Fastest To Win 3 Different Slams

380pistol

Banned
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.
 

tahiti

Professional
Nice data Pistol. You know what? I admire Rafans. I know we've been fans for a few years. We believed in someone who was a youngster and upcoming, who was media labelled as only a clay courter. We didn't support the already reigning champion who took over when an ex champion retired. As much as they claim how great Federer is, it's really surprising that some just don't see the greatness therefore needed to dethrone him. Perhaps the problem lies in the player himself.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.

The Fed fans were criticizing Nadal as everyone was claiming him to hard court greatness even without him winning a HC Slam? How this set of statistics even correlate to that? Winning 3 different slams at a speed relates to that how? Its an interesting statistic but what does it have to do with being superior to anyone or anything? He won 3 unique slams faster than Fed did and thats that. Lendl is better than half that list and he was last...so I am still not sure what that has to do with anything except its like hey look how fast he did it. I don't I have ever met a Fed fan who said Fed accomplished anything faster than Rafa? Point me to one.
tahiti said:
Nice data Pistol. You know what? I admire Rafans. I know we've been fans for a few years. We believed in someone who was a youngster and upcoming, who was media labelled as only a clay courter. We didn't support the already reigning champion who took over when an ex champion retired. As much as they claim how great Federer is, it's really surprising that some just don't see the greatness therefore needed to dethrone him. Perhaps the problem lies in the player himself.

So wait what about the Fed fans who stuck through with him from 00-03 Fed face a lot of criticism and nobody ever considered him to be of slam potential to that Wimbledon win. Even then many were doubting due to his early exit at the US Open. He was getting beaten by the top for a while and fought through. There have been Fed fans from the start sure there are the new wavers, but most Rafa fans hopped on the bandwagon after his slam victory just like Fed fans. I doubt too many people were rooting for Nadal prior to that 05 year. Nobody really knew much of him he was ranked 51 at 2004 hadn't made any mark. He exploded and people jumped on the bandwagon.
Fed took over in 04 by beating the field..Sampras retired 2 years prior to that and was far from being at the top..so your little theory about that is farfetched.
Nadal is great, you are able to take down Fed by yourself you are great but wait so if Fed fans are punished for rooting for the guy on top should you stop rooting for Nadal now he is reigning champion. You credit Rafa fans for sticking with a player...what about the Fed fans who are still waiting for Fed to beat Rafa...you credit Rafa fans for rooting for him as he rose..when most didn't probably know who he was before 2005..Nadal was labeled a clay courter..at least in his youth he was good enough to be labeled..Fed was noted for a win against Sampras at wimbledon and just hanging around the top 10 mostly. Many said he has the game but most were wondering when it would show up. So just like Nadal fans waited for him to take the throne so did Fed fans..Fed did not come on the scene at 20 and was given the number 1 ranking because Sampras vanished.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic.

The one who has been oops I mean had been repeating that endlessly was GameSampras, I suppose he is the greatest Fed fan :roll:
 
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.

I wish Connors played in the Federer era. That would be cool!

4_17_11.gif

4_17_11.gif

4_17_11.gif

4_17_11.gif
 

tahiti

Professional
So wait what about the Fed fans who stuck through with him from 00-03 Fed face a lot of criticism and nobody ever considered him to be of slam potential to that Wimbledon win. Sampras retired 2 years prior to that and was far from being at the top..so your little theory about that is farfetched.
...what about the Fed fans who are still waiting for Fed to beat Rafa...you credit Rafa fans for rooting for him as he rose..

You're right I agree with 99% of your post.
I unfortunately stopped watching tennis during the Sampras reign. Because it got boring for me with all the serving and I also happened to be living in a foreign country for two years, so I did not follow tennis closely during the years you mentioned.

That note to Rafans has nothing to do with Rafa reaching anything so fast but I understand the opening of the thread in relation to previous comments on other threads. I generally make the best of the intense criticism that is received here of Rafa. Perhaps I am just getting a little fed up with certain posters who just refuse to be objective.
My apologies for that. I am certain there are devouted Fed Fans who didn't just jump on the bandwagon when the going was good.

