6 Slams are no longer enough to be called ATG ..... At least 8-9 required..... Do you agree?

6 Slams are no longer enough to be called ATG ..... At least 8-9 required..... Do you agree?


  • Total voters
    57

Razer

G.O.A.T.
The 20th Century Greats did not have

- Prime level careers in their 30s
- Homogenised courts
- More seeds to play into form in earlier rounds
- Elimination of dangerous courts which are injury prone
- Better scheduling
- Better Nutrition, Supplement, Magic Potions etc etc
- Better training techniques
- More money at their disposal to further their lead over the field which is poorer
- Better racquets and shoes
- Better doctors, surgeons to repair your body
- Many non Slam tournaments which had Best of 5 and relevance have all been relegated down to enhance the importance of Slams centric approach
- Last but not the least, loser generations, mugs of weak eras, Roger had it in 00s, Nole had in his 30s and it ain't getting better after he retires

Fedeerer, Nadal, Djokovic and Serena all enjoyed a lot of benefits, so will their successors IF ANY.

Under these circumstances someone like Boris Becker with 6 slams / Sampras with 14 is probably worth 50% more in weight in the current era, same for McEnroe/Connors/anyone of that past.

Hence the cut-off of 6 is no longer enough ..... If you are retiring in your mid-late 30s now then you should have minimum 8 or 9 slams to be called an ATG.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
If you believe in a inflation/asterisk era the 5-6 barrier (Murray and Courier sometimes added ) then the barrier could be raised to 8-9 or even 10+
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
If you believe in a inflation/asterisk era the 5-6 barrier (Murray and Courier sometimes expectations) then the barrier could be raised to 8-9 or even 10+

Sadly Murray cannot be given any benefit of doubt because 6 years older Federer used to pwn him at his peak. This is not the sign of an ATG. An ATG at his peak should be able to subdue someone aged 33. Murray at 2015 Wimbldon got massacred by Federer in straight sets in the most 1 sided exhibition between them on that court, I guess that explains it. Plus Murray who lagged Djokvoic by 8000+ points reached year end 1 because of a collapse of the Big 3, not sure why he should be given any benefit of doubt since he is so clueless against Big 3. Plus Wawrinka has a 5-3 winning h2h vs Murray is Best of 5 sets, this too should not be ignored.
 
Last edited:

mtommer

Hall of Fame
"6 Slams are no longer enough to be called ATG ..... At least 8-9 required..... Do you agree?"

No. Give it a few years after they all retire and the "argument" of why the Big 3 won as much as they did is because they were the first generation of players to master the advantage of poly strings.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Oh dear, so even guys like McEnroe would no longer be an ATG! :unsure:

Maybe ATG should be reserved only for those guys with double digit Slams? That would include only Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg and Tilden!
 
Last edited:

Jonas78

Legend
Lol. Im suprised if we will see players with even 4-5 in the years to come, after Djokovic noone has managed to reach more than two, and Djokovic isnt a young man anymore...

InstaGen is more than happy with 2...
 

Pheasant

Legend
Yes, I agree with this. Because if I didn't, then Fed/Nadal/Djoker are 2.5 to 3 times greater than guys like Lendl or Connors; which is ridiculous. I highly doubt that any of the Big 3 would come close to bagging 20+ slam titles in the 1980s under those conditions.

I think we got a whiff of what a surface specialist was like when peak Federer faced a broken down Kuerten at the 2004 FO. Fed was taken apart in straight sets. Kuerten constantly had Federer staving off break points in that match. His only other loss on clay that year was to Albert Costa, another clay court specialist. Costa won the FO in 2002 by routining Corretja in 4 sets, then routining Ferrero in 4 sets in the final(includes a breadstick and a bagel). Costa also had a great run when he went to the FO QF in 1995, but lost to 5 to Muster, who ended up crushing his next two opponents in straight sets.

Now granted, Federer peaked higher on clay in later years. But here are his clay records during his peak years.

