Has anyone Male/Female defeated 4 ATGs to win a Grand Slam ?

Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
lud said:
Ivanisevic, 2001 WIM
Moya, Roddick, Safin, Rafter. 4 GS winners, not quite all time greats. Still impressive.
Click to expand...

But Moya is not a grass courter... and others are not ATGs.

ATG means at least 6 time slam winners....
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
Sunny014 said:
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
Click to expand...

1990 Sampras also beat Muster, so that’s 4 guys who were no.1

McEnroe 1980 USO has to be the most impressive, beating Lendl, Connors and Borg the last 3 matches in a row.
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
Sunny014 said:
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
Click to expand...
3 wins over ATG players at one winning Grand Slam event is the obviously maximum in the Open Era.
However, I found another run with 3 wins over ATG players:
Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker (2R), John McEnroe (SF) and Ivan Lendl (F) to win RG 1985
 
PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Chris Evert 1985
French Open Championships (May 27-June 9; Paris, France, clay, seeded 2): 1R def. Janine Thompson 6-2, 6-1; 2R def. Lisa Bonder 7-5, 6-3; 3R def. Angeliki Kanellopoulou 6-3, 7-5; 4R def. Steffi Graf [11] 6-2, 6-3; QF def. Terry Phelps 6-4, 6-0; SF def. Gabriela Sabatini [14] 6-4, 6-1; F def. Martina Navratilova [1] 6-3, 6-7 (4), 7-5
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Enceladus said:
3 wins over ATG players at one winning Grand Slam event is the obviously maximum in the Open Era.
However, I found another run with 3 wins over ATG players:
Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker (2R), John McEnroe (SF) and Ivan Lendl (F) to win RG 1985
Click to expand...

wow .... Nice

So on 5 occasions this this has been done.

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

All this in the period of 11 years (1980-1990).
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
ChrisRF said:
Why especially 6? Sounds like quite an artificial border. But then on the other hand the whole concept of ATG is artificial anyway.
Click to expand...

6 because guys who won 6 normally won multiple slams at least twice ... you won't find anyone who won a slam 5 times and then won another slam only once, so that is why 6 is kept as cut off for an all time great..... 5 slams could also be put there as a cut off but 6 seems better in my opinion.
 
egrorian

egrorian

Rookie
Sunny014 said:
6 because guys who won 6 normally won multiple slams at least twice ... you won't find anyone who won a slam 5 times and then won another slam only once, so that is why 6 is kept as cut off for an all time great..... 5 slams could also be put there as a cut off but 6 seems better in my opinion.
Click to expand...
By what criteria? Purely your own it seems. It's still subjective.
 
M

MadariKatu

Hall of Fame
Not a slam, but Nalbandian won the 2007 Madrid Masters1000 by beating Berdych, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer (only time ever that anyone beat the big3 back to back to back)

Nadal's 2007 RG win was over Hewitt, Moyá, Djokovic and Federer. They all were slam champions and all had been #1. Except Djokovic who was #1 later and won his first slam next year
 
S

SonnyT

Legend
Sunny014 said:
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
Click to expand...

Sampras and Edberg were certainly no ATG-caliber on clay; both combined for 0 titles at RG. Sounded much more impressive that it really was.

In 1990, McEnroe and Lendl were over the hill; 6 and 3 years removed from their latest Slam victories. Sounded much more impressive that it really was.
 
D

Deleted member 780630

Guest
Closest was Ivanisevic in WB 1992: beat Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, but narrowly lost to Agassi.
 
D

Deleted member 780630

Guest
Sunny014 said:
wow .... Nice

So on 5 occasions this this has been done.

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

All this in the period of 11 years (1980-1990).
Click to expand...
McEnroe in the 1984 USO: beat Edberg, Connors, and Lendl.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Turing said:
McEnroe in the 1984 USO: beat Edberg, Connors, and Lendl.
Click to expand...

Yes... checked now... 6-1, 6-0, 6-2 ... what a belting to edberg in round 2

Updated list :

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- John McEnroe defeated Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to win USO 1984
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
egrorian said:
By what criteria? Purely your own it seems. It's still subjective.
Click to expand...
According to what criteria must a tennis player win at least 6 games to get a set? This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen. It's the same with the frontier of the ATG category, the tennis player has to win half a dozen grandslams to be an ATG player.
 
