RaulRamirez
Legend
In my two-plus years here, I’ve read countless posts (especially in regard to Rafa) with this reasoning, “Well, take away his best surface, and how great was he (?)” Something like that. More on how ludicrous I find this reasoning is in just a bit.
Here is a quick chart of the (all) Open Era players who have won 7 or more slams, and what happens when we take away their best tournament. I won’t say “surface” as of course, there are two HC majors (now, and generally speaking).
I’m not exactly sure what the above chart proves, as I was just kind of playing along with that reasoning.
But take away Roland Garros (and do the similar for all other players with 7 or more slams in the OE), and only Fed and Novak have more slams, with Pete tied. Rafa has more finals outside his best slam than Pete.
Cool Stat: Rafa’s worst of the three surfaces (all matches) is hard court - and this includes indoors - where he still wins 77.9% of the time. Pete’s overall win percentage is 77.4%. I’m not a Sampras detractor -- just pointing out how great Rafa is, even if we take away clay/RG, or even just relegate him to hard courts.
Now, why would anyone want to take away the best surface or tourney (or “pet slam”) from a player to prove a point? I have no idea - other than to detract with inane distractions. All slams count, and players (especially Rafa, but all players) as they’re able to (notwithstanding injuries and tour mandates) will want to maximize their chances of winning. They’re not trying to win hypothetical tournaments, or be projected onto a tour with different venues, conditions or equipment.
In my opinion, there is some value to “distribution” when it comes to winning all four majors. But even that should not be exaggerated. I rooted for Agassi over Sampras, but I would be foolish to assert that Agassi’s career was better than - or equal to - his rival’s simply because he won the career slam and Pete didn’t.
If anyone still wants to use the "take away their best slam/tourney/surface"-type argument, here are some other fascinating rabbit holes to explore, I guess, on Odds and Ends:
Take away his trumpet, and how great was Louis Armstrong?
Take away his violence-related movies and how great was DeNiro...or Scorsese...or Pacino?
Take away Michael Jordan: how great were the Bulls in the 90s?
Here is a quick chart of the (all) Open Era players who have won 7 or more slams, and what happens when we take away their best tournament. I won’t say “surface” as of course, there are two HC majors (now, and generally speaking).
Player | Total Slams | Best Slam | Adjusted Total | Finals Outside Best Slam, (including wins) |
Fed | 20 | WC - 8 | 12 | 19 |
Rafa | 20 | RG - 13 | 7 | 15 |
Novak | 17 | AO - 8 | 9 | 19 |
Sampras | 14 | WC - 7 | 7 | 11 |
Borg | 11 | RG - 6 | 5 | 10 |
Lendl | 8 | US/RG - 3 | 5 | 11 |
Connors | 8 | US - 5 | 3 | 8 |
Agassi | 8 | AO - 4 | 4 | 11 |
McEnroe | 7 | US - 4 | 3 | 6 |
Wilander | 7 | RG/AO - 3 | 4 | 6 |
I’m not exactly sure what the above chart proves, as I was just kind of playing along with that reasoning.
But take away Roland Garros (and do the similar for all other players with 7 or more slams in the OE), and only Fed and Novak have more slams, with Pete tied. Rafa has more finals outside his best slam than Pete.
Cool Stat: Rafa’s worst of the three surfaces (all matches) is hard court - and this includes indoors - where he still wins 77.9% of the time. Pete’s overall win percentage is 77.4%. I’m not a Sampras detractor -- just pointing out how great Rafa is, even if we take away clay/RG, or even just relegate him to hard courts.
Now, why would anyone want to take away the best surface or tourney (or “pet slam”) from a player to prove a point? I have no idea - other than to detract with inane distractions. All slams count, and players (especially Rafa, but all players) as they’re able to (notwithstanding injuries and tour mandates) will want to maximize their chances of winning. They’re not trying to win hypothetical tournaments, or be projected onto a tour with different venues, conditions or equipment.
In my opinion, there is some value to “distribution” when it comes to winning all four majors. But even that should not be exaggerated. I rooted for Agassi over Sampras, but I would be foolish to assert that Agassi’s career was better than - or equal to - his rival’s simply because he won the career slam and Pete didn’t.
If anyone still wants to use the "take away their best slam/tourney/surface"-type argument, here are some other fascinating rabbit holes to explore, I guess, on Odds and Ends:
Take away his trumpet, and how great was Louis Armstrong?
Take away his violence-related movies and how great was DeNiro...or Scorsese...or Pacino?
Take away Michael Jordan: how great were the Bulls in the 90s?