Bud Collins and "the Grand Slam"

[AndrewTas]

A recent article on the ABC (Australia) web site by Bud Collins.

Expand slam
19 January 2009

Hail the Conquering Hero! (But please don't keep on demeaning him.)

I'm talking about that red-headed, left-handed spellbinding lad, Rodney George Laver, a refugee from a Queensland station. Well, he hasn't fallen off a horse for some time, or wielded the sweetest racket this side of heaven. But he's among us again to help salute the 40th anniversary of his most recent Grand Slam. (There were two.) And of course the celebration will largely take place in the tennis pen named for him at Melbourne Park.

Known as "The Rocket," he is the genuine item, one of merely five Grand Slammers in the vast history of tennis, and yet he is demeaned. I don't suggest that folks are sledging Laver or throwing rotten tomatoes as he walks by. No, not that kind of insult. Certainly many of us - though he has been off the court for three decades - believe that no other nation has produced a Conquering Hero of his accomplishments. This is not to discount such latter day phenoms as Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal. But none of them owns a Grand Slam.

You see, Laver, as well as Aussie Margaret Smith Court and German Steffi Graf - the only Grand Slammers still with us - are victims of careless, really disrespectful, use of language by journalists and commentators.

They throw around "Grand Slam" thoughtlessly. The Australian Open, despite all the trumpeting, is not a Grand Slam. Nor are Wimbledon, the French and U.S. Opens. They are the four majors. A true Grand Slam is winning all four within a calendar year. Alone at that summit: Americans Don Budge (193 and Maureen Connolly (1953), Laver (1962 and 1969), Court (1970), Graf (198.

Connecting "Grand Slam" with anyone else or any one championship is confusing to the public, and makes light of the rarest deeds of the Quintessential Quintet - Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, Graf.

An Aussie champion, Jack Crawford, like Margaret Court a native of Albury, inspired the Grand Slam possibility. In 1933 Crawford conquered Australia, France and Wimbledon. Nobody had done that before. Despite the tiring campaign, and suffering from asthma, he nevertheless clambered to the U.S. final, and John Kieran, a New York Times columnist, wrote that "if Crawford wins, it will be something like a grand slam in bridge, taking all the tricks."

Alas, "Gentleman Jack," as he was called, one of the most popular Aussies, could not do the undone. He made it to the fifth set, but his was a house of cards, razed by a Pom, Fred Perry, and Grand Slam speculation was shelved for five years. Until along came a lanky Californian, Don Budge, who went all the way, and dined out on the Slam - his private property for years.

Laver was born the year of Budge's extravaganza, 1938. Rod made his first Slam as an amateur, turned pro, and had to wait until 1969 when the four majors were at last open to all. Budge had kept his Slam intentions a secret, to reduce the pressure from the press.

Contrastingly, in 1969 Laver made it clear that he was aiming for his second Slam amid all the best players in existence. "You're the only one with a chance to Slam if you win the Australian, the first leg," he said, having done so in 1960 only to flop at the French, losing to Spaniard Manolo Santana in the third round. He was shut out immediately in 1961, beaten in the Aussie finale at Kooyong by fellow country boy Roy Emerson.

Appropriately, his second Slam was launched in Queensland, a title round defeat of Spaniard Andres Gimeno when the Open was staged on Brisbane grass. Laver rocketed the rest of the way on a New South Wales route, beating Ken Rosewall for the French title, John Newcombe at Wimbledon and Tony Roche in New York.

For a long while I felt that Roger Federer would be the next Grand Slammer. Thrice he grasped three of the prizes (2004, 06-07), but Parisian clay was his quicksand, and Rafa Nadal his nemesis the last four years. I know that a Federer admirer, the impeccable sportsman Laver, would welcome Roger to the ultra-exclusive club. It may come to pass, and would bring greater attention to the game.

Meanwhile, whenever I hear or read that Federer has 13 Grand Slams, one behind Pete Sampras's male record, I wince, and wish I could wash the offender's mouth out with laundry soap. You can understand, I hope, that such is loose use, and slights what the legit Slammers have done. Laver would never complain - but I will.

However, you may counter, "Is the definition of a Grand Slam a regulation, chiseled in marble somewhere?"

Sadly, no. But Melbourne Park would be a good place for it: "The road to a Grand Slam starts here."

Until then, repeat after me: "A Grand Slam is the winning all four majors within a calendar year - and only that."

