Players and True Grand Slam Total

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
In my opinion, a player's True Grand Slam total is how many Wimbledons and US Opens they won. These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments. For example: I don't think anyone would contend that Mats Wilander Australian Open championship in 1983 was equal to John McEnroe's Wimbledon championship the same year. I think one of the reasons Ivan Lendl doesn't get his due is because he "only" won three Grand Slams total at the big two tournaments compared to eight for Jimmy Connors and seven for John McEnroe.

Is it fair to say that Federer's career is far more impressive than Nadal's, as Nadal has only won one title at the two big tournaments whereas Federer has won 10.

Thoughts....
 
gj011

gj011

Banned
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.
 
Last edited:
tacou

tacou

G.O.A.T.
W is the only one with an edge. but they are still all slams. not counting RG and AO, or for some reason USO, is foolish. there are 4 slams in tennis, not 2.
 
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
gj011 said:
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.
Click to expand...

And since America is larger than Europe then just as many people probably value it. Rolland Garros also has had its period of falling out, note the 70s when top players were not allowed to play it due to WTT contracts including greats like Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors. You keep beating the "European people find it more prestigious" However Andy Murray proves you wrong every time as he has said, his favorite slam is the US Open. So really yours is just an opinion with limited factual backing. Your obnoxious euro-centric attitude just seems so ignorant when in reality all four slams should be weighted equally, Wimbledon gets the prestige factor, but all four are should be equal in worth. Wimbledon is the only one that really has anything prestigious about it, it was the first one and it still maintains traditional value..any more of your obnoxious I HATE AMERICA attitude you would like to share.

Oh and for the OP that is pretty unfair to say. Federer's slam total is 13 and Nadal's is 6. Just like Court has so many even if she won so many in the Australian Open where nobody really played.
 
Last edited:
Nadalfan89

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
They've both won Wimbledon, they've both won Australian open, Fedrer won the USO and Nadal won the FO.

Here's the thing. Nadal won on all surfaces. Nadal won a singles gold medal. Nadal won it all at 23.
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Nadalfan89 said:
They've both won Wimbledon, they've both won Australian open, Fedrer won the USO and Nadal won the FO.

Here's the thing. Nadal won on all surfaces. Nadal won a singles gold medal. Nadal won it all at 23.
Click to expand...
He won it all at 22 actually! (He won't be 23 before June.) At Nadal's age, Federer had also won Wimbledon and AO but not USO yet and of course not RG.
There used to be differences in the past but as it stands today all the slams have the same worth and importance.
I agree that Nadal did 1 thing that is unique which is hold 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at the same time. Noone had done it before!
 
P

Pirao

Semi-Pro
veroniquem said:
His username is "McEnroeisanartist" and guess which 2 slams McEnroe has never won! Makes sense now, no? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a pathetic attempt to put some players above others based on a completely biased criteria. But I doubt many people agree with TS.
 
C

canuckfan

Semi-Pro
Wimbledon has some extra mystique as the birthplace of tennis. In practical terms, however, all the slams are equally meaningful these days because the fields are all composed of the best 100ish ranked players plus some wildcards and quallies. In the past perhaps that was not the case. Since all 4 majors now have great fields, and have had since around 1990, debating which slam 'means' more has no practical value at all. Different players will have different emotional attachments, but those differences don't mean any single slam is somehow better or worse.
 
P_Agony

P_Agony

Banned
gj011 said:
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.
Click to expand...

I'm not from the US and I find the USO more prestigious, hence your post fails.
 
F

fps

Legend
Maybe in the distant past. Not any more.

They're all best of 5 against the very best of your peers in the world.

To win any of them is an achievement you could be proud of til your last day on earth, and rightly so.
 
Chelsea_Kiwi

Chelsea_Kiwi

Hall of Fame
veroniquem said:
He won it all at 22 actually! (He won't be 23 before June.) At Nadal's age, Federer had also won Wimbledon and AO but not USO yet and of course not RG.
There used to be differences in the past but as it stands today all the slams have the same worth and importance.
I agree that Nadal did 1 thing that is unique which is hold 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at the same time. Noone had done it before!
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to tell you. Its been done before. You seriously need to brush up on your tennis history!
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Chelsea_Kiwi said:
How many times do I have to tell you. Its been done before. You seriously need to brush up on your tennis history!
Click to expand...
It has NEVER been done, not simultaneously. It has been done over several years (like Agassi) but noone before Nadal has ever been the title holder of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at once.
 
