Which of these 2 Grand Slams Resumes is Better & more Difficult to Create....? Dominance Over Time OR Surface Versatility … ?

[Razer]

24 Slams = (2 AOs + 16 French Opens + 2 Wimbledons + 4 US Opens) - Insane domination at 1 Slam

OR

24 Slams = (10 AOs + 3 French Opens + 7 Wimbledons + 4 US Opens) - More Versatile for sure but not THAT dominant on any single surface.


Which of these is more difficult to make ?


IMO, it is more difficult to win 16 French Opens in 16 different years than be versatile for a shorter period of time and collect the same number of slams as you dont need to fight off that many generations and stand the test of time which a single surface dominance would have to as that would effectively mean defying father time itself.... no ?

You might tell me that hey Rafa is not winning any more slams and it is gonna be 24>22, I would be inclined to agree with you as that is probably whats gonna happen, but what if we imagine Novak to not win any other slam and Rafa to sneak up 2 more french opens....... Then with 24=24 which combination would be better and more hardly obtained ????

Would you say a Single Surface Dominance based slams record (even if shared) is greater? Or would you say, versatility always counts greater and is harder to do ???

Please vote.

 

[NeutralFan]

I really can't decide lol. 16 time champion at any slam is truly insane and a hard feat. Having said that if both feats are achieved in same competition then I would say second feat is a bit more difficult.

 

[messiahrobins]

24 Slams = (2 AOs + 16 French Opens + 2 Wimbledons + 4 US Opens) - Insane domination at 1 Slam

OR

24 Slams = (10 AOs + 3 French Opens + 7 Wimbledons + 4 US Opens) - More Versatile for sure but not THAT dominant on any single surface.


Which of these is more difficult to make ?


IMO, it is more difficult to win 16 French Opens in 16 different years than be versatile for a shorter period of time and collect the same number of slams as you dont need to fight off that many generations and stand the test of time which a single surface dominance would have to as that would effectively mean defying father time itself.... no ?

You might tell me that hey Rafa is not winning any more slams and it is gonna be 24>22, I would be inclined to agree with you as that is probably whats gonna happen, but what if we imagine Novak to not win any other slam and Rafa to sneak up 2 more french opens....... Then with 24=24 which combination would be better and more hardly obtained ????

Would you say a Single Surface Dominance based slams record (even if shared) is greater? Or would you say, versatility always counts greater and is harder to do ???

Please vote.

The slams are not equal in terms of prestige has to be factored in. Dont know how you would weight them but assuming wimbledon gets around 4 times the global audience of the ao and they are 1st and 4th respectively in terms of prestige with FO ahead of us open due to uniqueness of surface then lets say 8pts for W, 6pts for FO 4 pts for USO 2 pts for AO then we have
Player 1 with 132 points
Player 2 with 110 points

Got to go with the one who locks down one of the majors. Wont ever be done again. Alcaraz already arguably showing he is more versatile then the big 3 were, he definitely is at the same age.

 

[Pheasant]

16 FO titles is what I’d take. That’s such ridiculous domination over #2.

Most clay slam titles:
Nadal 16
Borg 6

Most grass court slam titles
Federer 8
Djoker 7
Sampras 7

Most hard court slam titles:
Djokovic 14
Federer 11

A 16-6 lead over #2 is LOL-funny.

 

[Kralingen]

I guess theoretically they are not necessarily better or worse, just different. If I had to choose, the difficulty is based on competition beaten to do both.

I would say that the versatility one is harder to do for a 3-5 year stretch but the focused domination may be harder because of the sheer timeline it encompasses, it requires at minimum nearly 20 years at a Slam contending level.

 

[NeutralFan]

I guess theoretically they are not necessarily better or worse, just different. If I had to choose, the difficulty is based on competition beaten to do both.

I would say that the versatility one is harder to do for a 3-5 year stretch but the focused domination may be harder because of the sheer timeline it encompasses, it requires at minimum nearly 20 years at a Slam contending level.

I would say winning even a master's 1000 16 times is freaking difficult let alone winning a slam 16 times lol

 

[uscwang]

These two could be 30 and 15 when all is said and done. Both are quite unbreakable. 15 at a single slam is slightly easier since the chance to have a great specialist is perhaps higher than that for a complete player.