All the while wondering how in hell Laver did it twice.

[FiveO]

Amen.........

5

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by FiveO

Amen.........

5

Seconded..........

[urban]

Bud is right, of course. The ITF confused the cristal-clear definition somewhat, when they gave Martina a bonus money for completing the foursome in 83/84, but not in a calendar year. I think, in Golf too, the definition has shifted somewhat: Bobby Jones won four in 1930, but it included the US and British amateur, not the pro Grand Slam of today. I think, in Rugby they have a Grand Slam, too, regarding the European championships.

[rolandg]

He's being a bit pedantic. Does anyone except the most anally retentive person care what terminology is used?

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by rolandg

He's being a bit pedantic. ...

He's right. But what a drama queen. Which is what makes him the game's most [ahem] distinctive scribe. Also, he hardly has a broadcasting gig anymore, so anything he gets printed is a bonus.

I do like the way he embraces the vernacular of his audience (i.e., calling Fred Perry a 'Pom').

[adidasman]

Spot on, Bud. Preach it, bay-bee. I blame Sampras for demeaning the phrase "Grand Slam"; it seems he was the first to call an individual part of the Grand Slam "a Slam." Now everyone does it. Say what you like about Bud's unique style, but nobody knows the game the way he does.

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by rolandg

He's being a bit pedantic. Does anyone except the most anally retentive person care what terminology is used?

Well...I do feel his "speech" is a bit pompous, but I also think his conclusions are fair.
This "terminology" is confusing for the "average" tennis fan, and it does tend to "minimize" Laver's (for example) achievements.
You don't need to look any further than this forum (General Player Discussion mostly) where a GOAT debate is ongoing 24/7 and people keep bringing up Sampras' "14 slams" as the only criteria valid for clarifying this debate.
And...at least in theory, this forum should be way above the average fan out there when it comes to tennis knowledge (sadly we all know there are plenty of ignorant posters burying valuable input from knowledgeable people with the sheer number of their posts).

[Moose Malloy]

Spot on, Bud. Preach it, bay-bee. I blame Sampras for demeaning the phrase "Grand Slam"; it seems he was the first to call an individual part of the Grand Slam "a Slam."

Lendl regularly called majors "Grand Slams" as well.

[380pistol]

Originally Posted by adidasman

Spot on, Bud. Preach it, bay-bee. I blame Sampras for demeaning the phrase "Grand Slam"; it seems he was the first to call an individual part of the Grand Slam "a Slam." Now everyone does it. Say what you like about Bud's unique style, but nobody knows the game the way he does.

Right and wrong. Bud is correct about the true essence of a "Grand Slam", but m'man Pete is not to blame for demaning the term. As far back *** 1990 (before Pete won a major), I recall many tv stations, particularely ESPN at the Australian Open, would post Lendl's (and ther players) profiles and it would go......

Height: 6'2"
Weight: 175 lbs
Residence: Greenwich, CO
Current rank: #1
Aus Open Best Result: 1989 Champion

Has 7 Grand Slam titles.

Many commentators from Carillo to Dyrsdale would say the same. I thin the same thing was said in the 1990 US Open QF vs Sampras, Lendl has won 8 Grand slam titles. Maybe in a parallel universe, but I don't know where and when Lendl won 32 majors.

Yes Sampras is guilty for misusing the term "Grand Slam", but to blame him for demaning it, no. He wasn't the originator, nor the one who poularized it. It just followed him when he was the one who had the greatest chance of surpassing Emerson's 12 majors.

[Rabbit]

As far as I'm concerned, Collins has done what he has always done, taken something to an extreme. I think Colllins does this for the benefit of the more casual fan.

There is no Grand Slam without tournaments. So, one could refer to the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and the US Open as Grand Slam Tournaments. If then one refers to these tournaments as Slams, that is different than referring to them as Grand Slams individually. All 4 Slams in a calendar year = Grand Slam.

[GS]

Collins wrote "The Encyclopedia of Tennis". My '03 edition of it cost me under 10 bucks, used. It's 938 pages. This guy knows more tennis history than anyone on the planet Earth, but everyone slams him. I don't get it. Yeah, he's alittle nutty on TV (at least they rarely show his crazy pants now, designed to make harmless fun), but when he dies, who would you want to replace him? The wonderful Andy Rooney, or maybe Dick-head Enberg?
Jeez, just deal with Bud while you can. He's not a full-time commentator....