380pistol

380pistol

Banned
gj011 said:
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.
Click to expand...

Says who??? European claycourters who need the slowness of the clay to enable their triumphs??? I mean who says the French Open is "more prestigious than the US"... I really wanna know.
 
Last edited:
gj011

gj011

Banned
egn said:
And since America is larger than Europe then just as many people probably value it. Rolland Garros also has had its period of falling out, note the 70s when top players were not allowed to play it due to WTT contracts including greats like Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors. You keep beating the "European people find it more prestigious" However Andy Murray proves you wrong every time as he has said, his favorite slam is the US Open. So really yours is just an opinion with limited factual backing. Your obnoxious euro-centric attitude just seems so ignorant when in reality all four slams should be weighted equally, Wimbledon gets the prestige factor, but all four are should be equal in worth. Wimbledon is the only one that really has anything prestigious about it, it was the first one and it still maintains traditional value..any more of your obnoxious I HATE AMERICA attitude you would like to share.

Oh and for the OP that is pretty unfair to say. Federer's slam total is 13 and Nadal's is 6. Just like Court has so many even if she won so many in the Australian Open where nobody really played.
Click to expand...

WTF? Where this all comes from. I am not sure where did I "shared" any of the attitude you mentioned. Saying one slam is more prestigious than the other does not equal hating the country where the other slam is from? I am talking from my own experience and it was always common knowledge that Wimbledon and RG are the two most important tournaments in the world. IMO all 4 are equal these days, but you can often hear here that USO is "far bigger and more important" tournament than RG, which is simply not true. Also I didn't see you accuse people who claim that, like OP for example, for supposed "I HATE FRANCE" attitude.

I was just answering to, as you say as well, unfair statements from OP.

Also US is not larger than Europe. Europe has more than twice as many people than US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe
 
Last edited:
clayman2000

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
Idiot thread......in todays game, a slam is a slam... Im sure anyone would take 2 AO's over 1 USO (even / especaily Roddick)

In the past AO fields were still decent.... FO had top fields....the Americans just sucked there
 
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
gj011 said:
WTF? Where this all comes from. I am not sure where did I "shared" any of the attitude you mentioned. Saying one slam is more prestigious than the other does not equal hating the country where the other slam is from? I am talking from my own experience and it was always common knowledge that Wimbledon and RG are the two most important tournaments in the world. IMO all 4 are equal these days, but you can often hear here that USO is "far bigger and more important" tournament than RG, which is simply not true. Also I didn't see you accuse people who claim that, like OP for example, for supposed "I HATE FRANCE" attitude.

I was just answering to, as you say as well, unfair statements from OP.

Also US is not larger than Europe. Europe has more than twice as many people than US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe
Click to expand...

Note last sentence of my post called the OP ridiculous and you didn't say all four were equal, you simple said Rolland Garros and Wimbledon were most important and disregarded the other two and made a comment that the USO is only viewed important in America. I believe I countered the OP in my last post. Also I was referring to literal size not population which Europe is double but then again I am not sure how much of Russia is in Europe so it could be suspect on which is larger.

Besides the French Open throughout most of the 70s was held with some disdain due to its banning of players contracted by World Team Tennis as top pros including Europens like Navratilova and Borg etc. were not allowed to participate due to contracts so there was some issues involving it. The US Open and Wimbledon were the big two events for a good portion of the 70s but either way they are all still of equal value. Anyone who says otherwise is being ridiculous and I said that in my comment to the OP.
 
gj011

gj011

Banned
egn said:
Note last sentence of my post called the OP ridiculous and you didn't say all four were equal, you simple said Rolland Garros and Wimbledon were most important and disregarded the other two and made a comment that the USO is only viewed important in America. I believe I countered the OP in my last post. Also I was referring to literal size not population which Europe is double but then again I am not sure how much of Russia is in Europe so it could be suspect on which is larger.