 

[MichaelNadal]

These two could be 30 and 15 when all is said and done. Both are quite unbreakable. 15 at a single slam is slightly easier since the chance to have a great specialist is perhaps higher than that for a complete player.

lol

 

[tennis_error]

So, would I like to be one trick pony or would I like to be universally great player on all surfaces and all conditions? Let me think... Lol...

 

[Razer]

These two could be 30 and 15 when all is said and done. Both are quite unbreakable. 15 at a single slam is slightly easier since the chance to have a great specialist is perhaps higher than that for a complete player.

So, would I like to be one trick pony or would I like to be universally great player on all surfaces and all conditions? Let me think... Lol...

Maybe it is harder to be a 1 trick Pony than to be Versatile ?

I mean how many people have mastered 1 trick to such an extent ? There are more people with TCGS around if you include ladies but there is nobody with 14-16 titles at a single tournament, let alone a slam even among ladies/men if you exclude Nadal.

 

[tennis_error]

Maybe it is harder to be a 1 trick Pony than to be Versatile ?

I mean how many people have mastered 1 trick to such an extent ? There are more people with TCGS around if you include ladies but there is nobody with 14-16 titles at a single tournament, let alone a slam even among ladies/men if you exclude Nadal.

As you wish. I wouldn't like to be one-trick pony
Anyway, Novak has 10 AOs which is not that far away from Nadal 14 RG, if we have in mind that hard court competition is bigger. And no, I don't say it the same, but close enough. So, Novak has his pet slam too, and not that he doesn't dominate one slam. I hope he will be the best at W too, maybe even USA, who knows...

 

[mahatma]

Winning a 100m world championship of running for 5 times vs winning 100m, 200m,400m,800m,42km world championship in the same year. Which one is difficult and will be valued more?

 

[Hitman]

Phelps didn't become the greatest Olympian of all time just by dominating one style of swimming.

And in tennis, the CYGS is considered the ultimate prize because conquering all surfaces and dominating the field everywhere is considered the ultimate achievement. Tennis by nature is valued on the versatility, we often talk about how homogenization has harmed the game, reduced the amount of different playing styles, even now Borg's RG-W channel slams are lauded as one of the all time greatest things in sport for that very reason....now rewarding it but saying if you are able to dominate in one specific set of conditions you are greater only compounds it.

Federer was immediately put over Sampras when he won the French, despite having less domination at a single slam at that point, because Sampras lacked the versality in comparison.

 

[junior74]

6+6+6+6 would be the most impressive distribution

 

[Razer]

Phelps didn't become the greatest Olympian of all time just by dominating one style of swimming.

And in tennis, the CYGS is considered the ultimate prize because conquering all surfaces and dominating the field everywhere is considered the ultimate achievement. Tennis by nature is valued on the versatility, we often talk about how homogenization has harmed the game, reduced the amount of different playing styles, even now Borg's RG-W channel slams are lauded as one of the all time greatest things in sport for that very reason....now rewarding it but saying if you are able to dominate in one specific set of conditions you are greater only compounds it.

Federer was immediately put over Sampras when he won the French, despite having less domination at a single slam at that point, because Sampras lacked the versality in comparison.

Federer at the time when he won his 14th slam was having a lopsided losing H2H to Nadal who was his main rival, he had cried like a baby months before winning that, you think people put him above Sampras after the french open ? Nope..... Nobody did. Had Federer suffered a career ending injury in June 2009 and retired from Tennis the following year then people would still have raised the Nadal factor in the conversation. I dont think versatility put Federer ahead, he only emerged ahead when he won his 15th Slam.

Winning 16 frenchs is a lot harder than winning 8 wimbledons + 8 aus opens combo because you need almost 20 years to do the 16 while the 8+8 combo can be done in a period of 10-12 years as well with a few gaps... It is much harder to stand the test of time over multiple generations

Look it this way, you can win 20 slams over a 15 year span (03-18) like Federer did but can you win 20 slams winning just 1 slam an year ? That is much harder as it requires seeing off more youngsters.....

So versatility is useless in this context since you have same slams despite having more shots at winning a slam since you are better off on more surfaces, then why dont you have more slams ? That would be the question mark.

 

[Razer]

Winning a 100m world championship of running for 5 times vs winning 100m, 200m,400m,800m,42km world championship in the same year. Which one is difficult and will be valued more?

