams. Just a guess.
     
    #16
  17. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,486
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    Yeah but I actually think Andre was the better tennis player. He didn't start playing the Australian Open until 1995, and he won it straight away. So he missed 1989-1994 there + 2002 when he was defending champion.
    Plus when he married Brook Sheilds he stopped caring about tennis and his ranking slipped to 127 or something.
    Had he played the AO from the beginning and not married BS, his tennis would've seen him win at least 4, possibly more, majors. But of course we'll never know so 8 wins is all we can talk about.
     
    #17

Share This Page