I sincerely hope Roger will get his record slams, I 've made that clear from my posts, I also don't mind if Fed beats Rafa and would only say, Rafa didn't play well enough. I support Fed against biased remarks a lot. But thanks for pointing it out to me.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
The Fed fans were criticizing Nadal as everyone was claiming him to hard court greatness even without him winning a HC Slam? How this set of statistics even correlate to that? Winning 3 different slams at a speed relates to that how? Its an interesting statistic but what does it have to do with being superior to anyone or anything? He won 3 unique slams faster than Fed did and thats that. Lendl is better than half that list and he was last...so I am still not sure what that has to do with anything except its like hey look how fast he did it. I don't I have ever met a Fed fan who said Fed accomplished anything faster than Rafa? Point me to one.


So wait what about the Fed fans who stuck through with him from 00-03 Fed face a lot of criticism and nobody ever considered him to be of slam potential to that Wimbledon win. Even then many were doubting due to his early exit at the US Open. He was getting beaten by the top for a while and fought through. There have been Fed fans from the start sure there are the new wavers, but most Rafa fans hopped on the bandwagon after his slam victory just like Fed fans. I doubt too many people were rooting for Nadal prior to that 05 year. Nobody really knew much of him he was ranked 51 at 2004 hadn't made any mark. He exploded and people jumped on the bandwagon.
Fed took over in 04 by beating the field..Sampras retired 2 years prior to that and was far from being at the top..so your little theory about that is farfetched.
Nadal is great, you are able to take down Fed by yourself you are great but wait so if Fed fans are punished for rooting for the guy on top should you stop rooting for Nadal now he is reigning champion. You credit Rafa fans for sticking with a player...what about the Fed fans who are still waiting for Fed to beat Rafa...you credit Rafa fans for rooting for him as he rose..when most didn't probably know who he was before 2005..Nadal was labeled a clay courter..at least in his youth he was good enough to be labeled..Fed was noted for a win against Sampras at wimbledon and just hanging around the top 10 mostly. Many said he has the game but most were wondering when it would show up. So just like Nadal fans waited for him to take the throne so did Fed fans..Fed did not come on the scene at 20 and was given the number 1 ranking because Sampras vanished.
Precisely I think tahiti's argument was that Nadal had to overthrow a very dominant player to become #1 whereas Federer became #1 while noone in particular was dominating.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.
Very interesting, thanks. Are those the only players in open era who have won at least 3 out of 4 slams (apart from Laver of course)?
 
Last edited:

thalivest

Banned
Very interesting, thanks. Are those the only players in open era who have won at least 3 out of 4 slams (apart from Laver of course)?

Vilas has done it. He completed it when he won the Australian Open in 1978 (he would win a second in 1979), having already won the French and U.S Opens in 1977. He achieved all this starting only just before turning 25 when he won the 77 French, and ending it at 26 when he completed the trio by winning the 78 Australian.

Arthur Ashe has done it. He won the 1968 U.S Open, 1970 Australian Open, and 1975 Wimbledon Championships. He completed this around his 32nd birthday.

John Newcombe completed this, winning each of the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and U.S Open more than once. He completed winning all 3 in his career when he won the 1973 Australian Open at age 28.
 

380pistol

Banned
Very interesting, thanks. Are those the only players in open era who have won at least 3 out of 4 slams (apart from Laver of course)?


Nah, you have Arthur Ashe (US Open 1968, Australian Open 1970 and Wimbledon 1975) so he would have done it 32 yrs of age.

John Newcombe is different as he won 2 of his 7 slams before the open era. If we include those that would make it 28 yrs 8 mos, if we exclude those and keep it to the 5 he won in the open era then he would have done it at 29 yrs, 3 mos.

And Guillermo Vilas also won 3 different slams, completing it at 25 yrs, 5 mos.
 
Last edited:

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
when we're talking about "fastest to win 3 diff. slams" shouldn't we consider the time frame from winning the 1st slam to winning his 3rd different slam? the title is misleading. it should've said "youngest to win 3 different slams".
 

380pistol

Banned
The Fed fans were criticizing Nadal as everyone was claiming him to hard court greatness even without him winning a HC Slam? How this set of statistics even correlate to that? Winning 3 different slams at a speed relates to that how? Its an interesting statistic but what does it have to do with being superior to anyone or anything? He won 3 unique slams faster than Fed did and thats that. Lendl is better than half that list and he was last...so I am still not sure what that has to do with anything except its like hey look how fast he did it. I don't I have ever met a Fed fan who said Fed accomplished anything faster than Rafa? Point me to one.

Do you understand the term ironic, or know what irony is??? I can't speak for anyone but myself and I was critical of Nadal as until 2008 Aus Open he had never played a slam SF on a hardcourt. But I never dismissed the notion that he had the ability to do so. There were adjustments that needed to made and some imporvements, and only time would tell if he dould do it.

