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

[djokovic the conqueror]

I prefer to have Djokovic's slams because they're more versatile and Djokovic had to earn it the hard way. He didn't have the fortune of having weak draws.

 

[DSH]

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

The devil squared!?

 

[NoleFam]

Whether something is harder or more difficult is based on whose perspective from where you're looking at it. If winning 10 AO's and 7 Wimbledons were easier wouldn't Nadal have more than 2 of each? If winning 14 RGs was easier, wouldn't Djokovic have more than 3? So whether it's harder can vary. But what's better?

Since the AO became a major in 1924 and RG was open to amateurs and became a major in 1925, no man has ever won 3 of each Slam until Djokovic. That's nearly 100 years. Back then, 3 of them were on grass so I would think that would have been easier but he did it on 3 surfaces. I don't really think it's a question that his achievements are better from that standpoint (especially with the 7 Wimbledons which is the oldest Slam and holy grail of tennis) when you're looking at Grand Slam tennis as all 4 Slams versus looking at it from it any other angle.

 

[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.

Not to mention also...

Winning 20 AOs is harder than winning 6 AO, 6 RG, 6 Wimbledon, and 6 USO. For one you need to be at or near best in the world for around 6-10 years. In the other you need to play a roughly 25-year career (unprecedented top-level play) and win >80% of those slams.

But still anyone would take 24 slams.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Don’t know about it being “official” but @Hitman is 100% correct about what the consensus was after the French Open. I was following closely too. Whether it was the right opinion to hold is a completely different thing altogether. The point is that most believed Federer had surpassed Sampras. It was absolutely the prevailing sentiment by then, whether or not it was the right one.

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Whether something is harder or more difficult is based on whose perspective from where you're looking at it. If winning 10 AO's and 7 Wimbledons were easier wouldn't Nadal have more than 2 of each? If winning 14 RGs was easier, wouldn't Djokovic have more than 3? So whether it's harder can vary. But what's better?

Since the AO became a major in 1924 and RG was open to amateurs and became a major in 1925, no man has ever won 3 of each Slam until Djokovic. That's nearly 100 years. Back then, 3 of them were on grass so I would think that would have been easier but he did it on 3 surfaces. I don't really think it's a question that his achievements are better from that standpoint (especially with the 7 Wimbledons which is the oldest Slam and holy grail of tennis) when you're looking at Grand Slam tennis as all 4 Slams versus looking at it from it any other angle.

The CYGS was traditionally held in much higher regard than the majors total; as recently as the 70s the top guys wouldn’t bother to play the AO unless a CYGS was involved.
It’s well documented that the conditions & skill sets required to win majors became boringly homogeneous around the turn of the millennium.

 

[aldeayeah]

I don't think there's a relevant difference between these two scenarios, but if pushed, I'd go for the one that's spread across a longer timespan. So many things can go wrong in such a long time.

 

[Razer]

Not to mention also...

Winning 20 AOs is harder than winning 6 AO, 6 RG, 6 Wimbledon, and 6 USO. For one you need to be at or near best in the world for around 6-10 years. In the other you need to play a roughly 25-year career (unprecedented top-level play) and win >80% of those slams.

But still anyone would take 24 slams.

You are not understanding the point here.

Someone who can win 20 Aus Opens will automatically win 40+ slams in total. Because along with 20 AOs, at least 3-4 Frenchs, 8-10 Wimbledons and 10+ USOs will also come since you are so damn good at the first slam of the year, the other conditions are also not that different for you to not shine at least once in an year in between.
Clay is very different from HC/Grass and yet somebody who was capable of winning 14-15 frenchs happened to win 8 slams outside it as well since he is that damn good.

We cannot choose to be good somewhere and bad elsewhere, it just happens. In this case the guy who is at his best for 20 years is just an anomaly, which is what Nadal was.....no way can versatility triump over 16 french opens if the slam count is the same.

Don’t know about it being “official” but @Hitman is 100% correct about what the consensus was after the French Open. I was following closely too. Whether it was the right opinion to hold is a completely different thing altogether. The point is that most believed Federer had surpassed Sampras. It was absolutely the prevailing sentiment by then, whether or not it was the right one.