It is easier to collect a gold medal in 100M at the oympics + 200M same year and then prepare for 400M the next olympics and win it than win 3 gold medals for 100M in 3 olympics

Because 3 olympics are 8-9 years apart. By the time you are in your 3rd the younger guys will smoke you

 

[GoatNo1]

The slams are not equal in terms of prestige has to be factored in. Dont know how you would weight them but assuming wimbledon gets around 4 times the global audience of the ao and they are 1st and 4th respectively in terms of prestige with FO ahead of us open due to uniqueness of surface then lets say 8pts for W, 6pts for FO 4 pts for USO 2 pts for AO then we have
Player 1 with 132 points
Player 2 with 110 points

Got to go with the one who locks down one of the majors. Wont ever be done again. Alcaraz already arguably showing he is more versatile then the big 3 were, he definitely is at the same age.

so 1 W = 2 USO = 4 AO
and 1 RG = 3 AO sounds fair

nowadays they are all equal of course but ok i could understand if you went with something like 12,10,9,8p or so.... still stupid (W 50% more worth than AO) but that W=4AO (300% more worth) and RG=3AO (200% more worth) .... think that everyone can write what they want... and believe they are right. to give a minus points to AO would be less dumb!

 

[mahatma]

It is easier to collect a gold medal in 100M at the oympics + 200M same year and then prepare for 400M the next olympics and win it than win 3 gold medals for 100M in 3 olympics

Because 3 olympics are 8-9 years apart. By the time you are in your 3rd the younger guys will smoke you

All correct, but fit in a 42km marathon. Clay, grass and hard are that apart

 

[Razer]

All correct, but fit in a 42km marathon. Clay, grass and hard are that apart

At the "highest level" 1 trick ponies are the ones who are considered the best. Einstein who doesn't know how to dance/sing, is not handsome, doesn't play any sport will still be rated ahead of a normal guy with PHD who is handsome, can dance, cook well, is a normal athlete as well. Why is that ? Because Einstein is 1 in 8 billion, discovered the laws of relativity that govern science while the PHD (who also holds some less significant patents) who is an all rounder is not someone who will be valued more since he can do more things which others can as well.... There are multiple people who have won CYGS ... Laver, Graf, Court, Budge but there is only 1 person who has won 14+ slams at a single tournament and that is Nadal...... There are more people with TCGS (Djoker, Graf, Court, Serena) but there is only 1 Nadal who won 14 times..... So what is a harder feat to achieve? Obviously the Single Surface dominance. So by that logic you tell me why shouldn't someone with 16 frenchs constituting 24 slams not be rated above someone with 24 but not more than 10 at any slam ? Sure you could tell me 24=24 at the worst case scenario, but in no way is a versatile combination greater than a more dominance one that stood a bigger test of time. Versatility is a bit overrated at the highest level. I have seen people write stuffs like Federer's 20 slams are worth as much as Nadal's 22 because Federer is more versatile? What sort of a logic is that? If Federer is more versatile with more changes to win a slam then why does he only have 20 slams and not 22 ? See the connection here.

Plus why will a 100M sprinter be judged for 42Km marathon?

Lets say there is a sprinter who wins gold medal at 100M with a time of 9.8 seconds, 200M with a time of 19.7 seconds, also runs a 42Km marathon or lets say he is a Navy Seal who runs 100KM ? So what ? Sure this guy is truly great at many things but he doesn't run 100M as quick as Usain Bolt ..... no ? .... Running 9.58 for 100M is rare, how many people have done that except Usain ? It is the hardest to do. So thats that.... At the highest level one trick ponies are judged the best, but other than that yes versatility is more desirable. If you are comparing 2 guys with 4 slams each then I would say a person who won all slams once is rated higher than someone who has won lets say 2 aus opens and 2 wimbledons.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Winning a 100m world championship of running for 5 times vs winning 100m, 200m,400m,800m,42km world championship in the same year. Which one is difficult and will be valued more?

Ridiculous comparison. 100m and 800m are already completely different disciplines let alone 42km. The 100m, 200m double and the 200m, 400m double are quite common, but even 100m, 400m rarely happens. Bolt is said to have been a talented 400m guy in his youth but he didn’t pursue it. 100m and marathon are as different sports as tennis and table tennis, no comparison to tennis on clay or grass.

 

[Biotic]

Nadal needs to win 1 more AO and 2 more RGs for that scenario, so if option 2 is harder, that's very troubling for the one trick pony.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Nadal needs to win 1 more AO and 2 more RGs for that scenario, so if option 2 is harder, that's very troubling for the one trick pony.