The fact of the matter is for all the criticism Nadal receved from Fed fans about this subject, is ironic as Rafa won 3 different slams faster than Roger did. Why?? Was anyone asking where was Roger's hardcourt slam 5-6 years ago, the way they were for Nadal.

And please save your insecurites for someone who cares. I mean at what point did I say the faster you accomplish something the better you are, or that this list is a barometer for who what and who isn't??? So take that to Shrink or something.
 

tennis-hero

Banned
Rog was a late starter

he won wimby in 03 and by wimby 04 he had 3 different slams

Roger must be near the top of the list

on the flip side (and this is just great)

Nadal won his first slam at the FO 2005, and didn't get his second surface (and third) untill very recently

so no, Rafa's isn't the fastest, this thread is misleading
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
when we're talking about "fastest to win 3 diff. slams" shouldn't we consider the time frame from winning the 1st slam to winning his 3rd different slam? the title is misleading. it should've said "youngest to win 3 different slams".

Agree

10 chars
 

tahiti

Professional
the title is misleading. it should've said "youngest to win 3 different slams".

This is not a court of law where "one" word can be misconstrued, misinterpreted and twisted to win the case.

But if you wish, what the OP meant is exactly that. As a child my sister learnt to walk "faster" than I did. Not faster in the sense of speed, but faster in that she reached her first steps before I did. I think the data clearly shows it's about age, doesn't it? One could even use the word sooner, but hey "whatever floats your boat."
 

BallzofSkill

Semi-Pro
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.

actually, the talk was before nadal won his only HC slam, and that happened at the beginning of this year. That's not irony. It can't be ironic to talk about something that hasn't happened, it's just natural. stop trolling.
 

tahiti

Professional
actually, the talk was before nadal won his only HC slam, and that happened at the beginning of this year. That's not irony. It can't be ironic to talk about something that hasn't happened, it's just natural. stop trolling.

I don't see your point. He might have taken time to win a hardcourt GS, he had still won quite a few other hard court titles, with large competitive fields.
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
I wish Connors played in the Federer era. That would be cool!


4_17_11.gif

Yes:)

Also it has to noted that if Jimmy had been allowed to play the French in 74 then he would probably (according to the experts) have won it. Therefore winning all 4, and doing the Grand Slam at 22!!!

Many people don't realise this!!!
 

timnz

Legend
Jimmy would have got all 4 in 1974

Yes:)

Also it has to noted that if Jimmy had been allowed to play the French in 74 then he would probably (according to the experts) have won it. Therefore winning all 4, and doing the Grand Slam at 22!!!

Many people don't realise this!!!

I agree, he would have won the Grand Slam. A lot of people say, but Jimmy didn't get past the semi-finals of the French. But he didn't play it again until 1979. He missed a lot of peak years there. Sure, it may have been his fault (not his fault in 1974 though) for not competing. However, on form, I believe he would have won. To strengthen that point he beat Borg the first 3 times they played on Clay. In 1974 he beat Borg on clay in Indianapolis. And he beat him again in 1975 & 1976 on clay (both of them at the US Open).
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
This is not a court of law where "one" word can be misconstrued, misinterpreted and twisted to win the case.

But if you wish, what the OP meant is exactly that. As a child my sister learnt to walk "faster" than I did. Not faster in the sense of speed, but faster in that she reached her first steps before I did. I think the data clearly shows it's about age, doesn't it? One could even use the word sooner, but hey "whatever floats your boat."

but in this forum there are a lot of experts at doing that. you might not know, but that is the most used tactic here, especially by the deranged nadal fans (not pointing at anyone).

anyways that's not the point. imo that statistic means sh1t because a lot of factors play here, like starting and peaking early. if a player starts playing tennis at the age of 14, starts gaining experience and wins his first slam aged 17, wins his second different at 20, then his 3rd at 21, he's the fastest to win 3 different slams? it took him 4 years to accomplish that feat, and that is not, in any sense, fast and a meaningful statistic. different players peak at different times. what's more meaningful is how well you have done during those times by the speed at which you win slams. therefore when talking about "fast" it's more accurate to compare the time from winning his 1st slam to winning his 3rd different slam. but hey, "whatever floats your boat." i don't think my post actually deserved such an angry response. worry not, though. i'll just play along.
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
Connors underrated around here

I agree, he would have won the Grand Slam. A lot of people say, but Jimmy didn't get past the semi-finals of the French. But he didn't play it again until 1979. He missed a lot of peak years there. Sure, it may have been his fault (not his fault in 1974 though) for not competing. However, on form, I believe he would have won. To strengthen that point he beat Borg the first 3 times they played on Clay. In 1974 he beat Borg on clay in Indianapolis. And he beat him again in 1975 & 1976 on clay (both of them at the US Open).

