Do Laver's Pro Slams Count?

Should we count them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 53.6%
  • No

    Votes: 13 46.4%

  • Total voters
    28

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
If Laver had not been banned from the pro tennis circuit for 5 years, he certainly would have won more grand slams. How many more, I don't know. That's not the topic at hand, nor do I wish it to be. It's just a simple question: should we count Laver's 8 "pro-slams" in addition to his 11 normal slams, so like this:

GS: Laver: 19 *
Federer: 17

*Laver won 8 "pro-slams" and 11 traditional slams

Or should we just leave it as is and just acknowledge that Laver did dominate the pro scene as well as the amateur scene once he was unbanned? Like this:

GS: Federer: 17
Sampras/Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12
Emerson: 12
Laver: 11

Personally, I believe that we should not include the pro-slams in addition to the normal slams. What do you all believe?
 

thrust

Legend
They count more than his Amateur majors but less than his Open Era majors...
Both Laver and Rosewall won, on average, more than one pro slam per year on the pro tour. IMO, they should be credited with either 1 slam for each year on the pro tour, or half of the pro slams they won. There should be very little doubt that they and Gonzalez would have won at least slam per year, had there had been no pro tour and they stayed on the amateur tour instead. True, the pro slams had only 4 rounds, but there were only 3 pro slams per year, so I think the top 3 of the pro tour should be credited with at least half of the pro slam they won.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Both Laver and Rosewall won, on average, more than one pro slam per year on the pro tour. IMO, they should be credited with either 1 slam for each year on the pro tour, or half of the pro slams they won. There should be very little doubt that they and Gonzalez would have won at least slam per year, had there had been no pro tour and they stayed on the amateur tour instead. True, the pro slams had only 4 rounds, but there were only 3 pro slams per year, so I think the top 3 of the pro tour should be credited with at least half of the pro slam they won.

That seems fair. I don't like to attach numbers to these things, they deserve credit for the tournaments they won in those years for sure - but I don't like to equate them on a 1-1 basis. I would say Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez would surely have big major tallies if there had Open Tennis for their whole careers. I tend to just consider their tallies a wash with the leaders of that category today. I prefer to focus on time at #1 and other area's,
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
That seems fair. I don't like to attach numbers to these things, they deserve credit for the tournaments they won in those years for sure - but I don't like to equate them on a 1-1 basis. I would say Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez would surely have big major tallies if there had Open Tennis for their whole careers. I tend to just consider their tallies a wash with the leaders of that category today. I prefer to focus on time at #1 and other area's,
I used to equate the Important Pro Tournaments with the classic majors. I have changed my mind in that area. One thing however that is a possibility is that the Old Pro Tour played opponents who were at a higher average level of play than the early days of Open Tennis since guys like Gonzalez were playing other greats like Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Segura and Sedgman. All of these guys were great top tournament winners and legends. However the problem is that the rounds were too few and there was no set schedule for IMPORTANT PRO TOURNAMENTS in those days.

I think we have been operating under a false assumption over the last few years that the Old Pro Tour had a set schedule of Majors. There were really no majors like we think of them now like the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Open. There were important Pro Tournaments. Major tournament meant simply an important tournament. Remember the Pros in those days were almost like a traveling band of gypsies. They couldn't have a set schedule because of financial concerns. The so called Pro Majors were Wembley, the French Pro and the US Pro. Yet the tournaments weren't held every year. Wembley for example wasn't held from 1940 to 1948 (partly because of WWII), 1954 and 1955. The French Pro wasn't held from 1940 to 1952 (some claim it was played in 1950), 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955 and 1957 for example. The US Pro wasn't played in 1944 but it was generally on the schedule.

So the key words or words is not Majors because there were really no Pro Majors I believe but Important Pro Tournaments. Gonzalez for example won the very prestigious and important Tournament of Champions three times out of the four years it was played with Lew Hoad winning the other year. Laver won the prestigious Wimbledon Pro in 1967 which while it was a small eight man field was played at Wimbledon and because of the great response to it helped initiate the start of Open Tennis. The Newport Pro was an important tournament as was the Masters Pro Round Robin held in Los Angeles. Laver wrote that he won 7 important Pro Tournament one year to show how he deserved to be number one that year. He never wrote a Pro Major because the term didn't exist until after the fact. There were a number of other important tournaments that occurred every year.