Besides the French Open throughout most of the 70s was held with some disdain due to its banning of players contracted by World Team Tennis as top pros including Europens like Navratilova and Borg etc. were not allowed to participate due to contracts so there was some issues involving it. The US Open and Wimbledon were the big two events for a good portion of the 70s but either way they are all still of equal value. Anyone who says otherwise is being ridiculous and I said that in my comment to the OP.
Click to expand...

No, all I was saying is that if you had to pick two, like OP was doing, that it would be Wimbledon and RG for many people. Maybe I was not clear enough.

Anyway I get your point and most of it is valid, but it was wrong of you to accuse me of hate and any such attitude, since this is not what I am doing here.
 
A

AndrewD

Legend
McEnroeisanartist said:
In my opinion, a player's True Grand Slam total is how many Wimbledons and US Opens they won. These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments. For example: I don't think anyone would contend that Mats Wilander Australian Open championship in 1983 was equal to John McEnroe's Wimbledon championship the same year.
Click to expand...

In 1983 John McEnroe beat Chris Lewis to win the Wimbledon title. Along the way he beat Ben Testerman, Florin Segarceanu, Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer and Ivan Lendl. The players he beat had 0 majors to their name.

In 1983 Mats Wilander beat Ivan Lendl to win the Australian Open title. Along the way he beat Ben Testerman, Roscoe Tanner, Paul McNamee, Johan Kriek and John McEnroe. Kriek had won the Aus title twice, Tanner had won it once, Kriek was a semi-finalist at the US Open twice, Tanner was a Wimbledon runner-up and twice a semi-finalist at both the US Open and Wimbledon, McEnroe had won 5 majors and Lendl was still Lendl.

Now, exercise those little grey cells and tell us - without bias- which was the tougher draw and which player deserves more credit for their win?

Wimbledon is always the biggest win (of any tournament) but Wilander's Aus Open win deserves more praise due to the difficulty.
 
C

crabgrass

Rookie
i'd have them about level in stature, though generally most if not all americans rank their own championship higher while many europeans would probably favour the french.
 
R

RFtennis

Guest
All slams are equal and I think that most players think the same except for Wimbledon. Its more prestigious and i think players want to win it to become part of its tradition, because all the top players of old times won it.
 
THERAFA

THERAFA

Banned
Roland Garros is easily more important than the US. It is played on CLAY, very unique surface. US Open and Wimbledon are quite similar surfaces relatively speaking. And let's face it, from an American perspective there is no greater challenge in tennis than winning Roland Garros.
 
380pistol

380pistol

Banned
gj011 said:
No, all I was saying is that if you had to pick two, like OP was doing, that it would be Wimbledon and RG for many people. Maybe I was not clear enough.

Anyway I get your point and most of it is valid, but it was wrong of you to accuse me of hate and any such attitude, since this is not what I am doing here.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You said.....

gj011 said:
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.
Click to expand...

The bolded part isn't your opionion. I mean read the last sentence if someone wanted to count two slams they should be RG and SW19. Come on B?? So unless you are the only one outside of the United States, then that statement is a general one, not you stating your opinion. And then you said "especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour"... so then who was the rest of your post reffering to then?? Only yourself, forgive if I don't believe that.
 
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
THERAFA said:
Roland Garros is easily more important than the US. It is played on CLAY, very unique surface. US Open and Wimbledon are quite similar surfaces relatively speaking. And let's face it, from an American perspective there is no greater challenge in tennis than winning Roland Garros.
Click to expand...

Eh prior to the recent slowing of Wimbledon they were actually unique. Wimbledon was blazing fast with an extremely low bounce and favored serve and volley, while the US Open was fast but was higher bouncing and although serve and volley was successful it was also a good surface for baseliners both had relatively equal success there. The US Open hasn't changed much at all it is Wimbledon that has. Also the 90s Americans saw success on clay it is as of now that something has happened..but I see that changing soon as the USTA is focusing on clay courts. Courier and Agassi were two of the better clay courters of the 90s and grabbed 3 slams from that decade at France.

So for your case shouldn't countries like Spain find the US Open most prestigious as when was the last time a spanish player won them? Same guys for Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal etc. When was the last time any of them won the US Open?
 
Tshooter

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
"These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments"

Certainly the "were" is accurate. RG was a distant third in the 70s and early 80s (and, not that it's relevant, but I was a huge Borg-Vilas-Pannata clay court fan). The Austalian was not even the 4th biggest tourney.

