Dominance or Longevity

sonicare · 01-29-2013, 02:25 AM

4 slams in a year vs 1 a year for 4 years
3 slams a year for 2 years in a row vs 1 slam a year for 6 years
2 slams a year for 3 consecutive years vs 1 a year for 6 years

What do you guys think?

Personally, I would take the former is all 3 of the above scenarios.

Prisoner of Birth · 01-29-2013, 02:28 AM

Both are important but I guess dominance is more so.

Towser83 · 01-29-2013, 02:36 AM

I'd take 1 slam for 4 years provided they were the full set, otherwise 4 in one year.But 4 in one year suggests you might be in great form for one year only and you might find your main rivals are injured or out of form, especially given the closeness of RG/Wimbledon and even the US Open. It's about 3 and a half months.

2 slams a year for 3 years I'd take over 1 for 6 years especially if that one slam were the same slam, 2 slams a year means winning 2 different slams at least, and also 3 years of multi slam winning is impressive. I think I feel he same about winning 3 slams a year twice.

Tennis_Hands · 01-29-2013, 03:00 AM

Longevity + results trumps dominance + lesser results.

And I say this as a Borg and Federer fan.

Prisoner of Birth · 01-29-2013, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Longevity + results trumps dominance + lesser results.

And I say this as a Borg and Federer fan.

Yes, agreed.

Flash O'Groove · 01-29-2013, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Longevity + results trumps dominance + lesser results.

And I say this as a Borg and Federer fan.

I agree too.

Phoenix1983 · 01-29-2013, 04:42 AM

OP is trying to raise the status of Borg btw.

View Poll Results: More impressive?
Dominance	5	38.46%
Longevity	8	61.54%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

01-29-2013, 02:25 AM	#1
sonicare Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: london Posts: 1,677	Dominance or Longevity 4 slams in a year vs 1 a year for 4 years 3 slams a year for 2 years in a row vs 1 slam a year for 6 years 2 slams a year for 3 consecutive years vs 1 a year for 6 years What do you guys think? Personally, I would take the former is all 3 of the above scenarios. __________________ Roger's failures on clay eclipse the totality of Pete's career on clay \| Federer, the nephew uncle Toni never had \| TTW's official ******* trollhunter Last edited by sonicare : 01-29-2013 at 02:27 AM.

01-29-2013, 02:36 AM	#3
Towser83 Legend Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 7,807	I'd take 1 slam for 4 years provided they were the full set, otherwise 4 in one year.But 4 in one year suggests you might be in great form for one year only and you might find your main rivals are injured or out of form, especially given the closeness of RG/Wimbledon and even the US Open. It's about 3 and a half months. 2 slams a year for 3 years I'd take over 1 for 6 years especially if that one slam were the same slam, 2 slams a year means winning 2 different slams at least, and also 3 years of multi slam winning is impressive. I think I feel he same about winning 3 slams a year twice. __________________ Federer, Djokovic, Delpo fan (also like Nalbandian, Dimitrov, Tsonga)

01-29-2013, 03:00 AM	#4
Tennis_Hands Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Inside the service box - the business end Posts: 2,596	Longevity + results trumps dominance + lesser results. And I say this as a Borg and Federer fan. __________________ Crisstti:It's not cheating (arguable at best), it's merely breaking the rules./ Vero:Armstrong lacks the arrogance.

01-29-2013, 04:42 AM	#7
Phoenix1983 Semi-Pro Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 734	OP is trying to raise the status of Borg btw. __________________ Oldest living male Grand Slam champs: Seixas, Patty, Falkenburg, Savitt, Sedgman, Rose, Trabert, Pietrangeli, Fraser, Rosewall.