He already has 2 AOs so why does he have to win one more?

 

[Biotic]

He already has 2 AOs so why does he have to win one more?

As i said, he needs to win AO. Not the same as being gifted a meaningless cup on a silver platter by politicians.

 

[SonnyT]

16 RG is incredible, but they still call you a clay specialist.

10 AO & 7 WB makes you more of a tennis champion. But a few champions have won grass & HC slams before: Connors, Sampras and Federer.

 

[mahatma]

At the "highest level" 1 trick ponies are the ones who are considered the best. Einstein who doesn't know how to dance/sing, is not handsome, doesn't play any sport will still be rated ahead of a normal guy with PHD who is handsome, can dance, cook well, is a normal athlete as well. Why is that ? Because Einstein is 1 in 8 billion, discovered the laws of relativity that govern science while the PHD (who also holds some less significant patents) who is an all rounder is not someone who will be valued more since he can do more things which others can as well.... There are multiple people who have won CYGS ... Laver, Graf, Court, Budge but there is only 1 person who has won 14+ slams at a single tournament and that is Nadal...... There are more people with TCGS (Djoker, Graf, Court, Serena) but there is only 1 Nadal who won 14 times..... So what is a harder feat to achieve? Obviously the Single Surface dominance. So by that logic you tell me why shouldn't someone with 16 frenchs constituting 24 slams not be rated above someone with 24 but not more than 10 at any slam ? Sure you could tell me 24=24 at the worst case scenario, but in no way is a versatile combination greater than a more dominance one that stood a bigger test of time. Versatility is a bit overrated at the highest level. I have seen people write stuffs like Federer's 20 slams are worth as much as Nadal's 22 because Federer is more versatile? What sort of a logic is that? If Federer is more versatile with more changes to win a slam then why does he only have 20 slams and not 22 ? See the connection here.

Plus why will a 100M sprinter be judged for 42Km marathon?

Lets say there is a sprinter who wins gold medal at 100M with a time of 9.8 seconds, 200M with a time of 19.7 seconds, also runs a 42Km marathon or lets say he is a Navy Seal who runs 100KM ? So what ? Sure this guy is truly great at many things but he doesn't run 100M as quick as Usain Bolt ..... no ? .... Running 9.58 for 100M is rare, how many people have done that except Usain ? It is the hardest to do. So thats that.... At the highest level one trick ponies are judged the best, but other than that yes versatility is more desirable. If you are comparing 2 guys with 4 slams each then I would say a person who won all slams once is rated higher than someone who has won lets say 2 aus opens and 2 wimbledons.

Ridiculous comparison. 100m and 800m are already completely different disciplines let alone 42km. The 100m, 200m double and the 200m, 400m double are quite common, but even 100m, 400m rarely happens. Bolt is said to have been a talented 400m guy in his youth but he didn’t pursue it. 100m and marathon are as different sports as tennis and table tennis, no comparison to tennis on clay or grass.

Fair enough. I was just trying to put a bit of perspective on being a surface specialist vs being a versatile player.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Fair enough. I was just trying to put a bit of perspective on being a surface specialist vs being a versatile player.

The track and field comparison is tricky anyways, because other than in tennis you can measure the absolute level which then of course plays a big role jf not the biggest. Let’s say one guy wins the 100/200m double in two consecutive Olympics while another one wins four consecutive 100m in four different Olympics. I would argue the second one is greater or at least definitely harder to achieve. However, if the first guy runs one of his 100m wins in 9.50 setting a WC (or even if he does it at 200m) while the second guy never sets a WC or even does not come close, then of course the first guy is greater. In track and field the beautiful thing is that you don’t need the weak era talk, you can actually measure weak eras.

 

[Subway Tennis]

So, would I like to be one trick pony or would I like to be universally great player on all surfaces and all conditions? Let me think... Lol...

“one trick pony” might not be the right term to describe someone that wins 2 AO’s, 4 USOs and 2 Wimbledon’s while also pretty much not losing at his favourite major for 14 years. Even if you exclude his best surface, Nadal has an insane ATG career.

He’s also the guy who completed the career grand slam at a younger age than his two closest rivals achieved the feat, and he beat Federer and Djokovic in hardcourt and grass finals to do it.

 

[Razer]

Fair enough. I was just trying to put a bit of perspective on being a surface specialist vs being a versatile player.