2004 16-2, .889, dominance ratio of 1.33(no bad losses)
2005 15-2, .882, dominance ratio of 1.34(1 bad loss to #101 Gasquet, who broke Fed 6 times)
2006 16-3, .842, dominance ratio of 1.29(0 bad losses)
2007 16-3, .842, dominance ratio of 1.22(1 bad loss to #53 Volandri, who broke Fed 4 times in a 2 set demolition)
2009 18-2, .900, dominance ratio of 1.34(no losses to Nadal, but no bad losses either--- lost to Djoker and Stan)

I'm not picking on Fed. I'm saying all 3 of the Big 3 have inflated slam resumes, due to the era that they played in.
 

Jonesy

Legend
On one side we have threads saying we will not have ATGs in the future and on the other side we have this one saying the cut off of 6 isn't enough to measure because it became easier to collect slams with the new world advancements.

star-wars-democracy.gif
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
As tennis history grows the benchmarks should grow as well. I agree. For anyone before 2000s, 6 Grand Slam and for anyone new now 8 grand slams should be the criteria.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
On one side we have threads saying we will not have ATGs in the future and on the other side we have this one saying the cut off of 6 isn't enough to measure because it became easier to collect slams with the new world advancements.

star-wars-democracy.gif
Who are the people who says there will not be ATGs in the future. These are BOZOs. Alcaraz is already on his way. We will see about others.

These are just some pessimists.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
As usual a great thread . Imo, we should blame tennis commentators, experts and Fed fans for ignoring homogenisation , change in racket , sports science etc. when Fed was winning easily left right and centre and reached near Pete's slam count in no time , everybody ignored above factors and we all pretended it slams won in 90s conditions were same as slam won in 2000s, with Nadal and Djokovic joining the ranks their fans and experts pretended the same. Now many tennis fans have started to give due credit to the past legend and see the absurdity of putting past legend in a lower tier even though they played in different era. If you look at tennis before poly baseline it would look like a different code of a same sport.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Outside of the Big 3 there haven’t been any new ATGs since Agassi. If anything these new guys are just so inept despite having access to superior racquet, string and medical equipment. In that case I see no reason to raise the threshold/standard for ATGs status when the initial standard can’t even be met in the first place.

Let's wait for 10-15 years more and if 15+ slams become norm then yeah the bae has to be raised.it's absurd to think Pete's 14= 14 of today or Andre's 8= today's 8 slams.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Let's wait for 10-15 years more and if 15+ slams become norm then yeah the bae has to be raised.it's absurd to think Pete's 14= 14 of today or Andre's 8= today's 8 slams.
We’ve been saying that since 2014 at least. No one outside of the Big 3 (who’re still making laughingstock’s of yet another generation) has won more than 3 schlens. What’s absurd is to think that there’s going to be multiple double digit schlem winners anytime soon when we’ve gone through 2 generations (#LostGen and #NextGen) who have only produced one off schlem champions. The only current player who has shown any chance of being a double digit schlem winner is Tiny Carl.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
We’ve been saying that since 2014 at least. No one outside of the Big 3 (who’re still making laughingstock’s of yet another generation) has won more than 3 schlens. What’s absurd is to think that there’s going to be multiple double digit schlem winners anytime soon when we’ve gone through 2 generations (#LostGen and #NextGen) who have only produced one off schlem champions. The only current player who has shown any chance of being a double digit schlem winner is Tiny Carl.

They haven't won because there were three tier ATG. Put 3 Sampras in 90s and only one or two player would have 2+ slams. Oh wait, even with an inconsistent tier 2 and only one tier 1 player we had very few players except these two who won 3 + slams in 90s. Nobody won more than three slams in big 3 era not due to it becoming tougher or as harder as 90s but it was due to this era having 3 tier 1 ATG, put 3 tier 1 or even tier 2 ATG and result for the rest would be almost same.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
They haven't won because there were three tier ATG. Put 3 Sampras in 90s and only one or two player would have 2+ slams. Oh wait, even with an inconsistent tier 2 and only one tier 1 player we had very few players except these two who won 3 + slams in 90s. Nobody won more than three slams in big 3 era not due to it becoming tougher or as harder as 90s but it was due to this era having 3 tier 1 ATG, put 3 tier 1 or even tier 2 ATG and result for the rest would be almost same.
Dude the Big 3 have been beating the brakes off these kids despite being in their mid-late 30’s, severally declined, and no where near their primes etc. It’s time to admit the new guys just aren’t that good. If no one can meet the initially agreed upon standard, why should we raise them?
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Just judge each "era" by its own standards. I don't think any less or more of Agassi or McEnroe because a Big Three gobbled up Slams like cookies. Not gonna just demote them for what they did in their time through some distal narrative. Nor can I assume that what past greats achieved can just be easily converted into the standards of today with some baseline percentage bonus. It's not like there are that many ATGs in tennis anyway... it's not exactly a crowded room, so it's very easy to manage compared to these big team sports.

