Which of these is the greatest accomplishment

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MonkeyBoy, Mar 16, 2013.

?

Which should be the most revered?

  1. THE grand slam (Laver)

    74 vote(s)
    42.0%
  2. 3 consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams (Borg)

    14 vote(s)
    8.0%
  3. 237 consecutive weeks at #1 (Federer)

    64 vote(s)
    36.4%
  4. 6 consecutive YE#1s (Sampras)

    8 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces (Nadal)

    13 vote(s)
    7.4%
  6. 46 match win streak (Vilas)

    3 vote(s)
    1.7%
  1. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,349

    Two players already in 14 years.. And Nole will do it sooner or later which will make it 3. And I'm sure it will be done another 4-5 times in the next twenty years. Prior to that it was 1-2 players in 40 YEARS. ROFLMAO
     
    #51
  2. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    They are two great players, and IF Djokovic does it, it will be a part of what makes him great. But that and the rest of your post is hypothetical.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2013
    #52
  3. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    If the surfaces are so "homogenised" how come Murray hasn't even been a factor at RG? Why does Delpo do better at RG and USO than AO and WIM?

    Just because Fed, Rafa and Novak are always the main contenders at RG doesn't mean the surface is similar to others.

    Fed and Novak grew up on outdoor clay, so it shouldn't be a surprise how well they can do at RG.
     
    #53
  4. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    Nope

    Not correct at all. Laver would have LOVED 2 of the slams to be on hard court, it would have made it so much easier for him to win the grand slam, since he was the best hard court player in the world at the time and there was so much more competition for him on grass in those days.
     
    #54
  5. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Don't worry mate, there are plenty of people on here who don't know what they're on about. The grass competition at the time would've been much more difficult than HC.
     
    #55
  6. THESEXPISTOL

    THESEXPISTOL Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    Europe
    All of them are impressive. Can't pick one!
     
    #56
  7. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    Golden slam for Agassi, since he won the Olympics in '96. The olympics aren't on the same level, but a nice little cherry on top.
     
    #57
  8. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    Laver's slam pales in comparison to nothing. He's done something in a calendar year that no male player has ever matched. I don't care about surfaces and competition...winning the calendar slam is the holy grail of tennis accomplishments and he's the only man to ever do it.

    Maybe it is harder today, maybe not. But, it has never been easy or someone else would have done it.
     
    #58
  9. Indio

    Indio Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    335
    Federer's feat of winning 11 of 12 non-French majors from 2004 to 2007 should receive some credit. To achieve it, he went 80-1 (with a pair of W/Os as well). That's an extremely impressive record, no matter what the "weak era" and "homogenization" crews say.

    Those who claim Laver's 69 Slam is the top accomplishment: Does it matter that he had to win only five matches in the Australian? If not, why not?
     
    #59
  10. TCG

    TCG Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    All are impressive but if I had to pick one I would go with 237 Weeks @ No.1. To be that dominant for more than 5 years is crazy!!
     
    #60
  11. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    Federers records is a plethora.
     
    #61
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,548
    Connors

    FYI Do you realise that the 245 weeks from july 29, 1974 to april 8, 1979 Jimmy Connors spent 244 of them as number 1?
     
    #62
  13. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,349
    Pancho's reign at #1 historically is probably the most impressive.

    8 years at #1. though "unofficially".
     
    #63
  14. TCG

    TCG Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    245 is not consecutive is it? If he lost the ranking even for a day in between then its not impressive. That is like saying Roger missed a non calendar slam by losing the final set at 09 USO. 237 is impressive because it's consecutive.
     
    #64
  15. TCG

    TCG Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    652
    It can't be impressive if it's not official :)
     
    #65
  16. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    You're insane. Four to five times in the next twenty years? It's been done twice in the last 13. It's very possible Djokovic doesn't complete the career slam. Federer and Nadal are two of the greatest players of all time - it's no surprise that they both have career slams.

    And some older players my have had career slams if the tour were organized then the way it is today. Connors skipped the French for five of his best years due to disputes about him playing World Team Tennis, I believe, and that's the only major he didn't win. Borg could have easily picked up an Australian if he'd played it more than once and he could have won a U.S. Open if he hadn't quite at 26. Lendl got close, reaching two consecutive Wimbledon finals. You make it sound like two of the greatest players of all time winning the career slam is odd simply because they played in the same era. It's not. I agree it's easier to win the career slam now because of surface homogenization and a more stable season that offers equal weight to each of the four slams, but if you really think that it will happen another four or five times in the next twenty years, you are certifiably insane.
     