Even though I am a huge critic/hater of Nadal I must say that I have no respect for versatility, I really don't think it should be used as an argument for showing someone better.

If someone is more consistent on more surfaces then that person should have more slams because he has chance to win more, now imagine how pathetic Federer was for him to end up with less slams than Nadal ? That man struggled all his life vs Nadal until 2017, you think versatility helped him win more ? He failed to beat Nadal on Nadal's home turf while Nadal snuck a win on Fed's turf, this is the epitome of failure.

In Djokovic's case he has won more slams but then it is versatility which helped him overcome the 8 slams gap which Nadal had over him, since they both are aged same Novak could not have overtaken Nadal if Novak was also a 1 trick pony, so this means being a 1 trick pony is a handicap in the overall numbers game, I cannot possibly use versatility as a reason to rate someone ahead when slam counts are same.

 

[Enceladus]

At the "highest level" 1 trick ponies are the ones who are considered the best. Einstein who doesn't know how to dance/sing, is not handsome, doesn't play any sport will still be rated ahead of a normal guy with PHD who is handsome, can dance, cook well, is a normal athlete as well.

You're wrong. Leonardo da Vinci excelled in art, science, and technology, Michelangelo was a top painter and sculptor, the poet Goethe was vertasile-educated, Benjamin Franklin was a politician and inventor at the same time, and I can name you other examples of geniuses who established themselves in multiple fields.

When it comes to tennis, Nadal has established the strongest dominance on one surface, but his rival Djokovic is more versatile and this versatility has paid off for him as he has won more Grand Slam trophies.

 

[thrust]

The slams are not equal in terms of prestige has to be factored in. Dont know how you would weight them but assuming wimbledon gets around 4 times the global audience of the ao and they are 1st and 4th respectively in terms of prestige with FO ahead of us open due to uniqueness of surface then lets say 8pts for W, 6pts for FO 4 pts for USO 2 pts for AO then we have
Player 1 with 132 points
Player 2 with 110 points

Got to go with the one who locks down one of the majors. Wont ever be done again. Alcaraz already arguably showing he is more versatile thena the big 3 were, he definitely is at the same age.

Today, and for some time now, a slam is a slam, enough of the propaganda that winning one slam is superior to winning another one.

 

[Razer]

You're wrong. Leonardo da Vinci excelled in art, science, and technology, Michelangelo was a top painter and sculptor, the poet Goethe was vertasile-educated, Benjamin Franklin was a politician and inventor at the same time, and I can name you other examples of geniuses who established themselves in multiple fields.

When it comes to tennis, Nadal has established the strongest dominance on one surface, but his rival Djokovic is more versatile and this versatility has paid off for him as he has won more Grand Slam trophies.

Da Vinci existed in ancient times.

In the last 200-300 years you won't find anyone who is a GOAT in 2 fields, the GOATs are always goat in 1.... everything else is not in the conversation unless it is also GOATy.

 

[alexio]

bolt is goat in both 100 and 200m..

 

[Hitman]

Federer at the time when he won his 14th slam was having a lopsided losing H2H to Nadal who was his main rival, he had cried like a baby months before winning that, you think people put him above Sampras after the french open ? Nope..... Nobody did. Had Federer suffered a career ending injury in June 2009 and retired from Tennis the following year then people would still have raised the Nadal factor in the conversation. I dont think versatility put Federer ahead, he only emerged ahead when he won his 15th Slam.

Winning 16 frenchs is a lot harder than winning 8 wimbledons + 8 aus opens combo because you need almost 20 years to do the 16 while the 8+8 combo can be done in a period of 10-12 years as well with a few gaps... It is much harder to stand the test of time over multiple generations

Look it this way, you can win 20 slams over a 15 year span (03-18) like Federer did but can you win 20 slams winning just 1 slam an year ? That is much harder as it requires seeing off more youngsters.....

So versatility is useless in this context since you have same slams despite having more shots at winning a slam since you are better off on more surfaces, then why dont you have more slams ? That would be the question mark.

LOL - McEnrore call him GOAT straight after RG in his interview with him. Sorry, you are very wrong on that part.

 

[uscwang]

Suppose Nadal wins 2 more RG and Novak stops at 24. I'll rank Novak's 24 ahead of Nadal's.