Consensus among who? Your friends circle?
As I mentioned earlier, even before reaching 14 people were talking of Fed as possibly the best ..... After US Open 2004 itself the talks started, then in 05, 06 people were still promoting.... By 2007 end Federer firmly had the aura of a guy better than Sampras due to all those parallel wimbledon and us open streaks. But when did he get a global consensus ????? ONLY AFTER WINNING WIMBLEDON 2009..... The commentators were saying Federer is playing for history today again and again, everybody was saying, that is when he got the consensus...... Mcenroe blabbering nonsense while interviewing Roger after the french win means nothing, not the first time he has talked of Roger as possibly the best ever..... that kind of stuff........ Look, I am following Federer since his hopman cup years and I was a big fan too in that entire decade, you or Hitman are not selling me this idea of when Fed was considered what because you guys were not even Fedfans in those times, no? So how would you know what the consensus was? It was a miserable day for a Fed fan at AO09, after that a lucky french win had everybody breathe a sigh of relief, but people still wanted number 15 since he had only tied. You cannot be ahead with a tie, understand this first, a tie is a tie and not lead for a reason.

 

[NoleFam]

The CYGS was traditionally held in much higher regard than the majors total; as recently as the 70s the top guys wouldn’t bother to play the AO unless a CYGS was involved.
It’s well documented that the conditions & skill sets required to win majors became boringly homogeneous around the turn of the millennium.

It was obviously more homogeeous when 3 were played on grass and 1 on clay. How many of those guys in the 70s won RG, Wimbledon and the USO at least one time?

 

[TheFifthSet]

Consensus among who? Your friends circle?

No. The fact that we’re even having this conversation indicates you weren’t following tennis closely enough around this time. The pendulum shifted in Federer’s favour when he won the French Open. Did it reflect reality? No, I don’t think so. The likes of Laver, Gonzales etc were still greater than him by then, perhaps even Sampras, but the media-manufactured debate was unfortunately confined to a comparison between the two of them.

I can link you umpteen articles, threads and player testimonies (e.g Sampras, June 2009: “Regardless if he won [in Paris] or not, he goes down as the greatest ever: This just confirms it," he told the AP. Laver, June 2009: "It certainly puts him in a class by himself”) but you’ll disregard them because your mind is made up.

As I mentioned earlier, even before reaching 14 people were talking of Fed as possibly the best ..... After US Open 2004 itself the talks started

Yes, I have cited Mac’s words from that time on several occasions—feel free to use the search engine. Nothing novel there, and I was not unduly influenced by them.

, then in 05, 06 people were still promoting.... By 2007 end Federer firmly had the aura of a guy better than Sampras due to all those parallel wimbledon and us open streaks. But when did he get a global consensus ?????

What is “global consensus” and how does it differ from regular consensus? If you mean to say he got a larger share of the pie after winning Wimbledon, sure. Every additional accomplishment helps.

ONLY AFTER WINNING WIMBLEDON 2009..... The commentators were saying Federer is playing for history today again and again, everybody was saying, that is when he got the consensus...... Mcenroe blabbering nonsense while interviewing Roger after the french win means nothing, not the first time he has talked of Roger as possibly the best ever..... that kind of stuff........

I disagree.

Look, I am following Federer since his hopman cup years and I was a big fan too in that entire decade, you or Hitman are not selling me this idea of when Fed was considered what because you guys were not even Fedfans in those times, no?

Fan since ‘02, no “selling” necessary as, once again, it was obvious this was the consensus following Federer’s win.

So how would you know what the consensus was?

I was there.

It was a miserable day for a Fed fan at AO09,

There for that too.

after that a lucky french win had everybody breathe a sigh of relief, but people still wanted number 15 since he had only tied. You cannot be ahead with a tie,

You are again shifting lanes with the arithmetic lesson. Great athletes with high peaks can get prematurely anointed, for one reason or another. Michael Jordan was firmly entrenched as the GOAT in the public eye by ‘93, despite trailing several players in accomplishments.

Whether Federer had actually surpassed Sampras is very much up for debate. However, the consensus was that he had (and if you ask me to meet your impossible standards of proof, I’d ask what proof you have to the contrary)…I’ll repeat it once more, this was quite obvious to most at the time. That it wasn’t unanimous or deserved is neither here nor there; total unanimity wasn’t deserved even after Wimby ‘09 (nor was it achieved, there were plenty of hold-outs still).

 

[Razer]

Great athletes with high peaks can get prematurely anointed, for one reason or another. Michael Jordan was firmly entrenched as the GOAT in the public eye by ‘93, despite trailing several players in accomplishments.

Whether Federer had actually surpassed Sampras is very much up for debate. However, the consensus was that he had (and if you ask me to meet your impossible standards of proof, I’d ask what proof you have to the contrary)…I’ll repeat it once more, this was quite obvious to most at the time. That it wasn’t unanimous or deserved is neither here nor there; total unanimity wasn’t deserved even after Wimby ‘09 (nor was it achieved, there were plenty of hold-outs still).

