Explain to me how the slam race is valid like I'm a child

Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
People are obsessed with the slam race. It's something media/ITF have created to keep interest in the sport and not to lose revenue. But how can it even remotely be valid?

1. There were only 3 slams back in the day. AO wasn't a slam until the mid 80s (Borg only played it once for example and many other ATGs didn't play it at all). This fact alone should mean that looking at slam count is wrong.
2. There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now.
3. There are now roofs on show courts, meaning that the top seeds will not have to play 2 days in a row in case of rain, while lower seeded players will. Making it easier for the top seeds to win slam.
4. Court homogenisation. There's way less difference between surfaces these days. Meaning that if you're good on one surface you're more or less good on all surfaces. Making it easier to win multiple slams as they all play more or less the same.
5. In the future, because big changes will come to tennis when Fedal retires, IW could very well become a fifth slam. That would then mean another 3 slams for Nadal and 5 for Fed. Or should they not be counted? But AO is now counted as a slam even in the 70s and 80s when it wasn't considered a slam.

The list goes on and on. ITF and the slams put all this in order after golden age of tennis in the 90s ended and interest in tennis was going down worldwide. They needed to create new superstars to take over from Sampras/Agassi to get the hype back up.

So why are people obsessing over the slam count when clearly it's a really bad metric to use to establish the goat. I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Adv. Edberg said:
People are obsessed with the slam race. It's something media/ITF have created to keep interest in the sport and not to lose revenue. But how can it even remotely be valid?

1. There were only 3 slams back in the day. AO wasn't a slam until the mid 80s (Borg only played it once for example and many other ATGs didn't play it at all). This fact alone should mean that looking at slam count is wrong.
2. There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now.
3. There are now roofs on show courts, meaning that the top seeds will not have to play 2 days in a row in case of rain, while lower seeded players will. Making it easier for the top seeds to win slam.
4. Court homogenisation. There's way less difference between surfaces these days. Meaning that if you're good on one surface you're more or less good on all surfaces. Making it easier to win multiple slams as they all play more or less the same.

The list goes on and on. ITF and the slams put all this in order after golden age of tennis in the 90s ended and interest in tennis was going down worldwide. They needed to create new superstars to take over from Sampras/Agassi to get the hype back up.

So why are people obsessing over the slam count when clearly it's a really bad metric to use to establish the goat. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I think the slam Race is only valid to determine the top dog among the Big 3. Previous generations played in very different conditions with far inferior racquet technology and fitness awareness.

Comparisons across eras is actually futile as the sports is very dynamic and always evolving. By 2040 we may have an ATG with 30+ slams and comfortably ahead of all of the Big 3. Will we consider him the GOAT? probably not.
 
I agree that it shouldn't be the be-all, end-all for GOATness, but at the very least all modern players will agree that winning a slam is the pinnacle of the sport, and the holy grail is the CYGS. So measuring with that as the key indicator for contemporaries is valid, as they chase the same goal. Similarly, #1 time, as all players want to be #1 as well.

Comparing eras is also hard, and especially so with the slam race and modern breakthroughs in racquet technology and physiotherapy. Not to mention that before Sampras, the slam race wasn't even really a thing.

First, everyone understood that Laver was the person to beat because of his Open Era CYGS. Newcombe didn't factor into it with his 12 or Tilden with his 10. Not to mention that AO wasn't attended by the best until the mid-80s. Then Sampras came along and the media decided to crown him the best of tennis because of his Slam count. It really isn't the best measuring stick for generations of players, but it should be useful when it's an agreed-upon goal, like the Big 3 all agree (they've all admitted they care about going for it).
 
Nadal - GOAT said:
I think the slam Race is only valid to determine the top dog among the Big 3. Previous generations played in very different conditions with far inferior racquet technology and fitness awareness.

Comparisons across eras is actually futile as the sports is very dynamic and always evolving. By 2040 we may have an ATG with 30+ slams and comfortably ahead of all of the Big 3. Will we consider him the GOAT? probably not.
Click to expand...

I can almost buy that yep. But Fed and Djoko played in different eras more or less. Fed won almost all of his slams before Djoko won his second. And Djoko won all his slams after Fed turned 30 and was past prime.

So it should really be between Djokodal
 
I cant explain to you something that isnt so, i could just try to scam you
 
If you want to compare eras, it's a test of futility. How can you objectively put Federer vs Laver? Laver won 2 CYGS. One is devalued because it was on the amateur tour, but then he won 8 Pro Slams, when they only had 3 slams to fight for. Hell, bring up Rosewall. He played his best years on the Pro Tour against the top talent in the game, winning 15/27 Pro Slams on top of his 4 Pre Open Slams and 4 Open Era Slams.