It's OK to give the Not-Quite-GOAT-Candidates their flowers. ATG does not have to be the same as being a GOAT candidate.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Dude the Big 3 have been beating the brakes off these kids despite being in their mid-late 30’s, severally declined, and no where near their primes etc. It’s time to admit they just aren’t that good. If no one can meet the initially agreed upon standard, why should we raise them?

When i showed you why nobody else won more than three slams ,you're delving into different argument, you can't ignore the longevity. This generation is not that good doesn't mean winning slam is any tough or as hard as it was before modern poly baseline era. As i said wait for 10 more years and you will see winning 10+ slam is not a difficult feat as it was before poly. I can't believe people still think big 3 are so much better than past legend and ignore all the variables that inflated their numbers.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
When i showed you why nobody else won more than three slams ,you're delving into different argument, you can't ignore the longevity. This generation is not that good doesn't mean winning slam is any tough or as hard as it was before modern poly baseline era. As i said wait for 10 more years and you will see winning 10+ slam is not a difficult feat as it was before poly. I can't believe people still think big 3 are so much better than past legend and ignore all the variables that inflated their numbers.
Show me where I said I think the Big 3 are so much better than past legends. In fact I literally said the opposite. One of the biggest reasons (if not the main reason) why the Big 3 have such inflated resumes is because the new aren’t good enough to kick them out. So again, why should we raise the standard if these new guys can’t even reach the lower standard? This is the 3rd successive generation after the Nadarrayovic Gen and only one guy has won more than 1 schlem.
 

BlueB

Legend
Considering how very few are in 6+ bracket, it's enough. Some even want to drop it, to somehow include Murray, due to his other achievements.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Considering how very few are in 6+ bracket, it's enough. Some even want to drop it, to somehow include Murray, due to his other achievements.

Maybe Murray and Wawrinka can receive joint ATG status given they have 6 Slams between them? :cool:
 

darthrafa

Hall of Fame
greatness should not be measured by titles won though apparently it is an objective benchmark for success
for instance, thiem won the uso but he would never be considered on bar with delpo or roddick
the latter two may not be regarded as great players, let alone ATG, but they are definitely much better players than thiem
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Sadly Murray cannot be given any benefit of doubt because 6 years older Federer used to pwn him at his peak. This is not the sign of an ATG. An ATG at his peak should be able to subdue someone aged 33. Murray at 2015 Wimbldon got massacred by Federer in straight sets in the most 1 sided exhibition between them on that court, I guess that explains it. Plus Murray who lagged Djokvoic by 8000+ points reached year end 1 because of a collapse of the Big 3, not sure why he should be given any benefit of doubt since he is so clueless against Big 3. Plus Wawrinka has a 5-3 winning h2h vs Murray is Best of 5 sets, this too should not be ignored.

That's a credit to Fed, not a knock on Murray
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Murray defeated the most accomplished player of all time in 2 of his 3 Slam triumphs, on different surfaces to boot. He also took #1 from that player in 2016 as his body was giving out. Defeated Fed on CC for Olympic Gold. That's ATG in my book
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Show me where I said I think the Big 3 are so much better than past legends. In fact I literally said the opposite. One of the biggest reasons (if not the main reason) why the Big 3 have such inflated resumes is because the new aren’t good enough to kick them out. So again, why should we raise the standard if these new guys can’t even reach the lower standard? This is the 3rd successive generation after the Nadarrayovic Gen and only one guy has won more than 1 schlem.

Don't know what you're arguing about? you said bar shouldn't be raised and I said why not since after 2004 slam inflation did happen due to many factors in favour of elite players.
 

