It is true that slams were not the big deal they have become since Sampras passed Emerson. It is also true that the American press and Sampras made the slams a bigger deal than before. Still, the Majors as they were called then, were a big deal and most competed and wanted to win them. The exceptions were mostly clay court specialists to often skip Wimbledon because they hated grass. Some grass court specialists skipped the French because they did not play well on clay.
Do Laver's Pro Slams Count?
- Thread starter TripleATeam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- federer goat grand slam laver major
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Three words:
Weak MUG Era.
When Rafa had only 2 more slams than Novak, I did think they were even or that Novak may have been considered slightly superior to Rafa. Novak had many more weeks at #1, more YE at #1, 4 or 5 more YE Championships than Nadal, who has none, several more Masters titles and superior H-H. This year, however, has turned things more in Rafa's favor. Still, they are very close, IMO.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
@Poisoned Slice
Would it be a good idea if I throw myself into this discussion and tell my opinion about this?
Would it be a good idea if I throw myself into this discussion and tell my opinion about this?
tennis24x7
Hall of Fame
Doesn't matter how may pro-slams he won. He is the last man to have won the true calendar year and the only GOAT. The present pretend GOATerer doesn't count, because he never won the calendar year and also could never conquer the French open.
Federer DID conquer the French Open, as in, his name is on the role of honour as champion of Internationaux de France 2009 (French Open winner 2009).
Laver was great too though. Grand Slam winner.
Laver and Rosewall averaged least one pro slam they were on the pro tour, therefore, one could grant them 1 slam for every year on the pro tour. Therefore, Rosewall would be credited with 11 pro slams, rather than the 15 he actually won. Laver would have 5, though he actually won 8. Another solution could be to grant them one half a slam for each pro slam won. Rosewall won 15 pro slams, so he would be credited for 7 or 8 slams. Laver won 8, so he would credited with 4 slams. Then you could take away their amateur slams. They both would be credited with their open slams. Laver would have 4 pro slams plus 5 open era slams = 9 real slams. Rosewall would have 8 pro slams + 4 open era slams= 12 real slams. My favorite solution would be credit them with their pro and open era slams but take away their amateur slams. Then, Rosewall would have 19 real slams, Laver would have 13. The point is that Ken, Pancho and Rod should get some credit for their slams won on the pro tour.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Majors are obviously not a good measure of GOAT as their valued varied over time. However, hair has always been a good predictor of GOATs value. From now on the GOAT debate should centre around the amount of body hair as well as their tennis record. This seems as sensible if not more so than a pure Major count (not Slams as that kind of makes Budge & Laver the only mens Grand Slam holders, but positive note if you include boys with the men Edberg gets a guernsey and everyone loves Edberg)
NatF
Bionic Poster
I definitely give them credit. I just don't think counting them and comparing them makes much sense. It's plain to me that those players would have won many OE majors if given the opportunity.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
@Poisoned Slice
Would it be a good idea if I throw myself into this discussion and tell my opinion about this?
Absolutely.
Don't hold back now.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Absolutely.
Don't hold back now.
Watch me shine 
Would you allow any of the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez in their all time slam count? What would your criteria be?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't include any of them as slams. I would include pretty much them all as majors though - 1961 US Pro doesn't get in. I think I gave my criteria for majors in another thread.
Yes - when you think about only 12 years out of 48 years has the field been very subpar. That is only 1/4 of the entire history of the AO.
tennis24x7
Hall of Fame
Yes which is why I said conquer, not win. Fed could never beat his own contemporary Nadal in the French open. How can he be the goat? If you are the goat you would have beat everyone on every surface especially a grand slam. Ok lets consider he is a freak not allowed for the sake of argument. Did Fed the so called goat win the French again? No.
What on earth are you on about?!?
Not only is the incomparable 19 Slam winning Roger Federer a French Open winner and conqueror of Roland Garros/Internationaux de France (and multiple finalist) but he's a MULTIPLE German Open Champion AND Madrid Champion, with clay court wins over Nadal in both!!!
Good lord!
Drob
Hall of Fame
Do you mean Laver?
Drob
Hall of Fame
Nat F. - do you have an alternate list or some alternate ideas of which pro tournaments were more major than the three traditionally identified?
Drob
Hall of Fame
You could actually argue Laver has 22. It is pretty easy to assert 20 since the 1967 Wimbledon Pro is emerging strongly as a consensus choice for Pro Major, among those who study the pre-open pro game. And Laver win two Pro Majors in the transition year, 1968, by which time almost all the best players were on the pro circuit in what was still a bifurcated system.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
This thread belongs to the section with the fakestorians (also known as Former Pro Player Talk).
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, probably. I made the thread when I was still a greenhorn, though. I assumed General Pro Player Discussion would be good enough.This thread belongs to the section with the fakestorians (also known as Former Pro Player Talk).
NatF
Bionic Poster
I just mean that in some years the US Pro wasn't very strong or the Tournament of Champions has to be considered a major event - or the Wimbledon Pro.
Generally speaking I would go with the most known 3, though I'm not sure how things stand going further back than the 50's.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Although the top 2 players did play there in 1975 (Connors and Newcombe). Newcombe beat Connors in the final, after they surprisingly never met in 1974. Connors got his own back with a big exhibition match win over Newcombe in Las Vegas.
Drob
Hall of Fame
P
Fellow Fakestorian:
Have follow up question for you. But first, did you say above that the pro majors are majors but not "slams"? If so, what is the distinction and what is the implication for value assigned?
Fellow Fakestorian:
Have follow up question for you. But first, did you say above that the pro majors are majors but not "slams"? If so, what is the distinction and what is the implication for value assigned?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think it should go without saying that the pro majors aren't slams? Only 3/4 rounds, limited best of 5 and not a full field. Their value simply can't be the same as a modern slam. Those events while being the most important on the Pro's calendar also didn't command the same prestige in their respective circuit as the slams today IMO.