Novak is a more complete player than Nadal, although Nadal is still an ATG off of clay. Novak has 4 dominant seasons to Nadal's 1. He won 3 majors in a row 3 times and 4 in a row once, while Nadal won 3 in a row only once. Novak reached arguably the highest peak in achievement when he held 10 big titles at once in 2016 before WB: all 4 majors + WTF + 5 masters on ALL surfaces.

 

[Razer]

LOL - McEnrore call him GOAT straight after RG in his interview with him. Sorry, you are very wrong on that part.

Why even wait till 2009? Federer was called GOAT in 2004 itself by the media itself, a commentator like John Mcenroe calling him at 14 is not surprising during the interview because Mac has a habit of exaggerating things, he is basically a color commentator. In reality Federer only officially got the consensus after he hit 15. With same slam count general consensus is not there, the distribution nonsense is peddled by you because it suits Djokovic whose fanatic you are, but then only 15>14, not 14. There is not a better 14 than 14, however if you won 5 wimbledons 3 aus open, 3 us opens, 3 french opens then you shall not be rated higher than someone who has 7 wimbledons and 5 us opens in his 14 slams which make him the record holder at 2 slams outright while the former guy is not the record holder at any.

As much as you hate it, Nadal's 14 french open is a dominant and unique record in tennis....... beyond mortals..... that is the only GOATy record out there which shall not be broken... it trumps over any versatility by anyone.

 

[Enceladus]

Da Vinci existed in ancient times.

In the last 200-300 years you won't find anyone who is a GOAT in 2 fields, the GOATs are always goat in 1.... everything else is not in the conversation unless it is also GOATy.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Ancient is thousands of years in the past from the time of Da Vinci.

The problem, which Nadal has with his high-dominance on clay is that he is noticeably weaker on other surfaces, leading to derisive "one trick pony" remarks. A versatile player like Djokovic has the advantage that his successes are not mostly tied to one place, so he is more flexible.

 

[Razer]

Is this supposed to be a joke? Ancient is thousands of years in the past from the time of Da Vinci.

The problem, which Nadal has with his high-dominance on clay is that he is noticeably weaker on other surfaces, leading to derisive "one trick pony" remarks. A versatile player like Djokovic has the advantage that his successes are not mostly tied to one place, so he is more flexible.

Back in the 2000s and even in the 2010s I used to consider Nadal a 1 Trick Pony, but the thing is I never realized how special it was to win french open and french open again and again. I had taken it for granted that Nadal would never cross Federer. Then when Nadal's french open count reached double digits, slowly the power of his clay record stared to sink in. The more slams he won on clay, the more his legacy grew. 10 became 11, then 12.... then 13... then 14 ..... More and more mind boggling.

I realized that Federer and his versatility was so freaking useless that despite having more shots at a slam every year than Nadal still we had Roger end up as a loser....

So I realized that versatility is a worthless thing if it does not put you ahead in the race. Djokovic is ahead and so he has a case to be ahead, but not if Nadal is even tied with him because the 1 trick is a very special trick, better than any trick which Novak has had.

 

[Razer]

10 Slams

Combination A => 3 AO + 2 FO + 2 W + 3 USO
Combination B => 0 AO + 1 FO + 8 W + 1 USO

Which of these combinations is better ?

I will easily pick B .... At least I am the GOAT at Wimbledon rather than being a 2-3 time winner only everywhere which is great but not GOATY anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

I would say winning even a master's 1000 16 times is freaking difficult let alone winning a slam 16 times lol

Well no one has won a master anywhere near 16 times so no doubt

 

[alexio]

first combination is the best of course, you won everything, second guy didnt win everything hence cant be better overall than first guy and cant pretend to goat status e.g. or some another mythically great status we can fantasize

 

[TripleATeam]

Harder is not always better.

It is harder to win 200 250s than 20 slams. No one on the planet is anywhere close to 200 250s, but several have 20 slams.

It is similar here. Single surface domination on the level of 16 slams is harder, no question, simply as a case of probabilistic distribution. It is easier to win several (3-7) of each slam over a 20 year career than to win 75%+ of the events you enter for a single slam. It's just math.

However, that same math works against the specialist. Why do they only have 2 slams for 1 of them if it's not that tough to get 4?

They have the same slam count but excel in different ways. They are equals. One may be better in an all-around sense, and one is better in a surface-specific sense.

