7-0 at Wimbledon or 9-0 at AO?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 744633
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Which is more impressive? 7-0 in finals at Wimbledon by Pete Sampras, the greatest grass court player that ever lived or 9-0 in AO finals by Djokovic, the hardcourt GOAT?
 

Nole Slam

Legend
So one is the most prestigious Slam and the other is the least prestigious Slam.

Hmm. I think that Ivanisevic's 1 title at Wimbledon is greater than Djokovic's 9 titles at the AO.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
As far as fame goes, I'd rather have 7 Wimbledon titles... but as far as tennis history, 9 Slams is greater than 7 Slams.

Even non-tennis fans and everyday people know what being a Wimbledon champion is. Australian Open? I'm not sure that non-tennis people would even know that is a major tournament.

That said, when you are talking about Djokovic, he not only has the 9 Aussie titles, but 5 Wimbledons, 3 US Opens, and a French title as well, so everybody is going to recognize him as one of the best tennis players ever, even if they are only casual sports fans.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I'm afraid 9>7 my friend
yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
Sampras fans always make the best jokes.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Slight edge to 9-0
If Pete was 8-0 he would get my nod hands down.
IMO today the Australia Open is 2nd to Wimbledon.
The players and fans love the AO.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Good question, definitely a tough one. I give Pete the nod for two reasons:

-Most prestigious Slam against surface specialists
-His 7 came in 8 years

But its airtight and that means Nole's achievement is ridiculous, historic.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Both are equally impressive imo. Pete’s time was different, no modern nutrition/medicine/physios to extend careers. Both guys invincible at their pet slam along with Nadal at RG.
This is fair. I can say they're equal and Nadal's is top of course.
 

struggle

Legend
With the fast courts in OZ this year (finally), Pete would have won with ease. So, let's make it 8-8.

oh, wait.....
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Sampras fans always make the best jokes.
There is no way you can convince him.
Federer is greater, more consistent and has the longevity whereas Pete was more dominant in the finals.Fed's most dominant stretch was better than Pete's though, 5 titles in a row and 7 finals in a row.
 

GabeT

Legend
yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
would you think better of Federer if he had simply failed to reach the finals those times he lost to Novak?
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
There is no way you can convince him.
Federer is greater, more consistent and has the longevity whereas Pete was more dominant in finals.Fed's most dominant stretch was better than Pete's though, 5 titles in a row and 7 finals in a row.
How is that better than winning 7 titles in 8 years as opposed to 7 in 10 and 8 in 15? Feels like Fedfan logic.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Lol, Pete was the dominator, not the dominated. The record stands at 0-3 (1-3 if we generously include Fed's semifinal win against an off-Nole)
This. 2-2 if Fed takes 2019 and I take my hat off for him winning an epic, defeating main rivals b2b at 38. wasn’t clutch enough. You just know Pete would smash down an ace on MPs... four 1st serves until one catches the line.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
How is that better than winning 7 titles in 8 years as opposed to 7 in 10 and 8 in 15? Feels like Fedfan logic.
The actual number of titles is what counts more.Pete was more dominant once he reached the latter stages of the tournament, I'll give him that.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
So one is the most prestigious Slam and the other is the least prestigious Slam.

Hmm. I think that Ivanisevic's 1 title at Wimbledon is greater than Djokovic's 9 titles at the AO.
More people remember it for sure. He played Rafter. I only remember yesterday and AO 2012 finals off hand.
 

reef58

Rookie
To be fair the salt seems to be Djokovic fans. 20-18 really seems to be an issue. Instead of celebrating 9 AOs his fans have been going on about Baghdatis and USO 2017.
FO 2020 is the killer blow no?
It seems you are painting some sort of false narrative so you can post 100 times per day about FO2020 and 20-18. I think you have made your point. I am a Joker fan and have no salt. The 2020 FO was a dominant performance by Nadal. What else would you like to say about it? Be specific. Thanks
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
The actual number of titles is what counts more.Pete was more dominant once he reached the latter stages of the tournament, I'll give him that.
That's reasonable, but you said Fed's most dominant streak was better than Pete's which is false imo, especially if we apply your logic that titles trump. 7 titles in 8 years trumps 5 titles in 5 years or 7 finals in 7 years
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
would you think better of Federer if he had simply failed to reach the finals those times he lost to Novak?
Superb question Gabe! The answer is yes, I would have thought better of Federer because then he would not have lost those three finals to Djokovic so there would have been no way for me to know that Djokovic is a better player than Federer on grass. In the absence of such data, I would have had to rely on the number of Wimbledon titles won by each player and by virtue of Federer winning more titles, I would have concluded he was the better player.

But now I'm in a dilemma because if I say Federer is the greater grass player, my neighbor who I discuss tennis with a lot says "so he's the greatest of all time but can't beat another from his own generation" and laughs at me.
 

GabeT

Legend
To be fair the salt seems to be Djokovic fans. 20-18 really seems to be an issue. Instead of celebrating 9 AOs his fans have been going on about Baghdatis and USO 2017.
FO 2020 is the killer blow no?
Hmm. Novak is ahead of Fed and one behind Nadal when comparing slams at the same age. He’s the number 1 player and favorite in 3 of the 4 slams. He’s just destroyed the HC rising star in straight sets and won 6 of the last 10 slams (you have to go back to peak Fed in 2005/7 for a better result). He will probably play for several more years and even once he is no longer the favorite he will remain a contender. I think he’s doing fine.

but this was about posters that insist in badmouthing the AO and promoting WB, thinking that brings down Novak. Which is funny because Novak already is a Wimbledon ATG and could easily end up with as many WBs as Sampras. :unsure: :unsure: ;)
 

alexio

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon remains the pinnacle of the sport, no matter what others might state.

PETE's perfect 7 are therefore roughly equal to Djoker's 9 at the AO.
okay, then djo 18 also roughly equal to fed 20, plus the higher number the slimmer the significance of a gap, plus stolen possibility at uso, plus another stolen possibility coz of canceled wimby, plus way earlier slam number 18 was won (between two), have a nice night
 
Top