    #66
  17. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Laver's Grand slam is the greatest achievement
     
    #67
  18. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    How is Connors having 243 out of 244 weeks at number one is less impressive than Federer's 237 consecutive? I mean really, talk about complete myopia.

    BTW, Steffi Graf with 377 total weeks at #1 in her career. Yet again... more supporting evidence for her GOATness.

    Though Federer had all of those consecutive weeks at #1, amassing points by beating the crap out of every tournament he entered... he still failed to get a GRAND slam. Federer had three shots at it. He won three out of four in two of those years. He won two out of four in the last year.

    The fact that the great Roger Federer could not accomplish this should make people realize how difficult this task is.

    All of that being said, I would be willing to bet my life savings that Federer and Connors themselves would say that they consider Laver's double GRAND slam to be the single greatest accomplishment in tennis to date.
     
    #68
  19. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    237 Weeks at #1.
    3 consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams (Borg).
    6 consecutive YE#1s (Sampras).

    The rest are too short of a time period though Laver's slam is the best of those.
     
    #69
  20. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Fed has only 1 slam missing and was a finalist there or he would have won 7 slams in a row, now you can see why Laver's 4 in a row isn't a big deal as made out to be.

    This is more impressive than 4 in one year.


    Fed also had 2 slams short of winning 10 in a row, the other two he missed he was a finalist, again more impressive than 4 in a row.
     
    #70
  21. VaporDude95

    VaporDude95 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Laver's grandslam
    Federer's period at #1
     
    #71
  22. firepanda

    firepanda Professional

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,423
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Ooh, tricky. Laver's accomplishment is obviously insane, but there are just so many asterisks besides it. The year end #1 stats re impressive and imply longevity and consistency. Borg's accomplishment is ridiculous and so is Nadal's, although I'm surprised he's the only one to do it. I'd put Borg and Nadal equal, although I ended up voting for Nadal.
     
    #72
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    that's because the points system at that time was flawed ...connors wouldn't be year end #1 in 77 and 78 ( thus cutting down a lot of weeks ) under a reasonable system ( he actually would be in 82 though )
     
    #73
  24. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    voted for laver's GS out of those options ....

    237 consecutive weeks @ #1 isn't even federer's most impressive feat IMO ...

    his run of 23 consecutive SFs, including making 18 out of 19 finals in those, winning 14 of those majors is better

    so is him winning both wimbledon and USO 5 times consecutively ...
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2013
    #74
  25. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    There were no official rankings before 1973.
     
    #75
  26. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    tough titty
     
    #76
  27. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Sorry, but a GOAT debate takes all eras into account.
     
    #77
  28. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Is there anybody else on the thinking planet that possibly believes this an sees the logic? If so, please explain it to me.

    What??? We're going to now count "would have" and "is only X short" when we're considering GOATness?

    First off, do some homework. It isn't "4 in a row". It is the calendar grand slam. Holding of all titles in a single year. Secondly, Laver didn't do it once, but TWICE. Third, he did it separated by seven years.

    Fourth (and what people don't realize), in the Professional league he did it AGAIN in 1967. He won the US Pro, French Pro, Wembley Pro, and Wimbledon Pro. In two of those finals he beat Rosewall.

    I'm not saying that Federer's 237 is not impressive. It certainly is. But there is no way that it comes close to Laver's accomplishment.
     
    #78
  29. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986

    My response was to counter a post that mentioned Conners would have had 244 straight weeks at #1 and only missed 1 week from doing it BTW.
    So I brought up another 'what if'.


    But since it was brought up:

    People have come closer to CYGS than to 237 weeks in a row.
    One area about a records strength is how close people have come to beating it.
    Several have come down to one tournament to get 4 in a row.
    Only one to 237 weeks at #1, Conners was close it was said beforehand, I'll take it as correct. If not correct then nobody.


    Laver's slam record being matched was dependent on whether Nadal made the final of the french open most probably. 2 times this happened.
    Nadal is the best on clay so Laver was lucky here, twice.
    Conners missed 1974 french open, close.
    A few close calls for Laver.