M

MadariKatu

Hall of Fame
Enceladus said:
According to what criteria must a tennis player win at least 6 games to get a set? This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen. It's the same with the frontier of the ATG category, the tennis player has to win half a dozen grandslams to be an ATG player.
Click to expand...
lol, this is so funny. According to what criteria must a player win 6 games to win a set (it can be 7 by the way)? The ATP rules. Where does that come from historically? I don't know. Don't care either. But extrapolating that to use it as a measure of slams needed to consider a player an ATG, which is something completely arbitrary and subjective, is absurd.
It's ok if you believe that to be the criteria for it, but don't go as if it were an absolutely objective measure that nobody can disagree with. It's not math.

I can consider Wawrinka an ATG. Based on my eye test. Feel free to disagree.
 
egrorian

egrorian

Rookie
Enceladus said:
According to what criteria must a tennis player win at least 6 games to get a set? This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen. It's the same with the frontier of the ATG category, the tennis player has to win half a dozen grandslams to be an ATG player.
Click to expand...
Yes, but says who?
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
MadariKatu said:
lol, this is so funny. According to what criteria must a player win 6 games to win a set (it can be 7 by the way)? The ATP rules. Where does that come from historically? I don't know. Don't care either. But extrapolating that to use it as a measure of slams needed to consider a player an ATG, which is something completely arbitrary and subjective, is absurd.
It's ok if you believe that to be the criteria for it, but don't go as if it were an absolutely objective measure that nobody can disagree with. It's not math.

I can consider Wawrinka an ATG. Based on my eye test. Feel free to disagree.
Click to expand...
Profit rule at least 6 games for to win the set were set by a tennis creators in the 19th century, almost 100 years before the creation of the open professional circuit, which is now called the ATP Tour (in the female game is WTA Tour, of course). Why did tennis creators set the number 6 and not 5 or 7 in the 19th century? I have already stated the reason, because 6 is half a dozen. There is nothing arbitrary, there is a hidden symbolism behind it. Many things in tennis are surrounded by symbolism.

Somewhere a limit must be set, this is true of many common things in life, equally in the debate about ATG players, otherwise we get to a sloping surface. The frontier for entering the ATG category is gain of 6 grandslams, which is number, which recognized by the tennis community.
 
egrorian

egrorian

Rookie
Enceladus said:
Profit rule at least 6 games for to win the set were set by a tennis creators in the 19th century, almost 100 years before the creation of the open professional circuit, which is now called the ATP Tour (in the female game is WTA Tour, of course). Why did tennis creators set the number 6 and not 5 or 7 in the 19th century? I have already stated the reason, because 6 is half a dozen. There is nothing arbitrary, there is a hidden symbolism behind it. Many things in tennis are surrounded by symbolism.

Somewhere a limit must be set, this is true of many common things in life, equally in the debate about ATG players, otherwise we get to a sloping surface. The frontier for entering the ATG category is gain of 6 grandslams, which is number, which recognized by the tennis community.
Click to expand...
This 6 Grand Slams to be an ATG...this is the first I have heard of this "recognised criteria"! Sounds bogus to me, sorry.
 
ibbi

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
egrorian said:
Edberg wasn't much as early as 1984 though, was he?
Click to expand...
Most of the people being listed in this thread weren't 'much' when they were beaten :-D otherwise they'd be ranked highly, and it purely wouldn't be possible to run through so many of them. They're all either a long way from being the player they would become, or years over the hill. The Lendl 87 one is the closest to being truly meaningful out of all of the mens one listed.
 
zvelf

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Not quite up with some others, but Novak Djokovic d. Lleyton Hewitt, #5 David Ferrer, #4 Andy Murray, #2 Rafael Nadal to win 2012 Australian Open.

I'm adding seedings and if not seeded, rankings at the time to give more context to these runs:

