Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
It's not a golden slam. It's a career golden slam. His wife has the real thing (1988, same year, ok?).
Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?
- Thread starter Sport
- Start date
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Agassi does have the Career super slam, which is his distinction from any other male player in history. Not enough to give him GOAT claims though. Graf, at one point did not only hold all four slams and the OG, but also YEC and Fed Cup, all at the same time.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Steffi was good at tennis. She's my ATG.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Female GOAT together with Court and Nav.
Devilito
Hall of Fame
Court is not even close to being a GOAT. Steffi, Martina, Serena, Evert, Seles all blow away Court. You can't be a GOAT by winning a local Open tournament made up of nothing but people living within 100km of your birthplace. Local women's tournaments in my area right now are tougher than the tournaments Court won that some idiots consider as a "slam"
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Hearing Arnold screaming in his Conan voice to this brought tears of joy to this face.What other option he has?
What other
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
I'm replacing Court with Serena. Court is nowhere near these ladies.
Razer
Legend
Serena is a worthy candidate if we are to replace Court.
However Court does have 24 Slams, so it seems unfair to throw her out like that just because Navratilova and her LGBT lobby ran a cancellation campaign against Court.
BlueB
Legend
Why would we even look at the box office? Nothing to do with movie greatness/quality.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
That's not the reason. It's her old AO wins that are not slamworthy. That's she's a religious fanatic has nothing to do with results here.
Razer
Legend
Greatness is again subjective, whether it is Quality or Quantity that varies based on who you ask.
If you a producer/distributor/exhibitor etc etc then you would be concerned with the collections.
Opinions on a film can vary from person to person but collections are not, some would say there is no greater proof of quality than the acceptance of the audience and that means number of tickets sold ... i.e footfalls of a film.
Some people might find Godfather to be a snoozefest, some people ;ike it and consider it to be GOAT.
Last edited:
Airspun
Professional
It’s the golden slam
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Razer
Legend
Common sense is the least common of the senses for the vast majority of people.
HC - Sampras 36 titles, Borg only 4
Jimmy Connors himself has 45 titles on HC but Borg the overrated guy who played in his era has a poor resume. Connors had 32 titles on HC on the day when of the US open final 1981 when Borg had a poor 4 titles.
This guy is an absolute nobody on HCs, never talk of HC prowess of Borg ...... He is unfit to tie Sampras's shoelaces on HCs.
Razer
Legend
Lets nullify Sampras on Grass vs Borg on Clay considering them equal.
That leaves HC + Carpets as a combo
Sampras - 51 titles [7 of these are Slams and 7 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 24 Big Titles
Borg - 23 titles [0 Slams and 3 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 8 Big Titles
Borg has been outclassed here
Sampras 286 weeks at 1 & 6 year end 1s ...... How many weeks/years 1 for Borg ?
Borg should thank Sampras and Big 3 for allowing him to be in tier 1 with them after having dodged Mcenroe's peak years like that....
That leaves HC + Carpets as a combo
Sampras - 51 titles [7 of these are Slams and 7 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 24 Big Titles
Borg - 23 titles [0 Slams and 3 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 8 Big Titles
Borg has been outclassed here
Sampras 286 weeks at 1 & 6 year end 1s ...... How many weeks/years 1 for Borg ?
Borg should thank Sampras and Big 3 for allowing him to be in tier 1 with them after having dodged Mcenroe's peak years like that....
messiahrobins
Hall of Fame
I was meaning mens side, but Graf is in a league of her own obviously male or female
Phenomenal
Professional
Who compares them on HC? What about Borg on grass to Sampras on clay? Will we ignore 5 Wimbledon.Lets nullify Sampras on Grass vs Borg on Clay considering them equal.
That leaves HC + Carpets as a combo
Sampras - 51 titles [7 of these are Slams and 7 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 24 Big Titles
Borg - 23 titles [0 Slams and 3 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 8 Big Titles
Borg has been outclassed here
Sampras 286 weeks at 1 & 6 year end 1s ...... How many weeks/years 1 for Borg ?
Borg should thank Sampras and Big 3 for allowing him to be in tier 1 with them after having dodged Mcenroe's peak years like that....
It's tricky to compare early players, Tour was different. There were less amount of important outdoor HC tournaments, more carpet.