Absolutely:)

Many people around here did not know this, a great point to make:):)
 

tahiti

Professional
you see my point you're just being an annoying nadal fan.

Well you would say that wouldn't you? Because you're really objective and like Nadal so much that you wouldn't it take it out on anyone. But your post of 2/3/09 says it all. I quote in case you can't remember. :)

"i'm likely to give up on tennis message board. the thought of nadal playing puts me to sleep. i guess you can say that i was never truly a tennis fan, but federer played such beautiful tennis that I couldn't help but follow the sport. Now that Federer is falling apart I just don't care about Tennis anymore. But if he makes it to a finals I'll probably watch."

In the thread: What I hate about Nadal.

But where I do agree with you is the thread you started: As big a deal as you thought. Your post 9/29/08

"Now that it is here, is it that big of a deal? It seems most of the attention has been about Federer losing the #1 position intead of Nadal earning it. What do you think?"
 

tahiti

Professional
but in this forum there are a lot of experts at doing that. you might not know, but that is the most used tactic here, especially by the deranged nadal fans (not pointing at anyone).

anyways that's not the point. imo that statistic means sh1t because a lot of factors play here, like starting and peaking early. if a player starts playing tennis at the age of 14, starts gaining experience and wins his first slam aged 17, wins his second different at 20, then his 3rd at 21, he's the fastest to win 3 different slams? it took him 4 years to accomplish that feat, and that is not, in any sense, fast and a meaningful statistic. different players peak at different times. what's more meaningful is how well you have done during those times by the speed at which you win slams. therefore when talking about "fast" it's more accurate to compare the time from winning his 1st slam to winning his 3rd different slam. but hey, "whatever floats your boat." i don't think my post actually deserved such an angry response. worry not, though. i'll just play along.

I didn't like your moan to the OP. My response was hardly angry. Words in your posts mostly add up to ........."*********s, attention seeking freak, no matter how godly you want to be, it's blasphemy, deranged, ******** theory, crazy Sampras lover.

Sorry just don't like them. But we always add each other to the ignore list. :)
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
I didn't like your moan to the OP. My response was hardly angry. Words in your posts mostly add up to ........."*********s, attention seeking freak, no matter how godly you want to be, it's blasphemy, deranged, ******** theory, crazy Sampras lover.

Sorry just don't like them. But we always add each other to the ignore list. :)

what part of "this is not a court where blah blah blah" and "whatever floats your boat" BS is not angry? and based from the post above i'm pretty sure you're stalking me.pretty funny though, as it seems i really touched a nerve, which is actually my intention. good job pal:p
 

VivalaVida

Banned
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.
Thank you for that interesting information 380pistol. Really interesting. I had no idea about jimmy connors.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Nah, you have Arthur Ashe (US Open 1968, Australian Open 1970 and Wimbledon 1975) so he would have done it 32 yrs of age.

John Newcombe is different as he won 2 of his 7 slams before the open era. If we include those that would make it 28 yrs 8 mos, if we exclude those and keep it to the 5 he won in the open era then he would have done it at 29 yrs, 3 mos.

And Guillermo Vilas also won 3 different slams, completing it at 25 yrs, 5 mos.
Thanks to both you and thalivest for answering my question!
 

GameSampras

Banned
Fed didnt have to overtake Sampras or Andre. Their primes ended a few years before prime Fed ever hit the scene. There is a 10-11 year differential between Fed and Andre and Pete. IF you want to count Agassi's prime which was sporatic. 95, 99, 00 maybe? Pete 93-98 or 99. Fed never overtook the tennis world until 04
 
Last edited:

Parabolica

Semi-Pro
Fed didnt have to overtake Sampras or Andre. Their primes ended a few years before prime Fed ever hit the scene. There is a 10-11 year differential between Fed and Andre and Pete.