We cannot forget about the World Championship Tours that were played and won by greats like Vines, Kramer, Budge, Riggs, Gonzalez. These World Championship Tours were exactly as described, the winner was the World Champion. Gonzalez won at least six World Championship Tours, some argue seven. To my point of thinking the World Championship Tours may be bigger than any current majors. The reasons I write this is several, one is even if you win several majors you are not guaranteed to be number one for the year. Look at Djokovic in 2016. He won two majors but was number two in the world to Andy Murray. However if you win the World Championship Tour, you are THE WORLD CHAMPION, no if ands or buts. The second reason is the tremendous work and amount of matches these guys played to fight for the World Championship. They often played over 100 matches to win the title. For example Pancho Gonzalez played Tony Trabert 101 matches starting in late 1955 to 1956. He won 74 of them to defeat Trabert. If Trabert won he was the World Champion but Gonzalez won and retained his World Title. Tennis was in that way more akin to boxing in that a challenger can win. Kramer defeated Gonzalez earlier in 1949-1950 by a score of 96 to 27 before Kramer retired and Gonzalez eventually won the World Championship Tour to become World Champion. Eventually the World Championship Tours ended in the early 1960s and they concentrated on tournament play and what they called one night stands which was just one competitive match in a certain location. To me, because of the significance of the World Championship Tours and the amount of matches, it is essential to remember that it was of greater importance than any Important Tournament on the Old Pro Tour or even perhaps the current Classic Majors.

Laver may not really have 19 Majors because I'm not sure if you can count the so called Pro Majors because there were none however Laver won a zillion important tournaments in the Pros. I believe he won over 80 tournaments in five years on the Old Pro Tour. He won the Open Grand Slam at age 31 which proves how truly dominant he was. Think about this, he was over the hill and yet he was so strong he won the Open Grand Slam. The Open Era started in 1968 when Laver would turn 30 yet he won 74 tournaments in the Open Era alone. He also won tons of important tournaments in the Open Era like the Dunlop which really was the Australian Open in 1970 due to a boycott that year. He won the Italian, Pacific Southwest several times, the Philadelphia Indoor, Wembley (in the Open Era), the French Pro (in the Open Era), the US Open Pro, the South African Open, 1970 and 1971 Tennis Champions Classic etc etc etc. All of this shows what a super player Laver was, even past his peak.

Don't forget that in the early Open Era they wanted to get the big payday since no one was rich like they are today at the top levels. So many of the top pros would be drawn to the big money tournaments like the Tennis Champions Classic or the 1969 and 1970 Howard Hughes which were very important. The latter two was won by the great Pancho Gonzalez at over age 40. He defeated players like Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe, Smith, Laver in those two tournaments.

Here's Gonzalez winning the 1969 Howard Hughes.

He plays Newcombe around the 26:40 mark and Rosewall at the 31:48 mark. He plays Ashe at the 46:20 mark. Notice how smooth Gonzalez was, even at over 40 and how well he moved. Gonzalez was number one for 8 years and won 6 or 7 World Championship Tours depending on the sources. He is one of the possible GOATs. You can clearly see his greatness on the video.
 
Last edited:

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Like all slams, they "count" only as a means of measuring you against your contemporaries.

To compare across eras, dominance versus your own field is the only sane metric.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Like all slams, they "count" only as a means of measuring you against your contemporaries.

To compare across eras, dominance versus your own field is the only sane metric.
Perhaps but the best of all time discussion is something people have discussed for centuries in various activities. It's not as fun to just discuss against your own field.