He is not far on carpet probably.
itrium84
Hall of Fame
It's amazing that if you add all Sampras big career achievements to all Agassi's big career achievements (GS titles, YEC titles, M1000/S9 titles, weeks no1, years no1, CGS, ncyGS,...), you still end up short to all Novak's career achievements.
I think a positive statement about Agassi is that he is one of the very few true all surface and conditions players. From fast grass and fast carpet to slow clay - he could handle it all. Todays players are only playing on slow to medium surfaces (Wimbledon included )
Last edited:
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
He only ha a career golden slam. That was my point.
BlueB
Legend
I understand your perspective. It probably proves why the movies should not be compared to the tennis players. If we did, we'd have to go by number of various awards won.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
She holds basically ALL the relevant statistical records including a CYGS which came in between six in a row. To say she is nowhere near is ridiculous, don't let your dislike for her views cloud your judgement.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Then why do you have Steffi and Navratilova ahead of Serena? Don’t you like her?
Razer
Legend
Awards won by movie/movie stars is same as personal fanfare for players, we have our own likes and dislikes, however in the end the collections of movies/win-loss stats of tennis players determine who is what.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Because apart from slams they have bigger achievements. Whom I like or not is irrelevant when I evaluate players greatness. Could be a serial killer, if he has the numbers he is in GOAT discussions.
Razer
Legend
In a GOAT debate Graf is not there for me because she is not leading in Titles/Slams and her record is also asterisked unfortunately, not her fault for what happened but we have to consider that regardless.
Most Titles in Women's Tennis
Most Slams
Court - 24
Serena - 23
Most Titles in Women's Tennis
Titles | # | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. |
Elizabeth Ryan | 244 |
| 2. |
Margaret Court | 192 |
| 3. |
/
Martina Navratilova | 167 |
| 4. |
Chris Evert | 157 |
| 5. |
Simonne Mathieu | 147 |
| 6. |
Ann Haydon Jones | 136 |
| 7. |
Billie Jean King | 129 |
| 8. |
Angela Mortimer | 108 |
| 9. |
Steffi Graf | 107 |
| 10. |
Ilse Friedleben | 106 |
Most Slams
Court - 24
Serena - 23
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Fair enough. My objection is the numereous AOs without facing the best players. But we don’t have to agree.
BlueB
Legend
Razer
Legend
A flop movie which did not run at the box office won't become gold just because some snooty critics give it their nod of approval and give some awards to it ....... the commercial aspect is the reality of life.... objective facts like how many people actually liked the film
Thats why these lame awards like oscars are no different from stefan edberg awards or stuffs like that
Collections are also based on the liking of the audience but at least it can be measured.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Still 1 of the only 2 male players in history to hold a career golden slam!
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Nadal has it.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
BlueB
Legend
Contrary, the box office success heavily depends on marketing and hype. Typically, the big budget, cgi intense, shallow, crowd pleasers do well. On the other hand, there are tons of great (and deep) non-US movies, that masses never even take notice of, and the box office is insignificant.
You can not really compare the movies to tennis, which has clearly defined point winning system and is one-on-one competition. Movies are more like gymnastics or pool diving, which is scored by a panel of judges, based on their expertise. A gymnast could decide to perform naked, or in stripper outfit, and the views would explode. However, the judges would still give higher marks to the better performance.
One could argue that Nadal in a wheelchair vs Fed on crutches exo, with right marketing, could be greater commercial success than IW24 semis, Paul vs Medvedev. Of course, we know where higher quality tennis would be played.
On the same note, we can have the Ben-Hur (original one), with great story line, historically correct, deep messages - moral, philosophical and religious, distinct characters development arc, and 11 Oscars, but nowhere to be found on your commercial success list. Then, we have The End Game, a block buster with a bearly coherent story and very few accolades... I know, just as any true filmophile does, which is a better movie.
Razer
Legend
If today's teenagers feel Engame is better than Ben Hur then those teens will grow up and become adults, then enter their 30s, 40s and so on, so decades later if everyone feels Ben Hur is not relevant then it won't be despite the philosophical messages and everything involved in it. Taste of films is entirely subjective, we cannot say 1 is better than another for sure and stamp it.
You are right about Movies not being directly comparable with Tennis, but in the same vein you must also understand that critics opinions or our opinions dont matter before the box office. A film which does not rrun at the box office is in most cases a bad film, and see making films have a price, you cannot make films out of thin air. It involved money and if there is no return of investment then how will the producer finance another movie? If there is no finance then how will more movies be made ?