Simply put, you have to measure them based on performance relative to the others, but even then... tennis is an evolving sport. You wouldn't compare Spencer Gore to Lleyton Hewitt. The game is completely different now.
 
Hi there @Adv. Edberg , glad you have interest in our course. The topic today is the 'modern' Slam Race. It's very important to emphasise the 'modern' part because you will see how different rules apply today to something that has not changed in decades. :)

The Slam Race, in essence, encapsulates the complete and utter disregard for tennis history and the tennis calendar. It focuses on 4 annual events, with the winners competing to amass the highest number of slams at the end of an as-of-yet unspecified time span.

This arms race for nominal sum totals is of special interest to a particular subspecies in our race - ****-sycophantum - who live solely through the achievements of those involved in the Slam Race.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
I can almost buy that yep. But Fed and Djoko played in different eras more or less. Fed won almost all of his slams before Djoko won his second. And Djoko won all his slams after Fed turned 30 and was past prime.

So it should really be between Djokodal
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think 5-6 years age gap will count as different eras. Novak peaked late and thats why the difference in timeline of their slam wins. In fact one may argue that had Novak peaked at an early age like Rafa did, Fed may have had even lesser slams.

Fed was very competitive right until 2019 and honestly it is because of his near misses against Novak that he is behind in the slam count (USO 10; USO 11; USO 15; Wimb 14; Wimb 19).
 
TripleATeam said:
If you want to compare eras, it's a test of futility. How can you objectively put Federer vs Laver? Laver won 2 CYGS. One is devalued because it was on the amateur tour, but then he won 8 Pro Slams, when they only had 3 slams to fight for. Hell, bring up Rosewall. He played his best years on the Pro Tour against the top talent in the game, winning 15/27 Pro Slams on top of his 4 Pre Open Slams and 4 Open Era Slams.

Simply put, you have to measure them based on performance relative to the others, but even then... tennis is an evolving sport. You wouldn't compare Spencer Gore to Lleyton Hewitt. The game is completely different now.
Click to expand...
Sorry my 3 year old nephew didnt understand a word you said, not valid
 
*shrugs*

This epic level or moronship belongs solely to tennis. There's no other sport where there is such a ludicrously simple-minded approach to determining greatness for the masses. Actually TBH I'm not sure it's true that the masses in terms of casuals think Nadal is GOAT... in conversations I've had there's still the assumption that Fred is the best. But anyway, no other sport boils it down like this among somewhat interested actual mass fandom where it's a case of say, 22>21 therefore it's impossible for chap on 21 to be better than the 22 kid, no arguments to be had, no nuances to be delved into, nothing doing, the end.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
People are obsessed with the slam race. It's something media/ITF have created to keep interest in the sport and not to lose revenue. But how can it even remotely be valid?

1. There were only 3 slams back in the day. AO wasn't a slam until the mid 80s (Borg only played it once for example and many other ATGs didn't play it at all). This fact alone should mean that looking at slam count is wrong.
2. There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now.
3. There are now roofs on show courts, meaning that the top seeds will not have to play 2 days in a row in case of rain, while lower seeded players will. Making it easier for the top seeds to win slam.
4. Court homogenisation. There's way less difference between surfaces these days. Meaning that if you're good on one surface you're more or less good on all surfaces. Making it easier to win multiple slams as they all play more or less the same.

The list goes on and on. ITF and the slams put all this in order after golden age of tennis in the 90s ended and interest in tennis was going down worldwide. They needed to create new superstars to take over from Sampras/Agassi to get the hype back up.

So why are people obsessing over the slam count when clearly it's a really bad metric to use to establish the goat. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
People are obsessing over it because it is the best indicator of greatness since they are the most important tournaments in tennis. The fanbase whose player is in the lead will always talk about it more as we've seen with 17>14>12 etc.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
I can almost buy that yep. But Fed and Djoko played in different eras more or less. Fed won almost all of his slams before Djoko won his second. And Djoko won all his slams after Fed turned 30 and was past prime.

So it should really be between Djokodal
Click to expand...
Yeah, Federer and Djokovic are different eras. They only played 50 times...
 
Street said:
Yeah, Federer and Djokovic are different eras. They only played 50 times...
Click to expand...

Well, only because Fed wouldn't retire when he hit 30-31 like people in the past had. If Sampras continued playing until he was 42 instead of 31 he'd meet Fed many times too. Doesn't mean they were in the same era.

And there's only 2 years difference in age between Sampras - Fed and Fed - Djokovic.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
People are obsessed with the slam race. It's something media/ITF have created to keep interest in the sport and not to lose revenue. But how can it even remotely be valid?