Perhaps Samprass but Agassi was playing some of his best tennis later in his career. Besides, whos to say that Nadal just overtook Fed at his prime? It could be classified as towards the end of his career.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Perhaps Samprass but Agassi was playing some of his best tennis later in his career. Besides, whos to say that Nadal just overtook Fed at his prime? It could be classified as towards the end of his career.


What year was Agassi playing his best post 1999 or 2000? He only won the 2003 Australian if I remember correctly after that. Eventually back problems and age got the best of Andre post 2003
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.

Just wanted to thank you for pointing this out about Connors, many people here didn't know this, and that he was banned from the French (that experts say he would have won), and would have won all 4, the Grand Slam in one year at the age of 22:)

We had a disagreement on another thread, but I realise you want to stick up for Sampras, and don't blame you:) Jimmy is my favourite of all time, and cheers for pointing this out about him, as many didn't know it:)
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Do you understand the term ironic, or know what irony is??? I can't speak for anyone but myself and I was critical of Nadal as until 2008 Aus Open he had never played a slam SF on a hardcourt. But I never dismissed the notion that he had the ability to do so. There were adjustments that needed to made and some imporvements, and only time would tell if he dould do it.

The fact of the matter is for all the criticism Nadal receved from Fed fans about this subject, is ironic as Rafa won 3 different slams faster than Roger did. Why?? Was anyone asking where was Roger's hardcourt slam 5-6 years ago, the way they were for Nadal.

And please save your insecurites for someone who cares. I mean at what point did I say the faster you accomplish something the better you are, or that this list is a barometer for who what and who isn't??? So take that to Shrink or something.

I understand ironic it is basically the outcome that is opposite of what is expected in layman's terms. It was expected that Nadal would not win a HC slam him winning one in itself is Ironic not him winning 3 unique slams at a faster rate. They were asking for Nadal's hardcourt slam because it was said he a great hardcourter so it was imply win a hardcourt slam. So really your statistic fails there. Your statistic proves he won 3 different slams faster. The irony itself was everyone said Nadal would not win a hardcourt slam and he won it. Your statistic does not relate to the point you are trying to prove. Or at least if you are saying it is ironic that Nadal won 3 different slams faster than Fed because Fed fans said he would never win a hard court slam. It should actually be who won a hardcourt slam faster. So really you should be judging when they won their hard court slams, Fed won his first hardcourt slam by the way at 22 and 6 months.

Second nobody was asking for it because nobody 5-6 years ago was saying Fed was a great hardcourt player..nobody was saying Fed was even great. Actually 5 years ago he had won a hardcourt slam Australia 04. 6 years ago nobody really saw Fed actual winning a slam yet alone the 13 that he won. So nobody was really questioning him because it was still a what if..Nadal was questioned because Nadal was winning on hardcourts and had won big on other surfaces and he was on a claim to greatness..people were saying he was great on hardcourts so of course the common counter is going be to where is the hardcourt slam? It was also not just Fed fans, but the Fed fans argument was well if Fed is not great on clay without a France title why should Rafa be great on hardcourts without a hardcourt slam?
 

Safinator_1

Professional
Ehh... Fed fans are just sore once again because once again Nadal has achieved a feat before Fed. Its ok really can't help Nadal being this good
 

380pistol

Banned
I understand ironic it is basically the outcome that is opposite of what is expected in layman's terms. It was expected that Nadal would not win a HC slam him winning one in itself is Ironic not him winning 3 unique slams at a faster rate. They were asking for Nadal's hardcourt slam because it was said he a great hardcourter so it was imply win a hardcourt slam. So really your statistic fails there. Your statistic proves he won 3 different slams faster. The irony itself was everyone said Nadal would not win a hardcourt slam and he won it. Your statistic does not relate to the point you are trying to prove. Or at least if you are saying it is ironic that Nadal won 3 different slams faster than Fed because Fed fans said he would never win a hard court slam. It should actually be who won a hardcourt slam faster. So really you should be judging when they won their hard court slams, Fed won his first hardcourt slam by the way at 22 and 6 months.

Second nobody was asking for it because nobody 5-6 years ago was saying Fed was a great hardcourt player..nobody was saying Fed was even great. Actually 5 years ago he had won a hardcourt slam Australia 04. 6 years ago nobody really saw Fed actual winning a slam yet alone the 13 that he won. So nobody was really questioning him because it was still a what if..Nadal was questioned because Nadal was winning on hardcourts and had won big on other surfaces and he was on a claim to greatness..people were saying he was great on hardcourts so of course the common counter is going be to where is the hardcourt slam? It was also not just Fed fans, but the Fed fans argument was well if Fed is not great on clay without a France title why should Rafa be great on hardcourts without a hardcourt slam?