So I dare say collections are far more important than opinions of a jury/awards. I would rather make a film which earns millions and is devoid of content than make a film which is appreciated by critics but involves me losing millions.
droliver
Professional
PolyStar strings, a polyester brand, were actually available in the early 1980's. They were very cheap. So it's not that polyester strings weren't around, but rather that people hadn't recognized the dampening property of the material (that made them poorly received) could actually be an advantage allowing faster swings to apply more spin.
What's pretty silly to argue is that Sampras was somehow affected but had TNTC titles in some of the most difficult temperature and humidity places on tour. There is zero case you can make one of the fittest players for a decade was impaired in any measurable way with multiple titles at Australia, Miami, Cincinnatti, DC, US Open.
Thalassemia can affect endurance IF you have anemia from it. Sampras didn't even have thalassemia, but just the trait or "thalassemia minor(TM)" (1 copy of the normal gene). It's described as an asymptomatic condition that maybe as much as 5% of the world has. It's unknowable whether at the highest performance level that could affect someone with TM and no anemia, but Sampras on court performance over a career does NOT support that
Hard court tournaments were relatively rare in Borg’s time, for example the Canadian open didn’t go to hard court until 1979 (just 2 years before the end of Borg playing full time tennis) so that isn’t perhaps a good measureLets nullify Sampras on Grass vs Borg on Clay considering them equal.
That leaves HC + Carpets as a combo
Sampras - 51 titles [7 of these are Slams and 7 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 24 Big Titles
Borg - 23 titles [0 Slams and 3 of them are Tour Final Wins] ... In total 8 Big Titles
Borg has been outclassed here
Sampras 286 weeks at 1 & 6 year end 1s ...... How many weeks/years 1 for Borg ?
Borg should thank Sampras and Big 3 for allowing him to be in tier 1 with them after having dodged Mcenroe's peak years like that....
Last edited:
Holmes
Hall of Fame
What's silly is to argue with the athlete's description of his experience when you have no idea what was going on. He said it affected him, it affected him.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Lmao.
This!! it's so cringe when someone who didn't see the players yet call themselves fans and make claim about their greatness across the eras. I was not a fan of any player before Connors since I was too young to see them much in action.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Clueless as always.
Greatness is, or should be, based on a player' accomplishments in the era they competed in. Borg was the best of his era, Sampras was the best of his era. The big 3 were the best of their era, with Novak slightly the best of their era.
Tennfan123
Legend
In a career inflation era, Agassi and Sampras would also probably have about 20-24 slams each.
Razer
Legend
Arthur Ashe is greater than Murray/Wawrinka/Courier combined, isn't it ? Who said Greatness is only performance oriented ? Influence of a person and his/her impact on the game is as important as numbers, maybe even more. Federer has had greater influence on the game than Djokovic or Nadal. Borg and Mcenroe have had greater influence on the game than Ivan Lendl.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Good that you say so. Interesting then however, that you always sh*t on Borg and telling in the other thread that Pete is so much greater than him, even though the latter had very little impact on the game compared to Bjorn.
Razer
Legend
In TTW most of the discussion always center around whether player A would beat player B or not in a comparison across years, so that kind of a conversation will have Sampras above Borg because Sampras is that much better outside Clay. But if we discuss impact on the game then Sampras is even below Mcenroe/Agassi for an american I think so... ? ... Sampras's playstyle is dead, he doesn't even do commentary, pretty sure he is not as popular as Mcenroe too, so what is his impact? ...0.. Agassi's style of play has been more relevant across time, so am I supposed to glorify Agassi ? I cannot do that you know.
droliver
Professional
He can say whatever he thinks, but that doesn't actually make it true. It's more like a rationalize for him to explain some of the few things he wasn't able to achieve rather then acknowledge some of the limits or flaws in his game and preparation for clay season.
There is nothing about Sampras' conditioning the entire arc of his career you can point to support the idea he was impaired by what's normally considered an asymptomatic condition (thalassemia minor). It is inconsistent with both his on court performance or the notion in general that one could be among the GOAT for a decade in an extremely physically taxing sport whilst being affected. It's ultimately unknowable, but you really can't point to anything to say it had any noticeable effect
Holmes
Hall of Fame
There is much about Sampras's career and conditioning that Sampras can use to support the notion that he was impaired, and he did. Case closed.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 748597
- General Pro Player Discussion