    One only shows a hot streak for a year and is four tournaments, the other takes close to five years, any slipup for any reason in those five years it's over or players close to #1 ranking getting hot and it's over. Injury could also end it.

    There's no special significance to winning four in a row in one year, could be winning four in a row at any other time is better.

    The shortest amount of time being at peak level to win four slams in a row is the CYGS, all other slams in a row takes a year discounting when they changed the AO date. This is up for debate I'm sure.

    So I'll go against the grain and take the 237 weeks at #1 as the record most difficult to beat.
     
    #79
  30. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    You are using "close enough" statistics as counting as something. If that is the case, we could start counting finals appearances as being nearly as good as winning. Or perhaps we should count the actual score in the final... as being almost as good as winning it.

    Then, you start talking about "if so-and-so hadn't done this and if so-and-so hadn't been injured" it would have been a sure thing.

    I'm sorry. But just by the pure fact that you are resorting to hypotheticals to elevate one person's GOATness and lessen another person's GOATness pretty much invalidates the whole argument.

    The discussion can't go anywhere. Because anytime someone doesn't have the numbers to beat your GOAT... you say the numbers matter. But whenever someone has the numbers to beat your GOAT... you say that your GOAT was "close enough" and start resorting to hypotheticals.

    The only consistency in your argument is that if your GOAT is involved, he wins no matter what.
     
    #80
  31. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Fed may be my GOAT or not, that's another conversation.

    I noticed you didn't address my points.

    Being close matters here. How close does someone come to Lavers record or how close someone comes to Federer's record.
    It's an area that matters how strong a record is.

    Reread my post and come back, forget about the GOAT stuff for now.
     
    #81
  32. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I already disagree with your premise about being close mattering. So we can't have a conversation about it. This is the axiom that you use to derive the rest of your argument.

    If I disagree with your axiom, I can't argue it one way or another.

    You say "close" matters. I say it doesn't.

    If we disagree at that fundamental premise, we aren't going to get anywhere.
     
    #82
  33. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    No prob.
    All of these are great achievements so I know we'll agree there.
     
    #83
  34. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Absolutely. All are great achievements for certain.
     
    #84
  35. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,130
    Biggest single accomplishment is Grand Slam.
    I think the 6 consecutive year end #1's is underrated by the group here, but of course, I didn't pick it as the best single accomplishment either.
     
    #85
  36. MonkeyBoy

    MonkeyBoy Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,471
    I omitted it on purpose because my thread is about consecutive streaks.

    In retrospect, I probably should have included Fed's final/semi/quarter streaks.
     
    #86
  37. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Actually, it should have been omitted because 17 slams is not as impressive as 18 slams or 22 slams.
     
    #87
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,237
    "close" and being "far" does distinct the degree of difficulty. Connors set the record at 160 straight weeks and Fed obliterated his record by reaching 237. However, Laver's GS is less difficult because Roger was 2 sets away from winning it in 2 occasions(2006, 2007). My opinion is record that are far beyond a player's grasp has some merit. I suppose you believe Roger's streak makes no different had Roger set the record at 161 weeks rather than 237.

    Also, the modern GS is more difficult to obtain than it was back in 1969. EVen Laver have conceded that winning 2 GS in his day is equal today's 1 GS.
     
    #88
  39. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,761
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    There's no measure of what it means, though. In a difficult field, it will be harder to log consecutive wins than it would be against a weak field. The discussion cannot be held based on the number itself.

    I have been trying to say this over and over again. Any statistic by itself means nothing. You have to take other things in context when deciding how great the accomplishment is.

    So you are saying that there is a direct relationship between the difficultly of Laver's two calendar slams because Roger was two sets away twice? On what can you possibly base this conclusion? I'm sorry, but this makes zero sense.

    No. I do believe there is a difference. But it lies in more than just the statistic. The statistic itself is meaningless. Against a strong field, the best player will not do as well as they would against a weak field.

    What I am saying is that it is possible for someone with a 180 consecutive game streak to be more impressive than someone with a 237 consecutive game streak. It depends on the field.

    You have no basis for that assertion. It doesn't matter what Laver thinks. If Laver thought that one GS in today's world equaled two GS in his era... would you still believe it? And even if we could compare possibly compare these things, Federer still didn't get even one.

    I'm all for having intelligent discussion about this stuff, but there is nothing intelligent about stating a number... saying it is best... and leaving it at that.