For me major is an all encompassing term for events of extreme value, slam refers to just the Big 4 events we have today. An Open Era slam (some depleted fields in the early days not withstanding) are of the highest value. The pro majors sit somewhere behind them, the amateur majors barely register IMO. Once you start including pro majors I think it's fair to consider events like the YEC - especially in the years where it was the de facto 4th biggest event of the year
Drob
Hall of Fame
Nat F. I have two lines of questions based on comments you made.
The first:
Hypothetically if you were to assign a numeric value to various categories of "majors", give me relative values if you would
I believe you and I agreed a couple weeks back that it is not possible to analyze and differentiate each tournament. So for purposes of the hypothetical, could you give me Number value for the following categories of majors:
1. amateur 1920-30 when amateur only game in town
2. Amateur 1931-1967
3. Pros pre 1934
4. Pros 1934 to 1967
5. Open Era
Also, are there any eras that should get a half-point bonus or something, because of extraordinary quality of competition, such as Pros 1957-'61; open era 1988-93 (Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Wilander, McEnroe, Courier, Sampras, Agassi); or the recent 2008-14?
Thanks
NatF
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't assign points personally, I have a hierarchy and that's it. In the past I have assigned points but I try not to do that anymore. I also wouldn't assign blanket bonus points either without judging the draws in isolation - I'd probably have some disagreements with the periods you chose as well.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think a lot of this depends on the semantics of what we call a major. Of course Laver winning Wembley, the French Pro and the US Pro isn't what we call the classic majors of today in the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. However they were important and prestigious tournaments in the Old Pro Tour days. This is very important when you considered Laver's wonderful career record. We also have to take into account that these pros were considered to be the cream of the crop of the top players in the world so Laver would be playing at times a hall of famer in the first round of a tournament, sort of like what Sharapova did to Halep recently in beating her but on a higher level.
Is a Prestigious Pro Tournament more important on the resume than a Classic Major? I would say in general the answer is an easy NO however perhaps some weak majors like the Australian of the late 1970s could be an exception. These Important tournaments like Wembley didn't have as big a field nor were there as many rounds because of that. They are not comparable to Classic Open Majors today.
Nevertheless I do think Laver would have done extremely well if tennis was always Open considering his super record in the Open Era alone. He the Open Grand Slam which is an astonishing accomplishment. He won 42 tournaments I believe in his first three years in the Open Era and I believe around 73 in total and he was about 30 when the Open Era started! It is thought by some that Laver was past his best when the Open Era started and yet he still accomplished so much. He won top tournaments on hard court, clay, grass everything in the Open era.
The sheer volume of what Laver did on the Old Pro Tour was amazing. I believe off the top of my head he won about 70 tournaments in his five years on the Old Pro Tour. I think he probably would have done about the same anyway if he played Open Tennis considering he would be at his peak and considering what incredible things he did after he was 30 in the Open Era.
You can't compare apples with apples when you compare Laver to greats like Federer today. Federer is awesome, perhaps the greatest ever but what would Laver have done if he played the majors during those five years of his peak? He did win eleven majors in reality and the Grand Slam. He won over 200 tournaments. He won about 80% of his matches in the Open Era when he was fairly old for a tennis player. It's an interesting question.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Second question. The weak US Pros you allude to: I assume you might be skeptical of maybe half or more of the eight US Pros credited to Gonzalez. As you may have seen from my Fakestorian top 10 on the other thread, I am a Gonzalez booster. But those sometimes relatively weak US Pros bother me. You mentioned the US Pro as suspect. If it is those Gorgo titles you have in mind please give me as much critique as possible. Thanks.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Well, we can turn to stats. We check how many slams he won after the open era began and before he went pro. Assign those to ages, then find players that performed decently well in slams, compare their results before and after similar ages, then multiply by the same amount.
Simply we need to find someone with a similar balanced record and multiply it.
# of slams for Laver before 24: 5
# of slams for Laver after 30: 4
# of slams for Federer before 24: 5
# of slams for Federer after 30: 3
So given this distribution, Laver should have roughly 9/8 the slams Federer has- or 21 slams.
How many Pro slams and Amateur slams did Laver win? 19 when added. 20 if you include Wimbledon Pro. This is a flawed estimate, but it seems to be close.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Who can really say? It's probably a fair assumption Laver would have won a lot of majors but don't forget he won amateur majors also that weren't of huge significance.
However in an Open Era Laver could have dominated at an earlier age. We don't know.
Laver may have approached what Federer has done in the majors but I actually think the player who would have done extremely well in the majors was Bill Tilden. He won 10 majors in the past when travel conditions were tough without airplane travel and they had to travel by boat for many weeks. Players just didn't want to travel. Tilden was virtually unbeatable and in many years lost only one match. He won in his peak years eight majors out of eight majors entered. He held the majors record for decades! It's very probable at least to me that Tilden would have surpassed 20 majors.
Gonzalez imo would have done extremely well also if for nothing else that he was so strong for so long.
I would also guess Laver wouldn't have been the player he was in an all Open Era because he never would have gone through the rigors of the Old Pro Tour in which he was playing great players every night and dealing with the strains of the tour in those days.
All in all I'm sort of glad Laver didn't play in an Open Era for a good portion of his career because he wouldn't have been the player he was imo.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thing is that no matter what Gonzalez still was number one for many years and won many other powerful tournaments like the Tournament of Champions several times, the LA Masters etc.
He won a tremendous amount of important Tours, many of them for the World Championship. He is arguably the greatest ever when you look at his overall record.
Similar threads
