Most dominant Grand Slam win

[Solat]

who lost the fewest games in winning a grand slam title?

men and women if you know

i just watched a clip of Borg Vs Vilas @ FO, they showed his previous scores, no more then 4 games lost in all but 1 of his previous matches

*** whooping !

[Deuce]

Well... since a "Grand Slam Win" means winning all four Major tournaments in one calendar year, I would say that every such accomplishment - rare as they've been - has been dominant.

[avmoghe]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Well... since a "Grand Slam Win" means winning all four Major tournaments in one calendar year, I would say that every such accomplishment - rare as they've been - has been dominant.

I think you know what he meant....

Incidentally it's not just forum posters who use the term to mean two different things - I've seen commentators (former tennis pros included) do the same..

If we want to go by fewest games lost, we should go back to the times when the defending champion only had to play one match to defend his title. It's probably best to restrict yourself to the Open Era or even the tiebreak era.

[Solat]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Well... since a "Grand Slam Win" means winning all four Major tournaments in one calendar year, I would say that every such accomplishment - rare as they've been - has been dominant.

read the first line of my post ******bag

clearly states grand slam title....i knew someone would try to pick that out of the title

[Deuce]

So... because I would like things referred to by their proper term, you call me juvenile names.
Right.

Why don't we call a television an elevator while we're at it?
Let's call a leopard a cougar, or a panther, too, while we're at it.

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by avmoghe

I think you know what he meant....

Incidentally it's not just forum posters who use the term to mean two different things - I've seen commentators (former tennis pros included) do the same..

Just because commentators (or anyone) do it, doesn't make it anything other than sloppy.

As regards the question: In 1909, Tony Wilding, won the Australian Open and only conceded 11 games. Of course, he did only have to play 4 matches that year but he did win the event. In 1978, Bjorn Borg lost only 32 games in winning the French Open.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Why don't we call a television an elevator while we're at it?
Let's call a leopard a cougar, or a panther, too, while we're at it.

what ???
don't do that... NEVER !!!
or i would be very angry.

[chrisdaniel]

For some reason I remember Agassi ripping through the 2003 Australian Open with amazing ease...

[tennus]

Originally Posted by chrisdaniel

For some reason I remember Agassi ripping through the 2003 Australian Open with amazing ease...

Yes, Agassi df Rainer Schuettler 6-2 6-2 6-1 in 76 minutes hitting 30 winners against 13 unforced errors. This was the quickest AO final since 1926.

The amusing part about this demolition is that the women's final took 2hrs 22 minutes for Serena to beat Venus Williams 7-6 3-6 6-4. I guess you could say the girl's earnt their money.

[Wingshellphelp]

Originally Posted by chrisdaniel

For some reason I remember Agassi ripping through the 2003 Australian Open with amazing ease...

as do i. it seemed like every match was domination

[OrangeOne]

Agassi at the 2003 is probably the 5th best of all time...

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_...ournament.html

Also see a few posts in here too on women's matches - I created that thread along similar lines to this one, after I accidentally stumbled across Borg 78 RG, and figured it must be good - it was the all-time best!

[urban]

Pre open Budge in 38 and Kramer in 47, had pretty low numbers of games lost, when winning Wimbledon. Kramer lost a set (to Dinny Pails), but had the lowest number of games lost in Wim history.

[kingdaddy41788]

Originally Posted by Deuce

So... because I would like things referred to by their proper term, you call me juvenile names.
Right.

Why don't we call a television an elevator while we're at it?
Let's call a leopard a cougar, or a panther, too, while we're at it.

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

I believe, Deuce, and I could be wrong here - it's happened before - but I believe that "a" Grand Slam can refer to one of the 4 majors, while "The" Grand Slam refers to winning all 4. Kind of like talking about a god vs God.

[kingdaddy41788]

Is everyone forgetting that Federer JUST won the Australian Open without dropping a set? I'd say that's pretty dominant.

[N23]

Graf def Zvereva FO 88 6-0 6-0

[noeledmonds]

I agree that Borg's 1978 was the most dominant performance in an induvidual slam (at least in the open-era). The number of bagels that Borg dished out in tournament was incredible. Borg won 2 matches in which he lost just 1 game in each. Borg's final crushing Vilas was exceptional. People take it for granted that Borg would beat Vilas, but remember that Vilas was also a great clay courter. Vilas still holds the open-era record for most clay court tournaments won and several long streaks on clay.

I don't stand by this number of games lost in the tournament as definitive though. McEnroe made the top 10 without even winning the tournament. Great as I have stated Vilas was it is misleading to think that his 2 slams were 2 of the most dominant slam performances ever.

[bluetrain4]

How about 1992 USO, where Edberg beat Courier 6-2, 6-4, 6-0. Given the quality of the opponent, I'd put it above Agassi over Schuttler at the AO.

Really surprising. Edberg was great from the beginning, and Courier had no time to get his bearings.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

How about 1992 USO, where Edberg beat Courier 6-2, 6-4, 6-0. Given the quality of the opponent, I'd put it above Agassi over Schuttler at the AO.

Really surprising. Edberg was great from the beginning, and Courier had no time to get his bearings.

Wasn't sure if you were talking about a Slam final or dominance throughout the entire tournament.

But, I stand by my answer in terms of a final, especially considering that Courier had beaten Edberg in the 1992 AO final.

[pow]

Federer this year at the Australian.
In a few months, Federer this year at Wimbledon.

[avmoghe]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Just because commentators (or anyone) do it, doesn't make it anything other than sloppy.

What exactly is your rationale for calling his usage "wrong"? Who do you think makes the "official" meaning of the term "Grand Slam"?

This is pedantic to the extreme. The commentators are using the same term the ATP uses. http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/tournaments/

The four tournaments are referred to as the "Grand Slam Events" - and the OP used the term "Grand Slam Title". When they talk about Federer, they say he "reached all four Grand Slam finals". You're telling us we cannot use the terms that the ATP uses in describing tournaments??

The term "Grand Slam" is used interchangeably to refer to one tournament or all four - the context makes it obvious which is being referred to. The concept of a single word meaning two things certainly isn't a new one...