I don't think the so called Pro Majors should count because they really weren't majors as we know it now but important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour.
 

thrust

Legend
Amateur slams count for basically nill IMO.
In that case, combining my plan with your statement here Laver would lose 6 of his amateur slams, Rosewall-4, Gonzalez-2. Rosewall won 15 pro slams, I would give him credit for 8, he won 4 open era slams so his total would be 12. Laver won 5 OE slams and 8 pro slams, which would give him at total of only 9. Gonzales won 12 pro slams, 0 OE slams, so his total would be 12. In reality, perhaps it is impossible and unfair to combine the achievements of pre open era players with players of the open era, especially when it comes to slam count.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
In that case, combining my plan with your statement here Laver would lose 6 of his amateur slams, Rosewall-4, Gonzalez-2. Rosewall won 15 pro slams, I would give him credit for 8, he won 4 open era slams so his total would be 12. Laver won 5 OE slams and 8 pro slams, which would give him at total of only 9. Gonzales won 12 pro slams, 0 OE slams, so his total would be 12. In reality, perhaps it is impossible and unfair to combine the achievements of pre open era players with players of the open era, especially when it comes to slam count.

If that's how you want to do it that's fine. It's obviously completely subjective how much credit we give those events. There's debate in the former pro section about the status of the traditional 'Pro Majors' compared to the rest of the tour. Like I said I would just call it evens in the majors count, saying Rosewall only won 12 slams in comparison to Federer's 17 is as nonsensical to me as saying he won 23 to Federer's 17.

I prefer not to count majors with these guys because I'm not sold on what the majors were for them each and every year.

Years at number #1 for those 3 players is;

Gonzalez > Laver > Rosewall

I find that more compelling than major counting personally. Laver has the Grand Slam in his corner, Rosewall has his longevity etc...So there is of course room for debate.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
In that case, combining my plan with your statement here Laver would lose 6 of his amateur slams, Rosewall-4, Gonzalez-2. Rosewall won 15 pro slams, I would give him credit for 8, he won 4 open era slams so his total would be 12. Laver won 5 OE slams and 8 pro slams, which would give him at total of only 9. Gonzales won 12 pro slams, 0 OE slams, so his total would be 12. In reality, perhaps it is impossible and unfair to combine the achievements of pre open era players with players of the open era, especially when it comes to slam count.
If that's how you want to do it that's fine. It's obviously completely subjective how much credit we give those events. There's debate in the former pro section about the status of the traditional 'Pro Majors' compared to the rest of the tour. Like I said I would just call it evens in the majors count, saying Rosewall only won 12 slams in comparison to Federer's 17 is as nonsensical to me as saying he won 23 to Federer's 17.

I prefer not to count majors with these guys because I'm not sold on what the majors were for them each and every year.

Years at number #1 for those 3 players is;

Gonzalez > Laver > Rosewall

I find that more compelling than major counting personally. Laver has the Grand Slam in his corner, Rosewall has his longevity etc...So there is of course room for debate.

I agree with you NatF.

Thrust,

If you read my post number 9 in this thread, there were no Pro Majors, just important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour. Pro Majors is a term added afterwards in my opinion now incorrectly. Laver won a ton of other important Pro Tournaments, Gonzalez did also as did Rosewall. McCauley has a section in his book "The History of Professional Tennis" called Past Results of the Three Major Pro Events and it listed the results for Wembley, US Pro and French Pro. In this case major means important, not the MAJORS we know like Wimbledon or the French Open.

All three were great players but there were no Pro Majors, there were major aka important pro events like Wembley, the Tournament of Champions or the Geneva Gold Cup.

Why is it that the most important event in Pancho Gonzalez's mind each year was the World Championship Tour? Because it was for the World Championship. That is also an important event.
 

thrust

Legend
If that's how you want to do it that's fine. It's obviously completely subjective how much credit we give those events. There's debate in the former pro section about the status of the traditional 'Pro Majors' compared to the rest of the tour. Like I said I would just call it evens in the majors count, saying Rosewall only won 12 slams in comparison to Federer's 17 is as nonsensical to me as saying he won 23 to Federer's 17.

I prefer not to count majors with these guys because I'm not sold on what the majors were for them each and every year.

