Most dominant Grand Slam win

[galain]

Not sure about performance through a whole tournament, but if we're looking at finals it's hard to go past Steffi beating Natasha Zvereva a few years ago. That was like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

[CyBorg]

You have to look at Borg and Johnny Mac in their primes. Borg in those Frenches (78 and 80) without losing a set was huge. Mac in the 83 and 84 Wimbledons was untouchable. Federer's Aussie Open triumph this year (07) qualifies - didn't lose a set and completely demolished Roddick.

Borg also didn't lose a set at the 1976 Wimbledon championships.

I'm not sure about pre-open era. I hear Lew Hoad in his prime was insanely good.

[Solat]

Originally Posted by 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!

Cheers Orange

just the info i wanted

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by galain

Not sure about performance through a whole tournament, but if we're looking at finals it's hard to go past Steffi beating Natasha Zvereva a few years ago. That was like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

How about Steffi's entire 1988 French Open path of destruction? I'm not looking at the records but I think she destroyed all of her opponents with the exception of Gaby in the semis. But even Gaby couldn't get a set off of her. In hindsight, that might have been Gaby's best chance to win the French in her entire career. I never would have guessed that back then though as I was sure that Gaby would win multiple French titles.

Seems like Steffi destroyed most of her opposition at the 1989 Australian as well, including a 6-3, 6-0 thrashing of Gaby in the semis. Martina's run through 1983 Wimbledon was similarly brutal.

[CEvertFan]

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.

He said Grand Slam title, not win, so the term is correct. There are 4 Grand Slam titles that you can win per year, which would make up a "Grand Slam".

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by avmoghe

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...

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

He said Grand Slam title, not win, so the term is correct. There are 4 Grand Slam titles that you can win per year, which would make up a "Grand Slam".

Look at the thread title.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Look at the thread title.

I did. The evidence please...

Originally Posted by Solat

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

[N23]

Originally Posted by galain

Not sure about performance through a whole tournament, but if we're looking at finals it's hard to go past Steffi beating Natasha Zvereva a few years ago. That was like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

As I posted earlier in the thread, 6-0 6-0 is quite a feat. But that happened in 1988 and I think 19 years is more than a few.

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

I did. The evidence please...

'Most dominant Grand Slam win'

This is a misuse of the term 'Grand Slam'.

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

The answer to your questions are:
History.
and
History.

[bluetrain4]

Who cares about "Grand Slam" usage? Everyone knew what the initial poster was talking about. It may not be technically correct, but it's very common usage.

So, why ruin the thread with pointless argument about nothing?

[avmoghe]

Originally Posted by Deuce

'Most dominant Grand Slam win'

This is a misuse of the term 'Grand Slam'.

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

The answer to your questions are:
History.
and
History.

History is irrelevant - language and sports all evolve through time. The fact remains. Read the ATP rulebook on their website - the four majors are called "Grand Slams" - and as such the OP using the term "Grand Slam win" is perfectly fine. (In fact, if you search around in the PDF, you'll see the usage of the term 'Grand Slam winner' in the exact same way that the OP used it)

http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/home/

If you want to start some sort of foolish crusade to revert back to the historical meaning of the word, fine. Nobody cares about it - nor do we appreciate the irrelevant spam. We are using the terms the ATP uses in their own rulebook, and there's nothing wrong with it since neither nostologia nor pedanticism are dear to us.

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

Who cares about "Grand Slam" usage? Everyone knew what the initial poster was talking about. It may not be technically correct, but it's very common usage.

So, why ruin the thread with pointless argument about nothing?

Utilizing language correctly is a good thing. It makes things more clear.
Try it sometime - take a course or something.

Originally Posted by avmoghe

History is irrelevant - language and sports all evolve through time. The fact remains. Read the ATP rulebook on their website - the four majors are called "Grand Slams" - and as such the OP using the term "Grand Slam win" is perfectly fine. (In fact, if you search around in the PDF, you'll see the usage of the term 'Grand Slam winner' in the exact same way that the OP used it)

http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/home/

If you want to start some sort of foolish crusade to revert back to the historical meaning of the word, fine. Nobody cares about it - nor do we appreciate the irrelevant spam. We are using the terms the ATP uses in their own rulebook, and there's nothing wrong with it since neither nostologia nor pedanticism are dear to us.

Language doesn't 'evolve' nearly so much as people become lazy and language disintegrates around this laziness.
If you wish to defend this practice, go ahead - but you won't ever convince me that you're right.

Laziness breeds the low standards that you support.

"History is irrelevant"
Well, this explains your perspective - and your support of low standards.

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."

[andreh]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

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.

This all happened in 1991. In 92 Edberg beat Sampras in the final.

[Netbudda]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

So, why ruin the thread with pointless argument about nothing?

Because that's the nature of the beast........simple.

[Moose Malloy]

I'm pretty sure Pierce lost the least number of games en route to a slam final.
Yet she still lost the '94 FO final.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by andreh

This all happened in 1991. In 92 Edberg beat Sampras in the final.

You're right. My bad. So, I nominate Edberg's 1991 USO win over Courier, 6-2, 6-4, 6-0.

[avmoghe]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Language doesn't 'evolve' nearly so much as people become lazy and language disintegrates around this laziness.
If you wish to defend this practice, go ahead - but you won't ever convince me that you're right.

Laziness breeds the low standards that you support.

"History is irrelevant"
Well, this explains your perspective - and your support of low standards.

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."

Nice way to distort what I said. I said History was irrelevant to determining whether a word is used correctly today - I never used History was irrelevant for anything else. The quote you have there has absolutely nothing with the current context.

The fact of the matter is language changes due to natural evolution of vocabulary over time, technology, and even laziness. Change is not necessarily accepting a low standard - they are after all just a sequence of characters used to represent some concept.

What is idiotic is trying to tell someone they are using the wrong term when the bloody ATP uses it to describe its own tournaments. The change has been accepted by the most important organization in professional tennis and virtually everyone else, and posters usage of it has nothing to do with their own laziness.

Go talk to the ATP and call them lazy if you want - just dont troll and ask us to share your nostologia. Hell, had you tried to pick on the OP's lack of punctuation, you might have made a better point.

[Deuce]

If you're going to tell me what I can and can't do on these boards, I hope you've enough sense to not expect me to comply with your wishes.

The ATP notwithstanding, it's still the wrong use of the term.

[andreh]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

You're right. My bad. So, I nominate Edberg's 1991 USO win over Courier, 6-2, 6-4, 6-0.

And I agree. Courier had gone through to the final without losing a single set. He was in great form, which makes Edbergs win even more impressive.