 

[TripleATeam]

The slams are not equal in terms of prestige has to be factored in. Dont know how you would weight them but assuming wimbledon gets around 4 times the global audience of the ao and they are 1st and 4th respectively in terms of prestige with FO ahead of us open due to uniqueness of surface then lets say 8pts for W, 6pts for FO 4 pts for USO 2 pts for AO then we have
Player 1 with 132 points
Player 2 with 110 points

Got to go with the one who locks down one of the majors. Wont ever be done again. Alcaraz already arguably showing he is more versatile then the big 3 were, he definitely is at the same age.

Very dumb take. 4 AOs isn't worth a single Wimbledon or 2 USOs. No one in their right mind is taking 1 RG title over 3 AOs.

 

[Razer]

Harder is not always better.

It is harder to win 200 250s than 20 slams. No one on the planet is anywhere close to 200 250s, but several have 20 slams.

It is similar here. Single surface domination on the level of 16 slams is harder, no question, simply as a case of probabilistic distribution. It is easier to win several (3-7) of each slam over a 20 year career than to win 75%+ of the events you enter for a single slam. It's just math.

However, that same math works against the specialist. Why do they only have 2 slams for 1 of them if it's not that tough to get 4?

They have the same slam count but excel in different ways. They are equals. One may be better in an all-around sense, and one is better in a surface-specific sense.

A guy who can win 200 250s will surely win 20 slams because there is no way anyone is gonna win so much skipping slams and no reason why he is such great form for years and years and not gonna win plenty of slams along the way.

What is harder has to be better, otherwise why is it harder ?

first combination is the best of course, you won everything, second guy didnt win everything hence cant be better overall than first guy and cant pretend to goat status e.g. or some another mythically great status we can fantasize

Being the best at something always counts more than being than being great everywhere but best nowhere.

A person who is on 2-3 slams everywhere at very slam will be announced a multiple slam winner but he will not be royalty, but in the 10 slam combination B you can see that guy is a 8 time wimbledon winner (royalty) somewhere, it matters.

 

[Hitman]

Why even wait till 2009? Federer was called GOAT in 2004 itself by the media itself, a commentator like John Mcenroe calling him at 14 is not surprising during the interview because Mac has a habit of exaggerating things, he is basically a color commentator. In reality Federer only officially got the consensus after he hit 15. With same slam count general consensus is not there, the distribution nonsense is peddled by you because it suits Djokovic whose fanatic you are, but then only 15>14, not 14. There is not a better 14 than 14, however if you won 5 wimbledons 3 aus open, 3 us opens, 3 french opens then you shall not be rated higher than someone who has 7 wimbledons and 5 us opens in his 14 slams which make him the record holder at 2 slams outright while the former guy is not the record holder at any.

As much as you hate it, Nadal's 14 french open is a dominant and unique record in tennis....... beyond mortals..... that is the only GOATy record out there which shall not be broken... it trumps over any versatility by anyone.

Disagree. The ultimate goal in tennis is the CYGS, and that is all about surface versality and dominance at all venues. Tennis is unique as a sport, because it is built on versality, grass, clay, hard, carpet, indoors, outdoors, the true master of the sport is the one who can not only win, but win big and win often at all places. It doesn't matter what I hate, or what you hate, or what anyone hates, tennis is about conquering all slams.

And no, Federer was officially declared GOAT after the won RG, because he not only equalled the slam record, but he managed to win at all four venues, despite being two slams behind Sampras at Wimbledon. I know how it went down. You're trying too hard.

 

[Razer]

Disagree. The ultimate goal in tennis is the CYGS, and that is all about surface versality and dominance at all venues. Tennis is unique as a sport, because it is built on versality, grass, clay, hard, carpet, indoors, outdoors, the true master of the sport is the one who can not only win, but win big and win often at all places. It doesn't matter what I hate, or what you hate, or what anyone hates, tennis is about conquering all slams.

And no, Federer was officially declared GOAT after the won RG, because he not only equalled the slam record, but he managed to win at all four venues, despite being two slams behind Sampras at Wimbledon. I know how it went down. You're trying too hard.

Who said ultimate goal is the CYGS?

Lol, How is Sampras the GOAT in 2000 to begin with if CYGS is so important? Laver was an unknown character worldwide for most casual fans, huge majority of people who follow the game are casual fans, many of them dont even know what is a CYGS. They only see what the media tells them, the slam count is what people see.

I know how it went down. You're trying too hard.