But I think it today's game the four are the closest they've ever been in terms of parity though I would still agree with you as a result of history, prize money, fan interest, TV exposure, sponsorship opportunities for the winner and other factors it's still W and the USO.
 
THERAFA

THERAFA

Banned
egn said:
Eh prior to the recent slowing of Wimbledon they were actually unique. Wimbledon was blazing fast with an extremely low bounce and favored serve and volley, while the US Open was fast but was higher bouncing and although serve and volley was successful it was also a good surface for baseliners both had relatively equal success there. The US Open hasn't changed much at all it is Wimbledon that has. Also the 90s Americans saw success on clay it is as of now that something has happened..but I see that changing soon as the USTA is focusing on clay courts. Courier and Agassi were two of the better clay courters of the 90s and grabbed 3 slams from that decade at France.

So for your case shouldn't countries like Spain find the US Open most prestigious as when was the last time a spanish player won them? Same guys for Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal etc. When was the last time any of them won the US Open?
Click to expand...

No. Spanish players value Wimbledon more than the US Open, because Spanish players in the 90s skipped Wimbledon - that is how much confidence they had in their grasscourt abilities. And the Rafa said Wimbledon has always been the tournament he wanted to win more than any other since he was 3 year old, probably because its the biggest challenge in tennis for a Spanish player/crasscourter.

Spanish players may not win the US Open, but they regularly get to the QF and win hardcourt nonslams, Moya, Ferrero, Corretja etc. all did great on hardcourts, and did very well at the US Open, but not at Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
THERAFA said:
No. Spanish players value Wimbledon more than the US Open, because Spanish players in the 90s skipped Wimbledon - that is how much confidence they had in their grasscourt abilities. And the Rafa said Wimbledon has always been the tournament he wanted to win more than any other since he was 3 year old, probably because its the biggest challenge in tennis for a Spanish player/crasscourter.

Spanish players may not win the US Open, but they regularly get to the QF and win hardcourt nonslams, Moya, Ferrero, Corretja etc. all did great on hardcourts, and did very well at the US Open, but not at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Well a lot of clay courters in general skipped wimby not just spanish players, muster skipped it on occasion. Clay courters just felt it was not worth traveling to to lose in a round. But Wimbledon as a whole is every tennis prodigies dream I would think. I mean wimbledon is probably the thing you best associate with tennis. It is like wimbledon oh hey they are talking tennis..
 
THERAFA

THERAFA

Banned
I think Roland Garros and Wimbledon are the 2 most important slams because they are the only slams of their particular surface. In other words the Australian Open has taken some gloss away from the US Open by making it not the only hardcourt slam. So now if you've won RG, Wimbledon, Aust Open you can say you've won a clay, grasscourt and hardcourt slam even though you never won the US Open.
 
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
THERAFA said:
I think Roland Garros and Wimbledon are the 2 most important slams because they are the only slams of their particular surface. In other words the Australian Open has taken some gloss away from the US Open by making it not the only hardcourt slam. So now if you've won RG, Wimbledon, Aust Open you can say you've won a clay, grasscourt and hardcourt slam even though you never won the US Open.
Click to expand...

Well Aussie is slow hard court and US is fast hard court. Though yes I see what you are getting at it is harder to win a clay or grass slam than a hardcourt one in theory. It is also a bit favoring to hardcourt players. Someone like Fed who was dominant on hardcourts can get 2 slams a year..someone dominate on grass and clay only can get one slam a year.
 
THERAFA

THERAFA

Banned
I think winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year is the rarest achievement compared to winning Australian Open-US Open or US Open-Wimbledon or Australian Open-Wimbledon.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Roland Garros, Wimbledon and The Olympics is even rarer since the Olympics is so unique and difficult to win as it occurs only once every 16 slams.

This may never be repeated again by a male.

THERAFA said:
I think winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year is the rarest achievement compared to winning Australian Open-US Open or US Open-Wimbledon or Australian Open-Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
 
Chelsea_Kiwi

Chelsea_Kiwi

Hall of Fame
veroniquem said:
It has NEVER been done, not simultaneously. It has been done over several years (like Agassi) but noone before Nadal has ever been the title holder of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at once.
Click to expand...
1933, 1938, 1955, 1956, 1962, 1969. All times one player has held three slam titles on three surfaces at once.
 