    When it comes to achievement... numbers are overrated whereas context is underrated.
     
    #89
  40. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    I guess it is more important what you think?
     
    #90
  41. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Excellent post.

    Numbers don't simply tell the whole story.

    For example, in 2011 Nadal had to play Djokovic in the WIM final. If it were against Philippoussis, he would've won it.

    He also had to play Novak in the USO final. If it were against Hewitt, he would've won it.

    In 2012 AO he had to play Novak again, if it were against Baghdatis he would've won it.

    Had these things happened Nadal would be sitting on 14 majors now. Obviously more than his 11. Just an example of how numbers don't tell the whole story. Novak from 2011 and AO2012 was a MUCH more difficult opponent than those 3 I mentioned.

    If Fed had to face Novak of AO2012 form in his AO2006 final instead of Baghdatis, he would've lost it no doubt.

    Just like if Fed had to face anyone but Nadal in those RG finals he would've won it on multiple occasions. Look what happened in 2009 with Nadal out of his way. Of course, if he had beat Nadal to win it, even once, then that one title would be more impressive over the others because of who he beat to win it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2013
    #91
  42. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,237
    I didn't even mention weak/strong field, but since you mentioned it, the consensus that modern tennis has greater depth/talent players than in the 60s. Even Laver, Mac, Lendl, Agassi...all shared the same view.


    Yes, because no one is remotely close to 237 weeks, but Fed was 2 sets away in 2 ocassions(in an era that's even harder than in 1969). So yes, the 237 weeks is tougher to reach.


    Weak/strong field is hypothetical, which is what you're doing. And that argument is not a win win situation anyway since most people believe tennis is stronger than laver's time. At least my argument is based on fact...2 sets way from the GS is a lot closer than compare to 160 weeks(connors) to 237 weeks.


    Pointless because Laver never believe that. He actually played tennis and yes, his opinion matter. Yes, it's subjective, but you can't say his knowledge/experience has no merit.

    achievement/numbers is overrated (according to you) but you can't dispute it's the only objective method. My argument on the level of difficulty is about non-subjective argument while you're using subjective arguement.
     
    #92
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,237
    Again, this is all hypothetical and it's subjective to agree/disagree. It has no credibility. you hear that mightyrick?
     
    #93
  44. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,379
    I voted for Federer's streak influenced by 17 majors and many French finals.

    Laver's slam is very impressive but 3 out of 4 slams were grass and overall level of competition was not as deep. I didn't realize he had 2 byes in the Australian.
     
    #94
  45. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    TMF if you value what former/current pros say so much.

    Murray said Nadal is the best. So did Novak.

    Agassi said Fed of today (2012 I think at the time he said it) would beat Fed when he was 25.

    Hewitt said that he hasn't noticed much difference in Fed's game and the reason he's been losing more at majors is because Rafa and Novak came along.

    Courier said Fed's FH is only susceptible against guys like Rafa, Novak and Murray.

    Federer himself said he was a better player than 2005 (I think it might've been 2009 or 2010 when he said this)
     
    #95
  46. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    No, it is a fact that Novak 2011/2012 >>>>>>>>> Scud, Baggy and Hewitt.

    That means he was a tougher opponent than they were when Fed faced them to rack up slams.

    You don't have any counter argument so you need to play the "it's subjective" card. You fail to realise just about everything on this forum is subjective including Federer GOAT talk.
     
    #96
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,237
    And the fact that Roger's best was in 2004-07, you can't say Nole 2011/12 would beat Roger's best because there's no answer to it. Just because you say Bagdatis is not as good as Nole doesn't automatically mean prime Roger would not beat Nole. At least we have fact for 2010/11 USO when Nole at his best was facing match points against aging Roger. Again, who to say Nole can beat Roger at his best? There's no answer.

    I'm countering your argument with the same premise...nothing but hypothetical.

    Let's do this. Had Nole was born a year earlier, Nadal would never won 3 slams in 2010.:grin:
     
    #97
  48. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Nole's best wouldn't come close to Roger's. USO and FO 2011 proved that.
     
    #98
  49. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    You guys are forgetting Fed wasn't in good form at AO06. Novak in 2012 form would've smashed him.
     
    #99
  50. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Yeah maybe.

    But Novak in 2012 form wouldn't stop Nadal in 2011 form from winning WIM11 and USO11...
     

Share This Page