Years at number #1 for those 3 players is;

Gonzalez > Laver > Rosewall

I find that more compelling than major counting personally. Laver has the Grand Slam in his corner, Rosewall has his longevity etc...So there is of course room for debate.
I agree that slam count should not be the main criteria in judging a players greatness which is why I would rank Djokovic, overall, equal or slightly superior to Nadal as of today.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree that slam count should not be the main criteria in judging a players greatness which is why I would rank Djokovic, overall, equal or slightly superior to Nadal as of today.

I would have had Djokovic ahead had he closed down the YE #1 ranking in 2016. The debate is still on because outside of two years hes struggled to put away even 2-3 slam calibre players in big matches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
If Laver had not been banned from the pro tennis circuit for 5 years, he certainly would have won more grand slams. How many more, I don't know. That's not the topic at hand, nor do I wish it to be. It's just a simple question: should we count Laver's 8 "pro-slams" in addition to his 11 normal slams, so like this:

GS: Laver: 19 *
Federer: 17

*Laver won 8 "pro-slams" and 11 traditional slams

Or should we just leave it as is and just acknowledge that Laver did dominate the pro scene as well as the amateur scene once he was unbanned? Like this:

GS: Federer: 17
Sampras/Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12
Emerson: 12
Laver: 11

Personally, I believe that we should not include the pro-slams in addition to the normal slams. What do you all believe?

Different eras, different tennis structures and vastly different player mentalities/application to the game/priorities so no we should not attempt to normalise results with the later generations.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Different eras, different tennis structures and vastly different player mentalities/application to the game/priorities so no we should not attempt to normalise results with the later generations.
You may be right but at the same time shouldn't we find a way to at least quantify the achievements of past players? Some day the whole tennis system may differ from today and the people 70 years from now may want to understand the achievements of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If Laver had not been banned from the pro tennis circuit for 5 years, he certainly would have won more grand slams. How many more, I don't know. That's not the topic at hand, nor do I wish it to be. It's just a simple question: should we count Laver's 8 "pro-slams" in addition to his 11 normal slams, so like this:

GS: Laver: 19 *
Federer: 17

*Laver won 8 "pro-slams" and 11 traditional slams

Or should we just leave it as is and just acknowledge that Laver did dominate the pro scene as well as the amateur scene once he was unbanned? Like this:

GS: Federer: 17
Sampras/Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12
Emerson: 12
Laver: 11

Personally, I believe that we should not include the pro-slams in addition to the normal slams. What do you all believe?

One thing should be clear: Laver's pro majors count much more than Emerson's 12 amateur majors. We all do know that the best players played at the pros, not at the amateurs.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Surely you don't mean that for ao 1969, 1971 - both of those years had very deep fields

Indeed, may not have been a full 128 man field but all the top players were there. Those tournaments are more major than anything in the Pro's IMO. I'd put them there with modern slams for sake of not nitpicking.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Any Australian Open won pre 1985 should not be considered a Slam. I'm an Aussie and I believe that.

The 1969 AO (first leg of Rod's open Grand Slam) had a very strong field. Also the 1971 AO won by 36 years old Rosewall. In the other early years of open era the field was ratehr weak though.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Both Laver and Rosewall won, on average, more than one pro slam per year on the pro tour. IMO, they should be credited with either 1 slam for each year on the pro tour, or half of the pro slams they won. There should be very little doubt that they and Gonzalez would have won at least slam per year, had there had been no pro tour and they stayed on the amateur tour instead. True, the pro slams had only 4 rounds, but there were only 3 pro slams per year, so I think the top 3 of the pro tour should be credited with at least half of the pro slam they won.

thrust, Interesting counting. The pro majors sometimes had four rounds but mostly only three for the top seeds.

If Gonzalez or Rosewall or Laver would have stayed amateurs (while the other top players turned pro as the actually did) they would have won many more GS titles, in Ken's and Pancho's case even more than 30 additional Grand Slam tournaments! Reason for that: Gonzalez or Rosewall would not have had tough opposition because all other top players were at the pros.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Like all slams, they "count" only as a means of measuring you against your contemporaries.