Cortana

Legend
What are people smoking for voting the 4th option? There is something called inflation, even in sports.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Don't know what you're arguing about? you said bar shouldn't be raised and I said why not since after 2004 slam inflation did happen due to many factors in favour of elite players.
I swear it’s like you’re not even listening to me. I’ve said repeatedly that the Big 3 all have inflated resumes. But just because the 3 generations that have come after them all suck doesn’t mean we should raise the standard requisite for what it takes to become an ATG. It would be one thing if we had generation after generation winning double digits schlems but that’s not what’s happening. Instead we’ve had back to back generations COMBINE for 2 GS titles (Timmy and Mad Lad with 1 apiece). The jury is still out for #DiamondGen but outside of Tiny Carl I’m not impressed. Why then on God’s green earth would we raise the standard for ATG status when the level of the new top players has been declining for a decade now? That’d be like a school having students getting worse and worse marks/grades. So then the principal says we’re going to raise the standard to be an honor roll student despite the fact that most of you aren’t even passing. If that sounds ridiculous it’s because it is.

So again, why would we raise the standard for ATG status when tennis is no longer producing ATG level players? Contrary to the Bot Brigade’s belief, tennis isn’t always evolving. It makes absolutely zero sense to move the bench mark from 6+ to 10+ when guys aren’t even coming close to 6 in the first place. What you’re doing is baseless speculation and putting the cart before the horse with this “Wait 10-15 years and you’ll see winning 10+ slams is not a difficult feat” nonsense.
 

GoldenMasters

Semi-Pro
Hmm it's probably not just amount of Slams that matter. If Sinner wins 6 Slams during his 2024-2025, maybe add 2026 seasons then he clearly dominated his entire competition and therefore is ATG. However if a player wins 1 every 2 years then yeah 6 is too low.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
It’s very convenient to have 6 Slams as the ATG cutoff because there isn’t really anyone in the Open Era with 5 Slams. We have just one at 4, Courier, and then we jump up to Becker and Edberg at 6. This to me suggests a distinction between the former and latter categories of players.

And I think you can also see it in how those guys played.
 

Enceladus

Legend
No OP, you cannot arbitrarily change the threshold for entry into the ATG category, it is set at number 6 by the tennis community and will remain so. The number 6 was set because it is half a dozen, a unit that has a several thousand-year tradition.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
That's a credit to Fed, not a knock on Murray

Getting straight setted by a Federer who is almost 34 is surely a knock on Murray. I am not saying Murray should beat Federer, but being unable to take even a single set meant that he is unfit to be called an ATG.

What are people smoking for voting the 4th option? There is something called inflation, even in sports.
As usual a great thread . Imo, we should blame tennis commentators, experts and Fed fans for ignoring homogenisation , change in racket , sports science etc. when Fed was winning easily left right and centre and reached near Pete's slam count in no time , everybody ignored above factors and we all pretended it slams won in 90s conditions were same as slam won in 2000s, with Nadal and Djokovic joining the ranks their fans and experts pretended the same. Now many tennis fans have started to give due credit to the past legend and see the absurdity of putting past legend in a lower tier even though they played in different era. If you look at tennis before poly baseline it would look like a different code of a same sport.

The number of ppl voting for the last option raises serious doubts on their judgement, some of them talk of inflated resumes of Big 3 and yet they are unable to apply any form of adjustments to what we would call an ATG. It should be understood that if one has a longer career then expectations should also be more.

Like currency, 1000$ in 1993 should not be same as 1000$ in 2023.

Today we have Wawrinka who won his first slam at 28 while Ivanisevic also won his first at 29, but then Ivanisevic did not have the luxury of playing into 30s like Wawrinka to collect more. Stan while is greater than Ivanisevic, is he great to the extent of being 3 times as good ?

How does this logic even makes any sense, when you literally have no one outside of big-3 even winning 4 of them since Samprassi era?! LOL Shouldn't it be other way around actually??...

This is not a school exam where students get scores irrespective of what their batchmates get. Here results are interconnected.

Winners win more when they play more losers.
Winners lose more if they play more winnners like them.

However in your school exams toppers score more if they sit together and study together.