Ohh am I ? It is you who is trying hard and I will prove it now.

In the 20th century the Wimbledons and US opens were the slams which had more value/prestige than the Frenchs and of course the aussie opens(which was the least prestigious of them all) ... So you think now suddenly Federer on 14 with less Ws, less USOs, less than 285 weeks at 1, less than 6 year end 1s was ahead of Pete ???? hahahaha

Please stop the hypocrisy Hitman.... Federer only emerged ahead when he got number 15. He still had less wimbledons and weeks/years as 1 but that extra slam did it. 14 = 14 was never gonna put him ahead of Pete if Federer had broken his legs in a car accident and retired before wimbledon, the 6th wimbledon is what took him to GOAT and cemented it as he hit number 15.

 

[Hitman]

Who said ultimate goal is the CYGS?

Lol, How is Sampras the GOAT in 2000 to begin with if CYGS is so important? Laver was an unknown character worldwide for most casual fans, huge majority of people who follow the game are casual fans, many of them dont even know what is a CYGS. They only see what the media tells them, the slam count is what people see.



Ohh am I ? It is you who is trying hard and I will prove it now.

In the 20th century the Wimbledons and US opens were the slams which had more value/prestige than the Frenchs and of course the aussie opens(which was the least prestigious of them all) ... So you think now suddenly Federer on 14 with less Ws, less USOs, less than 285 weeks at 1, less year 6 end 1 was ahead of Pete ???? hahahaha

Please stop the hypocrisy Hitman.... Federer only emerged ahead when he got number 15. He still had less wimbledons and weeks/years as 1 but that extra slam did it. 14 = 14 was never gonna put him ahead of Pete if Federer had broken his legs in a car accident and retired before wimbledon, the 6th wimbledon is what took him to 1 and cemented it.

Are you being overly aggressive like you were in your previous such thread, just to get a reaction and keep it going?

Interesting. I see what is going on here. Enjoy.

 

[Razer]

Are you being overly aggressive like you were in your previous such thread, just to get a reaction and keep it going?

Interesting. I see what is going on here. Enjoy.

But I still dont see how Roger was ahead of Pete with 14 = 14 when the whole world knew Pete had 7 Wimbledons and 5 US opens, not to mention the year end 1 stats too.


Roger's french win over Soderling was a lucky win, it did not have such a coronation type feeling that wimbledon 2009 had when Roddick apologized to Pete and then rod laver, pete, borg all were there .... that was a different feeling


Federer's CGS can never be wanked over Pete IMO, because Pete played in a less homogenous era, so the true comparison of Roger in terms of winning all slams is his 2 rivals and there nadal has dcgs, nole has tcgs, at least Nadals' dcgs can be questioned due to ao22 but Novak;s is not questionable and that is where Roger fails.... So this MUST WIN ALL SLAMS criteria which you using against pete is not valid, it only became valid after late 2000s when these terms started being discussed.

Today Olympics is a Big title, but was it the case 25 years ago ? No.... So you cannot use Nadal's or Murray's olympics gold to belittle Pete

 

[RaulRamirez]

I question whether being more difficult to achieve makes it better.
To simplify, if two players (hypothetically speaking, of course) both win 24 slams, I'm not sure that one is better than the other.
24 = 24.
If he does so, Path One would seem to have been "easier" for Rafa to achieve, and Path Two "easier" for Novak.
Both are incredible, obviously, and I would guess that 24 slams on Path One will be even harder to break than 24 on Path Two.

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Since the millennium tennis has basically been played on a single surface anyway…

 

[TripleATeam]

A guy who can win 200 250s will surely win 20 slams because there is no way anyone is gonna win so much skipping slams and no reason why he is such great form for years and years and not gonna win plenty of slams along the way.

What is harder has to be better, otherwise why is it harder ?



Being the best at something always counts more than being than being great everywhere but best nowhere.

A person who is on 2-3 slams everywhere at very slam will be announced a multiple slam winner but he will not be royalty, but in the 10 slam combination B you can see that guy is a 8 time wimbledon winner (royalty) somewhere, it matters.

Then 60 250s. No one man on Earth has 60 250s. Therefore winning 60 250s is harder than 20 slams.

Even take it a step down. Only 1 man has ever had 50 250-level equivalents. Jimmy Connors. However 3 men have 20+ slams. Therefore it is harder.

Ask anyone on the planet and they'd rather have 20 slams.