Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Tnsguy25, Jun 8, 2009.
What do you think is the bigger achievement as discussed on ESPN.com?
i take 14.
I think the 14. It shows a longer period or greater period of dominance.
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.
I choose the career slam..
I mean 14 Wimbys would be impressive but it wouldn't be THAT impressive
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is like asking who's greater, Andre or Pete?
Exactly Andre has the career slam but Pete clearly had the better career.
I don't know..maybe carreer slam though more people have achieved that.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.