To compare across eras, dominance versus your own field is the only sane metric.

But we also should at least consider the pro majors because there the top players participated.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
In that case, combining my plan with your statement here Laver would lose 6 of his amateur slams, Rosewall-4, Gonzalez-2. Rosewall won 15 pro slams, I would give him credit for 8, he won 4 open era slams so his total would be 12. Laver won 5 OE slams and 8 pro slams, which would give him at total of only 9. Gonzales won 12 pro slams, 0 OE slams, so his total would be 12. In reality, perhaps it is impossible and unfair to combine the achievements of pre open era players with players of the open era, especially when it comes to slam count.

thrust, A little error: Gonzalez in your counting would gain only 6, not 12 majors. Thus Rosewall the best of the three. But I don't agree that pro majors would count only half of an open era major.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
If that's how you want to do it that's fine. It's obviously completely subjective how much credit we give those events. There's debate in the former pro section about the status of the traditional 'Pro Majors' compared to the rest of the tour. Like I said I would just call it evens in the majors count, saying Rosewall only won 12 slams in comparison to Federer's 17 is as nonsensical to me as saying he won 23 to Federer's 17.

I prefer not to count majors with these guys because I'm not sold on what the majors were for them each and every year.

Years at number #1 for those 3 players is;

Gonzalez > Laver > Rosewall

I find that more compelling than major counting personally. Laver has the Grand Slam in his corner, Rosewall has his longevity etc...So there is of course room for debate.

NatF, The pros considered winning the pro majors, at least in the 1960's, as the prime measure of greatness.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I agree that slam count should not be the main criteria in judging a players greatness which is why I would rank Djokovic, overall, equal or slightly superior to Nadal as of today.

thrust, GS count might not be the only main criteriON but of course it's a main criterion.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Did he face Rosewall (who was his daddy until 1964) or any other top pros at the time? It's like you deprived the tour of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in 2008-2013. Murray would've dominated (with a chance to win the Slam in 2011).

I'm not comparing Laver to Murray of course but not in a billion years Laver would've won the Slam in 1962 if Rosewall was still playing on the amateur tour with him.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Indeed, may not have been a full 128 man field but all the top players were there. Those tournaments are more major than anything in the Pro's IMO. I'd put them there with modern slams for sake of not nitpicking.

I don't agree, NatF, because in both AO editions a few top players were missed (Ashe, Smith) while in most pro majors of the 1960's the top three or four players did participate.
 

ultradr

Legend
If Laver had not been banned from the pro tennis circuit for 5 years, he certainly would have won more grand slams. How many more, I don't know. That's not the topic at hand, nor do I wish it to be. It's just a simple question: should we count Laver's 8 "pro-slams" in addition to his 11 normal slams, so like this:

GS: Laver: 19 *
Federer: 17

*Laver won 8 "pro-slams" and 11 traditional slams

Or should we just leave it as is and just acknowledge that Laver did dominate the pro scene as well as the amateur scene once he was unbanned? Like this:

GS: Federer: 17
Sampras/Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12
Emerson: 12
Laver: 11

Personally, I believe that we should not include the pro-slams in addition to the normal slams. What do you all believe?


of course, it's grey area. that's why we can't compare slam/major counts between eras.
year end #1 is better measure to compare between eras, IMHO.

think about Emerson' 12 that largely won when most players turned pro.
also pro majors are 3 per year.

Sampras won only 14 but 70's-90s were highly polarized surfaces.
It's commonly accepted Sampras would have won 20+ slams in pre-open era when 3 out of 4 slams were on classic quick grass courts.


Under current homogeneous surface conditions, I'm pretty sure we will have a top player with 20+ slams.

It's no surprise we have 3 straight number 1 since 2004 with career slams.
I predicted years back all #1 will do career slam.
Murray will do career slam, I predict.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Did he face Rosewall (who was his daddy until 1964) or any other top pros at the time? It's like you deprived the tour of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in 2008-2013. Murray would've dominated (with a chance to win the Slam in 2011).