Let me simplify. No one questioned Roger (except when he was young and struggled to get out of the 1st week of slams), about why hasn't he done. But Nadal got taken to the cleaners, by may Fed fans, yet Nadal secured 3 different slams at a younger age than Roger.

Who has chastised Roger's greatness despite him not winning the French Open??? Who chastised Nadal (and to an extent his greatness) for having zero hardcourt slams???

How is that not ironic??? Even Alanis Morissette can see that!!!!
 

Gen

Banned
Just wanted to thank you for pointing this out about Connors, many people here didn't know this, and that he was banned from the French (that experts say he would have won), and would have won all 4, the Grand Slam in one year at the age of 22:)

We had a disagreement on another thread, but I realise you want to stick up for Sampras, and don't blame you:) Jimmy is my favourite of all time, and cheers for pointing this out about him, as many didn't know it:)

Why was he banned? Are there any rules that allow tournaments to ban players?
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
For the ever so knowledgeable Nadal fans:

In 1974, Connors and Riordan began filing lawsuits, eventually amounting to US$10 million, against the ATP and its president Arthur Ashe for allegedly restricting Connors's freedom in the game. It started when Connors was banned from the French Open in 1974 after he had signed a contract to play World Team Tennis (WTT) for Baltimore. The ATP and the French Tennis Federation opposed WTT because it conflicted with the French Open; therefore, all entries to the French Open from WTT players were refused.

ps: this was writen after a mouthfull of soap!
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
For the ever so knowledgeable Nadal fans:

In 1974, Connors and Riordan began filing lawsuits, eventually amounting to US$10 million, against the ATP and its president Arthur Ashe for allegedly restricting Connors's freedom in the game. It started when Connors was banned from the French Open in 1974 after he had signed a contract to play World Team Tennis (WTT) for Baltimore. The ATP and the French Tennis Federation opposed WTT because it conflicted with the French Open; therefore, all entries to the French Open from WTT players were refused.

ps: this was writen after a mouthfull of soap!

Hi, thanks:) You got there before me, and with a much more detailed explanation!!!

Also I think it was you that sold me the great Estusa Connors Powerplay racquet? What a Superb racquet that is:):)
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Hi, thanks:) You got there before me, and with a much more detailed explanation!!!

Also I think it was you that sold me the great Estusa Connors Powerplay racquet? What a Superb racquet that is:):)

thanks. yes... it was me! i am glad you are satisfied.
 

cknobman

Legend
With all the talk from Federer fans about "where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??" I find this ironic. Here are the fastest in the open era to win 3 of the 4 slams.

Jimmy Connors (22yrs)
Pete Sampras (22 yrs, 5 mos)
Rafael Nadal (22 yrs, 8 mos)
Roger Federer (23 yrs, 1 mo)
Boris Becker (23 yrs, 2 mos)
Mats Wilander (24 yrs, 1 mo)
Andre Agassi (24 yrs, 9 mos)
Stefan Edberg (25 yrs, 8 mos)
Ivan Lendl (28 yrs, 10 mos)

With all the talk about Dre, he didn't do too badly for himself. So where's Nadal's hardcourt slam??? I don't know but according to data, he won 3 of the 4 5 months faster than Roger.

whoopty frackin doo

Is this supposed to mean Jimbo is better than Pete, Rafa, and Roger or are you just trying to come up with some slant on numbers to reinforce how you think Pete and Rafa are better than Roger?
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
whoopty frackin doo

Is this supposed to mean Jimbo is better than Pete, Rafa, and Roger or are you just trying to come up with some slant on numbers to reinforce how you think Pete and Rafa are better than Roger?

They're just some stats he came up with. I don't think he's trying to prove anything. Their just interesting stats.
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
whoopty frackin doo

Is this supposed to mean Jimbo is better than Pete, Rafa, and Roger or are you just trying to come up with some slant on numbers to reinforce how you think Pete and Rafa are better than Roger?
Get off your high horse, it's obvious ALL the players on that list are great champions. It's just interesting to see how fast they won slams, nothing more, nothing less. It's also interesting that Nadal despite being often branded as more hard-working than talented was one of the most precocious slam winners. Personally I think he is both in equal measure: hard-working and talented, that's why his records are phenomenal.
 
Top