Bud Collins and "the Grand Slam"

[Moose Malloy]

It's really just a lazy American media approach to things - Americans love to simplify and shorten everything.

Really, is that why Borg called them 'slams' in the 70s?

I like Bud, but this term has been used all over the world for a long time, move on(I have some matches he called in the 80s he was going on & on about this then as well) does it make that much of a difference to some of you to say 'Grand Slam tournament' instead of 'Grand Slam?'

And like urban said, maybe the ITF are most responsible for any confusion since they gave Martina a bonus for winning 4 in a row. She still probably thinks she won a real Grand Slam(she insisted she had when Graf was going for a Real Slam in '8

[CEvertFan]

I don't see anything wrong with referring to them as either a Grand Slam tournament/event/title or a major as to me they mean the same thing. Winning a Grand Slam title (or a major for those of you who don't like that particular usage) isn't remotely the same as winning the calendar "Grand Slam" and as a long time tennis fan I've never had trouble understanding what commentators or players were referring to.

[Rabbit]

Henceforth, I shall make a practice of referring to them as Majors.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Really, is that why Borg called them 'slams' in the 70s?

Borg was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I don't see your point.

[bluegrasser]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Borg was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I don't see your point.

I do - ' Grand Slam' = *4* majors in a calender year, after that they're majors or slams. not rocket science.

[NineMileSkid]

Originally Posted by FiveO

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.

Golf solves this problems by referring to their championships as majors. So, for example, Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam, and Jack Nicklaus, who has never won the Grand Slam, has won the most majors, or 18.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by bluegrasser

I do - ' Grand Slam' = *4* majors in a calender year, after that they're majors or slams. not rocket science.

They're majors. Not slams. You say that it's not rocket science, and yet you don't even know basic terminology. Kind of ironic.

[urban]

We are all (or almost all) passionate amateurs here, who rely mainly on second-hand informations and reports. Guys like Bud Collins are pros, they were true eyewitnesses of all these great matches, that's a big difference.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by AndrewTas

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 (1938 ) and Maureen Connolly (1953), Laver (1962 and 1969), Court (1970), Graf (1988 ).

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.

I agree exactly and completely!

To be most correct, we can call the four individual national championships "majors." Or to be less technical, we can call them "slams."

But there is only one true Grand Slam, as so defined. There can be only one!!! The Everest of the game of tennis.






And please, no one should bring up that most laughable of recent media inventions manifestly designed to "resurrect" the popularity of tennis in the US among shallow fans: the "career slam."

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

... we can call them "slams."

But there is only one true Grand Slam, as so defined. There can be only one!!! The Everest of the game of tennis.






And please, no one should bring up that most laughable of recent media inventions manifestly deigned to "resurrect" the popularity of tennis in the US among shallow fans: the "career slam."

Agreed.
For me, ''majors'' smacks of golf culture.
I call them slams with a small 's'.

Win all four, it's a Grand Slam....which evidently came from the French expression, "grand chelem''.

I'm also semi- with you on the 'career slam'. I mean, it is a heck of an accomplishment, and I want to celebrate it. I want to marvel that Serena and Andre and Navratilova won all four slams at least once. Incredible career. Of slams.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by slice bh compliment

Agreed.
For me, ''majors'' smacks of golf culture.
I call them slams with a small 's'.

Win all four, it's a Grand Slam....which evidently came from the French expression, "grand chelem''.

I'm also semi- with you on the 'career slam'. I mean, it is a heck of an accomplishment, and I want to celebrate it. I want to marvel that Serena and Andre and Navratilova won all four slams at least once. Incredible career. Of slams.

"slam" comes from bridge: def. the winning of all the tricks or all but one during the play of one hand in bridge and other whist-derived card games.

Winning 'tricks' as in winning each of the four grand slam events.

The slam is the grand slam. The grand is just added for padding.

"Grand slam title", however, makes sense, because it means "the title that belongs to the grand slam". This is generally what most responsible history books use. Sometimes majors.

[Borgforever]

I never heard Borg confuse Grand Slam tourneys with The Grand Slam. Björn was very careful in this. He knew his stuff really well and tennis history in particular. When some journo tried to put him in his place asking him if he knew who William Renshaw was he wasn't taken off guard. Lennart was a tennis history buff -- and Björn scooped up all the knowledge he could. I mean Sampras had no clue who Pancho Gonzales was -- his own countryman -- even late in his career.

In Swedish Borg always talked about the four majors as "dom fyra stora", i.e. "the four greats" or "majors" or Grand Slam turnering, i.e. Grand Slam tourney -- never from what I've heard saying Slams or such.

Paying your respect and displaying dignity was high up on Björn's priorites -- I think that's very apparent...