You should know by now that the Big 3 won 20+ because Murray/Stan could only win 3 each & Roddick could only win 1. If Thiem (born in 93) & Kyrgios (born in 1995) were ATG level players on Clay and Non Clay respectively then they would have both ensured that Big 3 retired with 17 or less slams instead of reaching 24, 22, 20. If Roddick was as good as Agassi then he would have ensured Federer lost a few slams. Longevity of Big 3 mixed with dearth of talent in their rivals is what has created so many records.

More importantly players are having significantly longer careers now, their primes are extending, that is also a reason why 6 needs to be extended to 9.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
It’s very convenient to have 6 Slams as the ATG cutoff because there isn’t really anyone in the Open Era with 5 Slams. We have just one at 4, Courier, and then we jump up to Becker and Edberg at 6. This to me suggests a distinction between the former and latter categories of players.

And I think you can also see it in how those guys played.
As much as I like Courier there is a clear noticeable difference in greatness between him and Edberg/Becker. So while the cut-off is ofc arbitrary, I think it makes sense somehow. Putting it down to 5 wouldn’t change anything, to 4 we would include Courier but then the discussion would start on how far he really is ahead of Murray. So the distinction between Courier and Edberg/Becker is a clearer cut-off than any other one below.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
As much as I like Courier there is a clear noticeable difference in greatness between him and Edberg/Becker. So while the cut-off is ofc arbitrary, I think it makes sense somehow. Putting it down to 5 wouldn’t change anything, to 4 we would include Courier but then the discussion would start on how far he really is ahead of Murray. So the distinction between Courier and Edberg/Becker is a clearer cut-off than any other one below.
Yes we don't want Courier and Murray in ATG. That dilutes the atg by a lot. Next people will say add Hewitt.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
6 was the record when people used to skip AO and some even forced to skip due to alternate tours. It was also before the post 30 athletes started winning titles. I fully agree that 6 in 1988 is not 6 today.

Of the current players though only Alcaraz I am seeing going past 8 right now. He came on the tour, reached USO sf at age 18. Won USO at 19. Better than McEnroe. And closer to Sampras. That takes guts.
 

Fabresque

Legend
No. Since Sampras and Agassi retired we haven't had anyone win over 3. Murray and Wawrinka on 3, Raz and Safin have 2, then you have Meddy, Thiem, Cilic Delpo who are on 1.

Nobody is even getting close to the current threshold, why are we trying to make it even harder?
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
No. Since Sampras and Agassi retired we haven't had anyone win over 3. Murray and Wawrinka on 3, Raz and Safin have 2, then you have Meddy, Thiem, Cilic Delpo who are on 1.

Nobody is even getting close to the current threshold, why are we trying to make it even harder?
No completely wrong

Fed won 20
Nadal 22
Djokovic 24

You said no one did. You missed big 3. I know it's your typo. But thank you for making the point.

You can either have 3 super heavyweights in tennis and then they will become atgs or you can have bunch of atg in tennis like in 80s

What you can't have is no atg at all for more than a couple of years. This makes no sense to me.

This is just like saying tennis has stopped making multi slam winners now and for next 10 years there would be 60 different winners of slams. Which is obviously false.

What will happen and pretty soon is Nole will decline and Nadal is already out I think and Federer is retired.

These new guys have tiers as well. Alcaraz is tier 1 talent and sinner MIGHT get there in 2024. These guys will become atg.

And when they will have no big 3, the 6 would be low target to aim. We need to raise it now.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
ATP would not turn into WTA all of a sudden. Even if it does, it won't be for more than a year.

Raz is maturing before Nole declines. Next year it's very possible Raz is at 4 while Nole is still winning slams. It's very unique situation for tennis and we are blessed that before big 3 retires we have another atg on our hands.
 
Outside of the Big 3 there haven’t been any new ATGs since Agassi. If anything these new guys are just so inept despite having access to superior racquet, string and medical equipment. In that case I see no reason to raise the threshold/standard for ATGs status when the initial standard can’t even be met in the first place.

Why do you regard Agassi as coming after Sampras? Agassi was 16 months older and was a top player a while sooner (#5 by July 1988; Sampras didn't make the top ten until September 1990). Sure, Sampras won a slam first.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
It's an utterly pointless debate. 6 slams is the universally accepted standard. The absurdity of suggesting Mac, Wilander, Becker and Edberg are miraculously not ATG's is laughable.
 
Top