Federer indeed did get anointed prematurely, way before he even had 14, that is what I am telling you. It looked right at that time but eventually we learned that he had 2 rivals who were better than him. Sampras even though looked inferior to us naive minds in mid 2000s or late 2000s, today when we look back in retrospect then we realize that Sampras's greatness has grown due to Federer losing his numbers to his 2 better rivals. Federer exploiting a vacuum to reach 15 in quick time was not a true indicator of him being greater than Sampras because Sampras did not have the homogenous vacuum in his era, and Sampras also did have rivals from day 1, however what Nadal and Federer taught us is that Federer was overrated to the core. Nadal and Djokovic just refined our beliefs (mine for sure), all the things we believed earlier was proven wrong. We though Fed playing into 30s was due to he being godly, but hey everyone is playing into 30s past him, looks like he was only the beneficiary of benefits which Pete did not have. Then we thought Nadal;s body would break down at 26, but he lasted a full decade more till 36. So today we know what we thought of Federer was really misguided and probably naive because we did not have reference points of the eras before the 21st century to compare them. Adults told us hey kids Fed is butchering a weak era, but we never listened, today we know that what the grownups said back then was true all along. So lets not jump into Pete graciously quote Fed at Fed winnning slam 14, for all practical reasons Fed only surpassed Pete when he hit 15, a wider consensus was only reached by the media at that point.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Federer indeed did get anointed prematurely, way before he even had 14,

So we agree re: consensus at the time. Discussion basically over lol.

We learned that he had 2 rivals who were better than him.

Then…accepting your premises and logic…Federer was never the consensus GOAT, since he eventually got surpassed numerically. We learned he “had 2 rivals who were better than him.”

Does this mean Djokovic will lose his current consensus in the future, if he gets surpassed? Retroactively?

No, it doesn’t. It means the consensus will have changed.

You’re twisting yourself into loops here man.

for all practical reasons Fed only surpassed Pete when he hit 15, a wider consensus was only reached by the media at that point.

There was a month gap between between RG ‘09 and Wimby ‘09. What sort of “wider consensus” could’ve been demonstrated that would satisfy you? Can you spell it out?

Federer exploiting a vacuum to reach 15 in quick time was not a true indicator of him being greater than Sampras because Sampras did not have the homogenous vacuum in his era, and Sampras also did have rivals from day 1, however what Nadal and Federer taught us is that Federer was overrated to the core. Nadal and Djokovic just refined our beliefs (mine for sure), all the things we believed earlier was proven wrong. We though Fed playing into 30s was due to he being godly, but hey everyone is playing into 30s past him, looks like he was only the beneficiary of benefits which Pete did not have. Then we thought Nadal;s body would break down at 26, but he lasted a full decade more till 36. So today we know what we thought of Federer was really misguided and probably naive because we did not have reference points of the eras before the 21st century to compare them.

All irrelevant to the point being discussed, doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the same lines if they’re meant to buttress an unrelated argument.

What I said was that the consensus at the time was clear. Whether it was incorrect or changed over time are different topics.

 

[Razer]

So we agree re: consensus at the time. Discussion basically over lol.



Then…accepting your premises and logic…Federer was never the consensus GOAT, since he eventually got surpassed numerically. We learned he “had 2 rivals who were better than him”.

Does this mean Djokovic will lose his current consensus in the future, if he gets surpassed? Retroactively?

No, it doesn’t. It means the consensus will have changed.

You’re twisting yourself into loops here man.




There was a month gap between between RG ‘09 and Wimby ‘09. What sort of “wider consensus” could’ve been demonstrated that would satisfy you? Can you spell it out?



All irrelevant to the point being discussed, doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the same lines if they’re meant to buttress an unrelated argument.

What I said was that the consensus at the time was clear. Whether it was incorrect or changed over time are different topics.

Djokovic cannot go below Fed/Nadal because he is from their own era.

Sampras won his own race of slams as he was the best of his era...
Djokovic also has won (safe to think so.... Nadal looked finished) the slams race of his era.... which is this 21st century era.