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

I never heard Borg confuse Grand Slam tourneys with The Grand Slam. Björn was very careful in this. He knew his stuff really well and tennis history in particular. When some journo tried to put him in his place asking him if he knew who William Renshaw was he wasn't taken off guard. Lennart was a tennis history buff -- and Björn scooped up all the knowledge he could. I mean Sampras had no clue who Pancho Gonzales was -- his own countryman -- even late in his career.

In Swedish Borg always talked about the four majors as "dom fyra stora", i.e. "the four greats" or "majors" or Grand Slam turnering, i.e. Grand Slam tourney -- never from what I've heard saying Slams or such.

Paying your respect and displaying dignity was high up on Björn's priorites -- I think that's very apparent...

I seem to recall Borg very recently saying 'slam'. He probably hung out with McEnroe too much.

Bjorn is a dry fellow. I love him, but strictly for his body.

[urban]

Sampras himself was a quite kean observer of tennis history (his mentor Fischer showed him often old matches) and he often referred to majors.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

I mean Sampras had no clue who Pancho Gonzales was -- his own countryman -- even late in his career.

Really? I had no idea that Sampras was this uninformed.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I agree exactly and completely!

To be most correct, we can call the four individual national championships "majors." Or to be less technical, we can call them "slams."

But there is only one true Grand Slam, as so defined. There can be only one!!! The Everest of the game of tennis.


And please, no one should bring up that most laughable of recent media inventions manifestly deigned to "resurrect" the popularity of tennis in the US among shallow fans: the "career slam."

I agree that winning the Grand Slam means only one very specific thing but I still don't see what all the hoopla is over calling the big 4 tournaments either majors or Grand Slam titles/tournaments or slams as they are all technically correct. A slam is a major or a Grand Slam tournament/title and if you win all 4 slams/majors/Grand Slam tournaments/titles in a calendar year you have won the Grand Slam. Sampras has the record with 14 majors/slams/Grand Slam titles and Federer needs one more slam/Grand Slam title/major to equal him. Steffi Graf, Margaret Court and Maureen Connolly have all won the Grand Slam. Tennis Channel has dubbed itself "Home of the Slams" because they now have the rights to broadcast all 4 slams/Grand Slam tournaments/majors. See, it's not rocket science.

[Borgforever]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Really? I had no idea that Sampras was this uninformed.

Yeah. Sadly. The fact comes a bit into this long and great article:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...99/7/index.htm

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

I agree that winning the Grand Slam means only one very specific thing but I still don't see what all the hoopla is over calling the big 4 tournaments either majors or Grand Slam titles/tournaments or slams as they are all technically correct. A slam is a major or a Grand Slam tournament/title and if you win all 4 slams/majors/Grand Slam tournaments/titles in a calendar year you have won the Grand Slam. Sampras has the record with 14 majors/slams/Grand Slam titles and Federer needs one more slam/Grand Slam title/major to equal him. Steffi Graf, Margaret Court and Maureen Connolly have all won the Grand Slam. Tennis Channel has dubbed itself "Home of the Slams" because they now have the rights to broadcast all 4 slams/Grand Slam tournaments/majors. See, it's not rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science but it is a confusing and misleading use of language. Reading what you wrote above the casual tennis fan will say "Wow! Pete Sampras has won 14 Grand Slams, and Rocket Laver has only two. No wonder Sampras is the Greatest!"

For whom is this accurate or fair? No one. (Not the fan, not Laver, not even Sampras.)

[urban]

On the knowledge of tennis history. I think, its not the fault of players, to know so few things about pre 1968 tennis. In the early 90s, there was no internet, no Collins encyclopedias, only a few, quite expensive books (Clerici or Tingay i recall), mainly in English, which were not easy to find access to. As a German i could find only some tennis related books, when i visited London or Paris. And often these Tennis books centred around Wimbledon and didn't represent the pro tennis era at all. And there was not much TV coverage of tennis before the era of Becker and Graf, and the emerging of new Sports Channels all over the world.
Boris Becker knew nothing about the era before Borg, whom he had seen at Wimbledon on German TV. Sampras had some access due to Fischer.
But in those days, no one of the younger generation had people like Laver ever seen play, with the exception of a few clips.Now, on you tube and with the help of the internet, more people have access to tennis information, pictures and films. And going by the reaction of viewers on you tube (up to 32000), many are suprised, that people like Laver could really play tennis, and could play in a astonishing modern way with all spins and angles.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

No, it's not rocket science but it is a confusing and misleading use of language. Reading what you wrote above the casual tennis fan will say "Wow! Pete Sampras has won 14 Grand Slams, and Rocket Laver has only two. No wonder Sampras is the Greatest!"

For whom is this accurate or fair? No one. (Not the fan, not Laver, not even Sampras.)

If the casual tennis fan you refer to doesn't have a brain then perhaps he or she will be confused, but if you don't know something then you LEARN. Like I said it isn't rocket science.