#2 John McEnroe d. #10 Ivan Lendl, #3 Jimmy Connors and #1 Bjorn Borg to win 1980 U.S. Open
#1 John McEnroe d. (unseeded) #22 Stefan Edberg, #3 Jimmy Connors, #2 Ivan Lendl to win 1984 U.S. Open
#4 Mats Wilander d. (unseeded) #20 Boris Becker, #1 John McEnroe, #2 Ivan Lendl to win 1985 French Open
#1 Ivan Lendl d. #8 John McEnroe, #6 Jimmy Connors and #3 Mats Wilander to win 1987 U.S. Open
#15 Michael Chang d. (unseeded) #92 Pete Sampras, #1 Ivan Lendl and #3 Stefan Edberg to win 1989 French Open
#12 Pete Sampras d. #6 Thomas Muster, #3 Ivan Lendl, (unseeded) #20 John McEnroe and #4 Andre Agassi to win 1990 U.S. Open
#125 Goran Ivanisevic d. #21 Carlos Moya, (unseeded) #33 Andy Roddick, #4 Marat Safin, #6 Tim Henman, #3 Patrick Rafter to win 2001 Wimbledon
#2 Rafael Nadal d. (unseeded) #59 Juan Martin del Potro, #14 Lleyton Hewitt, #23 Carlos Moya, #6 Novak Djokovic, #1 Roger Federer to win 2007 French Open
#6 Juan Martin del Potro d. #24 Juan Carlos Ferrero, #16 Marin Cilic, #3 Rafael Nadal, #1 Roger Federer to win 2009 U.S. Open
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 780630

Guest
Enceladus said:
This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen
Click to expand...
Really? Got a source for that? I looked some stuff up but it mostly talked about the 15-30-40 game scoring and not set scoring.
 
McLovin

McLovin

Legend
I love these threads...starts out with what seems like a simple question. Then when people submit answers, all the 'qualifiers' are added:
  • He/She was washed up by then
  • It was early in their career and He/She was not an 'ATG' at that point
  • He/She wasn't very good on that surface
  • To be an ATG He/She has to have achieved (insert some random level)
Hilarious.
 
egrorian

egrorian

Rookie
McLovin said:
I love these threads...starts out with what seems like a simple question. Then when people submit answers, all the 'qualifiers' are added:
  • He/She was washed up by then
  • It was early in their career and He/She was not an 'ATG' at that point
  • He/She wasn't very good on that surface
  • To be an ATG He/She has to have achieved (insert some random level)
Hilarious.
Click to expand...
Nothing hilarious about it to my mind, just adds interest to the discussion. For example, pointing out that McEnroe beating Edberg in 1984 seemed no big deal at the time is a valid observation. It gained significance after the fact because of what Edberg went on to achieve of course.
 
boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Sunny014 said:
But Moya is not a grass courter... and others are not ATGs.

ATG means at least 6 time slam winners....
Click to expand...

well if thats the case then 2 of the ones you listed in your own OP don't even count because at the time they happened several people in them were not ATG's then? Agassi wasn't even close in 1990 and neither was Pete in 1989. Lets be consistent in our standards shall we?
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
What do we consider an ATG ?

We consider that the person to have maybe defended his title or having won a title 2 times .... because 1 can be seen as a fluke but not 2.
Nd if a person can do 2 times at a slam at least twice then that guy is close to be considered an ATG.
So 6 slams is a good cut off since you won't find anyone who won 1 slam FIVE time and then won another slam only once. that person would win multiple times for sure..... Thats why 6 is the number for ATGs .....

1 times and 2 timers and 3 timers all get filtered out, there are no ATGs....
 
W

Whisper

Semi-Pro
Enceladus said:
Somewhere a limit must be set, this is true of many common things in life, equally in the debate about ATG players, otherwise we get to a sloping surface. The frontier for entering the ATG category is gain of 6 grandslams, which is number, which recognized by the tennis community.
Click to expand...


So a player who wins 3 to 5 Wimbledons is not an ATG if he has less than 6 slams total?
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Whisper said:
So a player who wins 3 to 5 Wimbledons is not an ATG if he has less than 6 slams total?
Click to expand...

Yes they are not ATGs.

List of ATGs in the Open Era :

01. Roger Goaterer
02. Rafael Claydal
03. Novak D-joker
04. Peter Sampras
05. Bjorn Borg
06. Jimmy Connors
07. Ivan Lendl
08. Andre Agassi
09. John McEnroe
10. Boris Becker
11. Mats Wilander
12. Stefan Edberg

These are people who won multiple slams multiple times....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
What player has defeated the most all time greats at a Grand Slam?
Replies
9
Views
928
Deleted member 307496
D
M
In the 1990s, no player had a season win/loss % above 90%, why do you think was?
Replies
30
Views
1K
metsman
metsman
M
Has any Man ever defeated 3 past champions of a Grand Slam at the same Grand Slam to win title?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Cashman
Cashman
yellowoctopus
US Open Champions and their backhands
Replies
5
Views
1K
yellowoctopus
yellowoctopus
M
Grand Slams - Where a player beat three All Time Greats in Same Tournament - Which one was most impressive?
Replies
30
Views
898
HetTheGreaterer
HetTheGreaterer
Top