Federer got the worldwide consensus/a clearer consensus after he won his 15th slam (because 15>14 and everyone looks a numbers) when everyone said he has surpassed Sampras for sure, because like I said that time we views Tennis differently, we expected Rafa to retire at 26 and Federer to also retire as he entered his early 30s. We thought Federer era was over as he would retired, but later we understood the era was only half done, he wouldnt retire for many more years because he had more to offer, so did Rafa... the slams culminated to what we are seeing now..... So I dont think Djokovic can retroactively lose to Fed now since it is all over.... but in Fed vs Sampras case, remember they are from totally different eras, completely no connection, so maybe when we compared Fed with Pete and wrote Pete off even before Fed broke his record, probably we were wrong.... thats why I said retroactively Pete looks greater now since he did win his slams race in his era and as we would now learn that Fed lost his..... That having said, none of this matters because Fed did enjoy GOAT status for more than a decade, more like 15 years because he peaked high in mid 00s and he was also a moving target, so one could classify Fed in an era between Pete and Djokovic, but I now feel that is not fair.... the 2003-20222 for me 1 era, a very long era for sure, unlike the previous one which would be 1990-2002 ... something like 12 years only.... but the big 3 careers was really long.... similar to Navratilova-evert....

 

[TheFifthSet]

Djokovic cannot go below Fed/Nadal because he is from their own era.

Again totally irrelevant. I was talking about the consensus at the time; not whether Federer eventually got usurped.

Sampras won his own race of slams as he was the best of his era...

And he was, by consensus, surpassed by Federer in ‘09, after RG.

Federer got the worldwide consensus/a clearer consensus after he won his 15th slam (because 15>14 and everyone looks a numbers) when everyone said he has surpassed Sampras for sure,

You intimated that they were viewed as bang-equal after RG ‘09. They were not, by consensus, viewed that way. It was seen as a pivotal event that marked Federer leap-frogging Sampras in the public eye. The fact that this viewpoint became even more prevalent with each Federer victory (as it naturally would) does not mean RG ‘09 wasn’t the inflection point I argue it was.

because like I said that time we views Tennis differently, we expected Rafa to retire at 26 and Federer to also retire as he entered his early 30s.

Which means “our” opinions on wholly separate matters (read: not the consensus at the time) have changed. No more, no less.

We thought Federer era was over as he would retired, but later we understood the era was only half done,

And the consensus evolved accordingly.

he wouldnt retire for many more years because he had more to offer, so did Rafa... the slams culminated to what we are seeing now..... So I dont think Djokovic can retroactively lose to Fed now since it is all over....

If Nadal ingests some performance-enhancing bull testicles, numbs his foot completely, consumes an anti-aging serum and wins the CYGS in ‘24, does this retroactively change the current consensus?

No, the consensus will change.

You’re just arguing for the sake of it at this point.

but in Fed vs Sampras case, remember they are from totally different eras,

Totally unrelated to you basically arguing that retrocausality is a thing.

completely no connection, so maybe when we compared Fed with Pete and wrote Pete off even before Fed broke his record, probably we were wrong.... thats why I said retroactively Pete looks greater now since he did win his slams race in his era and as we would now learn that Fed lost his..... That having said, none of this matters because Fed did enjoy GOAT status for more than a decade,

The mental gymnastics here are dizzying. Yes, Federer was the Consensus GOAT for a long time. That changed when he was overtaken in accomplishments and certain perspectives evolved.

Also, fwiw, Pete doesn’t look greater to me now. My position on him hasn’t changed since my teenage years. That it took a while for popular opinion to catch up is a nice little byproduct of current tour homogeneity, but it doesn’t enhance Sampras’s actual (rather than perceived) greatness.

 

[messiahrobins]

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.

I would tbh. AO is why court was never seen as female goat. Evert for example has always been considered greater. That said different generations will view this differently.

 

[messiahrobins]

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.

Depends what generation you refer to. Under 35s thats correct id imagine. Over 50s no chance that applies 35-50 i assume would be a split

 

[TripleATeam]

I would tbh. AO is why court was never seen as female goat. Evert for example has always been considered greater. That said different generations will view this differently.

No, Court wasn't seen as female GOAT because she was only 2 slams ahead of Graf (1 ahead of Williams) while winning the majority of her slams in the Amateur Era against overwhelmingly Australian draws (not international at all) with fewer rounds. If Wimbledon in 2025 suddenly banned all non-English players and restricted the draw to 16 players (and 4 rounds), no one would consider that a real slam. Evert played in the Open Era against professionals. Tougher draws and more rounds at slams.

In the modern day, all the best players are at each event. It's just as hard to beat the #1, #2, and #4 players in the world in a row in Australia as it is in Wimbledon. Back then the best wouldn't even play Australia.