Leublu tennis

Leublu tennis

Legend
egn said:
And since America is larger than Europe
Click to expand...
Huh?? America is about the same size as Europe, just a little smaller, but it exceeds Europe only in poorly educated people. Since most Americans get their education in the states, thats quite a group of dummies.

Oh, Europe has roughly 11% of the world population. And the states have less than half of that.
 
T

timnz

Legend
True Grandslam tournaments have to include Pro Grand Slam tournaments

The Pro winning of Wembley, US Pro, French Pro should also be included (from around 1930 to 1968 inclusive).

By that count Rosewall is the record holder having around 23 Slams.

Thanks
 
Mungo73

Mungo73

Banned
Roland Garros is the most prestigious, then Wimbledon, then AO and USO

LMAO how many times did the USO change the surface? what a joke!!!
 
thejoe

thejoe

Hall of Fame
Mungo73 said:
Roland Garros is the most prestigious, then Wimbledon, then AO and USO

LMAO how many times did the USO change the surface? what a joke!!!
Click to expand...

Winning Wimbledon is a bigger deal than winning RG. It just is.

EDIT:

KPS88 said:
To the older guys here. (I am 34)

These Rafter fans can only be kids. because their knowledge regarding not only other players. But tennis history in general is very poor at best.

If they don't know their tennis history, and focus on only one player. Then there is no way you will get any sense out of them..

Waste of time really. Because as soon as Rafa starts to fade. They will simply jump on the next best thing...
Click to expand...

Do you actually mean Rafter? Because I'm only 17, but was a big fan of Rafter (mainly because of my Dad and his hatred for Sampras)
 
Last edited:
Mungo73

Mungo73

Banned
thejoe said:
Winning Wimbledon is a bigger deal than winning RG. It just is
Click to expand...

no its not. nobody cares about grass. clay gives more ranking points than grass.
sampras aint goat cos he didnt win roland garros. he did win 7 wimbledons but he is no goat, thats the ultimate proof.

oh you are 17, another Fed fan teen, i see...
 
jamesblakefan#1

jamesblakefan#1

G.O.A.T.
TheNatural said:
Roland Garros, Wimbledon and The Olympics is even rarer since the Olympics is so unique and difficult to win as it occurs only once every 16 slams.

This may never be repeated again by a male.
Click to expand...

But the olympics are meaningless when it comes to judging all time greats, and not on the level of Slams or even MS events.
 
thejoe

thejoe

Hall of Fame
Mungo73 said:
no its not. nobody cares about grass. clay gives more ranking points than grass.
sampras aint goat cos he didnt win roland garros. he did win 7 wimbledons but he is no goat, thats the ultimate proof.

oh you are 17, another Fed fan teen, i see...
Click to expand...

If I had to guess your age, I would honestly say no older than 13. Statements like these are the reason that you are perhaps the dumbest poster on this site.

And how can you, a Nadal fan, a player who has been on tour less time than Federer, give me crap about my age? Are you honestly saying that you are even capable of taking the moral or intellectual high ground. You can barely string a legible sentence together...

EDIT: And clay gives more points than grass because it is a longer season you idiot. Not because it is more prestigious.
 
THERAFA

THERAFA

Banned
It is a lot more likely that most Federer fans are kids because Federer is easily the most hyped bandwagon (by the media) of the 21st century. Even today world number 2 Federer gets more media hype than anyone, so any rookie tennis fan would jump on "GOAT" Federer's bandwagon. Whereas Nadal fans if they are like me were Agassi fans for decades and could see when Nadal was 17 that he would be the next dominant baseliner in tennis, was an easy choice to support him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Coincidences Between Great Players
Replies
11
Views
2K
Seany
S
Django
Doubles Grand Slam?
Replies
5
Views
2K
baseliner
B
M
If Berdych Wins - Greatest Achievement Ever at a Grand Slam
Replies
26
Views
2K
Bjorn99
B
M
Do you really consider the Grand Slams to be of equal value?
4 5 6
Replies
266
Views
10K
Emperor of Belgrade
E
M
Djokovic - Winning 2015 Miami - 12 of last 20 "big tournaments" - record
2
Replies
65
Views
2K
swordtennis
swordtennis
Top