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

As far as I'm concerned, Collins has done what he has always done, taken something to an extreme. I think Colllins does this for the benefit of the more casual fan.

There is no Grand Slam without tournaments. So, one could refer to the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and the US Open as Grand Slam Tournaments. If then one refers to these tournaments as Slams, that is different than referring to them as Grand Slams individually. All 4 Slams in a calendar year = Grand Slam.

Rabbit,

I agree that Collins has always been about as understated in his words, as he as he has been in his wardrobe selections.

However, a Slam event, is not a Slam. Just like the Belmont is not the Triple Crown or the Masters a Slam. Other sports have tended to watch their descriptions more carefully.

I also think Collins was understated in one sense, in that he avoided "slamming" those who attained things called "non-calendar", "Serena" or "career Slams". I think those ommissions from this piece rang pretty loud, with me at least, and were the unspoken thrust of the piece.

A Grand Slam is just that and should be with the same reverence as golf hold's it's own. While the media dubbed Tiger's exploits as a *******ized form of a similar achievement, in my heart, they cringed at his non-calendar achievement being labeled a "slam".

There's a World Series, a Super Bowl, the Triple Crown and a Grand Slam in both tennis and golf. The events that make up the latter are Majors. A Grand Slam is and should be one thing, unique, special, almost completely out of reach, and that is winning all four Majors in a single year.

Rabbit, you know I value your opinion, but I have to side with the guy in the funny pants on this one.


5

[CyBorg]

Thank you thank you thank you, Bud Collins.

I have been warring with many posters' ghastly usage of 'grand slam' for quite a while now.

It's really just a lazy American media approach to things - Americans love to simplify and shorten everything. The problem is that they don't understand the fallacy involved. The grand slam is several things, a stack of things, a combination of things. It is something consisting of particles, tricks or hands. A grand slam in tennis consists of grand slam titles or majors. Not grand slams. Not slams.

[bluetrain4]

Bud's technically right, and commentators could be more careful, but IMO, it just doesn't matter. All true tennis fans know the significance of winning 1 major compared to winning all 4 within a calendar year, no matter what each accomplishment is rightfully or wrongfully called.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by FiveO

Rabbit,

I agree that Collins has always been about as understated in his words, as he as he has been in his wardrobe selections.

However, a Slam event, is not a Slam. Just like the Belmont is not the Triple Crown or the Masters a Slam. Other sports have tended to watch their descriptions more carefully.

I also think Collins was understated in one sense, in that he avoided "slamming" those who attained things called "non-calendar", "Serena" or "career Slams". I think those ommissions from this piece rang pretty loud, with me at least, and were the unspoken thrust of the piece.

A Grand Slam is just that and should be with the same reverence as golf hold's it's own. While the media dubbed Tiger's exploits as a *******ized form of a similar achievement, in my heart, they cringed at his non-calendar achievement being labeled a "slam".

There's a World Series, a Super Bowl, the Triple Crown and a Grand Slam in both tennis and golf. The events that make up the latter are Majors. A Grand Slam is and should be one thing, unique, special, almost completely out of reach, and that is winning all four Majors in a single year.

Rabbit, you know I value your opinion, but I have to side with the guy in the funny pants on this one.


5

Yeah, I see your point (and Collins'). I tried to allude to that in the first part of my post where I referenced Collins' target audience as the more casual fan. I really don't have a problem with what he says, it's really his delivery.

Reading bluetrain's post, he says better what I tried to say.

[Tennis old man]

Originally Posted by adidasman

Say what you like about Bud's unique style, but nobody knows the game the way he does.

That's not true, you never know

[Tennis old man]

Originally Posted by GS

Collins wrote "The Encyclopedia of Tennis". This guy knows more tennis history than anyone on the planet Earth

Not true at all.
Look here AndrewTas, urban, jeffreyneave and chaognosis posts.
Greetings.

[Tennis old man]

I'm forgeting great comments by Carlo G Colussi too...

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Tennis old man

Not true at all.
Look here AndrewTas, urban, jeffreyneave and chaognosis posts.

Bud Collins is a fountain of knowledge, but I tend to agree that the man does cater, in his writings, to the casual fan.

There are better encyclopedias out there, like Clerici's. On the pros, McCauley (though, not exactly an encyclopedia).

The finest books to me are those that are heavily analytical and opinionated. Collins's tend to be bland and generic.

But, regardless of his style and commercially appealing approach, the man knows his stuff.