I'm not comparing Laver to Murray of course but not in a billion years Laver would've won the Slam in 1962 if Rosewall was still playing on the amateur tour with him.

tennis_pro. You are right.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
of course, it's grey area. that's why we can't compare slam/major counts between eras.
year end #1 is better measure to compare between eras, IMHO.

think about Emerson' 12 that largely won when most players turned pro.
also pro majors are 3 per year.

Sampras won only 14 but 70's-90s were highly polarized surfaces.
It's commonly accepted Sampras would have won 20+ slams in pre-open era when 3 out of 4 slams were on classic quick grass courts.


Under current homogeneous surface conditions, I'm pretty sure we will have a top player with 20+ slams.

It's no surprise we have 3 straight number 1 since 2004 with career slams.
I predicted years back all #1 will do career slam.
Murray will do career slam, I predict.

ultradr, Interesting rematks.

But Emerson won ALWAYS when the top players were pros. Thus I don't rank him in the all-time top 20 or 25.
 

ultradr

Legend
ultradr, Interesting rematks.

But Emerson won ALWAYS when the top players were pros. Thus I don't rank him in the all-time top 20 or 25.

I agree.

Also I value Agassi's career slam much higher in 70's-90s polarized era. He is only guy in 70s-90s.

we have not had a truely long term dominating player with 6+ straight year #1 since Sampras.
when we do, he will end up with 20+ slams.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I agree.

Also I value Agassi's career slam much higher in 70's-90s polarized era. He is only guy in 70s-90s.

we have not had a truely long term dominating player with 6+ straight year #1 since Sampras.
when we do, he will end up with 20+ slams.

ultradr, Yes, Agassi's run is remarkable.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I agree.

Also I value Agassi's career slam much higher in 70's-90s polarized era. He is only guy in 70s-90s.

we have not had a truely long term dominating player with 6+ straight year #1 since Sampras.
when we do, he will end up with 20+ slams.
Sampras was no 1 from 1993-1998 but never really dominated outside of Wimbledon. Some of his seasons like 1996 or 1998 wouldn't be even good enough to be top 3 years in the era of the big 4. His 1998 is comparable to Del Potro's 2009 and Del Potro finished that year ranked no 5.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I agree that slam count should not be the main criteria in judging a players greatness which is why I would rank Djokovic, overall, equal or slightly superior to Nadal as of today.
I know you wrote it before La Décima. But it is still ridicoulous, since Nadal already had 2 more Grand Slams than Djokovic. Anyhow, now Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams. Oh, still not enough? Then I can claim Nadal is better than Federer overall because GS suppousedly are not the main criteria, and I can talk about Olympic Gold Medal in singles, Masters 1000, h2h, etc. Come on, let's be serious. The number of Grand Slam titles is the main criteria. The only exception would be when comparing with pre-Open Era players such as Laver. Laver "only" won 11 Grand Slams, but he is still widely considered better than Roy Emerson with 12 GS or even Pete Sampras with 14 GS.
 

reaper

Legend
Any slam count pre 1990 is irrelevant. Players used to skip events because they weren't really counting themselves. The slam count was a contrivance of the American media to market Sampras when he held the record that's carried through to the current day.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I know you wrote it before La Décima. But it is still ridicoulous, since Nadal already had 2 more Grand Slams than Djokovic. Anyhow, now Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams. Oh, still not enough? Then I can claim Nadal is better than Federer overall because GS suppousedly are not the main criteria, and I can talk about Olympic Gold Medal in singles, Masters 1000, h2h, etc. Come on, let's be serious. The number of Grand Slam titles is the main criteria. The only exception would be when comparing with pre-Open Era players such as Laver. Laver "only" won 11 Grand Slams, but he is still widely considered better than Roy Emerson with 12 GS or even Pete Sampras with 14 GS.
H2H proves he's better on clay and 5 years younger.
M1000 is only 4 more. Fed's 6>0 WTF is a much bigger gap.
Fed also has 2 more YE#1 and many more weeks.
Olympics singles gold is about as relevant as Dubai or Basel titles.
 
Top