1. There were only 3 slams back in the day. AO wasn't a slam until the mid 80s (Borg only played it once for example and many other ATGs didn't play it at all). This fact alone should mean that looking at slam count is wrong.
2. There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now.
3. There are now roofs on show courts, meaning that the top seeds will not have to play 2 days in a row in case of rain, while lower seeded players will. Making it easier for the top seeds to win slam.
4. Court homogenisation. There's way less difference between surfaces these days. Meaning that if you're good on one surface you're more or less good on all surfaces. Making it easier to win multiple slams as they all play more or less the same.
5. In the future, because big changes will come to tennis when Fedal retires, IW could very well become a fifth slam. That would then mean another 3 slams for Nadal and 5 for Fed. Or should they not be counted? But AO is now counted as a slam even in the 70s and 80s when it wasn't considered a slam.

The list goes on and on. ITF and the slams put all this in order after golden age of tennis in the 90s ended and interest in tennis was going down worldwide. They needed to create new superstars to take over from Sampras/Agassi to get the hype back up.

So why are people obsessing over the slam count when clearly it's a really bad metric to use to establish the goat. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
The one with the most hair chest is the Goat. ;)

novak-djokovic-gettyimages-75982114-2560x1950.jpeg
 
Street said:
People are obsessing over it because it is the best indicator of greatness since they are the most important tournaments in tennis. The fanbase whose player is in the lead will always talk about it more as we've seen with 17>14>12 etc.
Click to expand...

But then we shouldn't count AO as a slam to begin with.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
Well, only because Fed wouldn't retire when he hit 30-31 like people in the past had. If Sampras continued playing until he was 42 instead of 31 he'd meet Fed many times too. Doesn't mean they were in the same era.

And there's only 2 years difference in age between Sampras - Fed and Fed - Djokovic.
Click to expand...
I mean, even if Federer had retired at 31 he would still have met Djokovic around 27 times which would still be one of the most prolific rivalries in tennis. You can compare it to 1 time fed and sampras met but it doesn't really hold water imo. In the end, it doesn't matter really, the big 3 era was really entertaining. I'm just hoping for more fun matches between them before they retire.
 
Hitman said:
The moment people realize there is no GOAT is the moment everything just makes sense and you can just enjoy the tennis without all this madness.
Click to expand...

Also the moment you start realising that Nadal v Djokovic fighting for slam 23 and 22 respectively isn't the dream final but is very boring and that it matters very little because they've both won so much that any more is just gravy.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
But then we shouldn't count AO as a slam to begin with.
Click to expand...
Well, we don't make the rules, they call the Australian Open a slam so it's a slam. If you don't count australian opens, then Nadal is the runaway goat which doesn't really help your agenda. Well, i guess federer goes up by one spot.
 
It doesn’t matter anymore now that Fed is 3rd. Only Rolex ads and pretty backhands matter now.
 
helterskelter said:
Also the moment you start realising that Nadal v Djokovic fighting for slam 23 and 22 respectively isn't the dream final but is very boring and that it matters very little because they've both won so much that any more is just gravy.
Click to expand...

And the end of the day, I want to be entertained with the best tennis....was the reason why I started watching the sport as a kid in the first place.
 
Basically winning 7 BO5 matches in a row is the hardest thing to do in tennis. Maybe besides winning a tournament in which the top 8 all compete.
 
Street said:
Well, we don't make the rules, they call the Australian Open a slam so it's a slam. If you don't count australian opens, then Nadal is the runaway goat which doesn't really help your agenda. Well, i guess federer goes up by one spot.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it wasn't a slam back in the day. It's as if they would all of a sudden start calling Halle a slam, cause that's basically what AO used to be.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
Yeah but it wasn't a slam back in the day. It's as if they would all of a sudden start calling Halle a slam, cause that's basically what AO used to be.
Click to expand...
Well it started being a slam around 1924, thats a pretty long time. If they started calling Halle a slam, then Federer would be the GOAT. I hope they do that, it would be funny.
 
It is real simple. While the Slams are the most important, only Nadal fans argue it is the only thing (they slip at times and add the gold medal) because those are the only arguments they have against Djokovic being better. So if slams came in units of 0.1, they would say 22.1>>>>>>>>> 22.0, Bub.
 
Slams should be the only thing to measure greatness. Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors while Tiger won 15 majors. Nobody said that Tiger is better than Nicklaus, even when Tiger won 4 consecutive majors, something that Nicklaus couldn't do.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
People are obsessed with the slam race. It's something media/ITF have created to keep interest in the sport and not to lose revenue. But how can it even remotely be valid?

1. There were only 3 slams back in the day. AO wasn't a slam until the mid 80s (Borg only played it once for example and many other ATGs didn't play it at all). This fact alone should mean that looking at slam count is wrong.
2. There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now.
3. There are now roofs on show courts, meaning that the top seeds will not have to play 2 days in a row in case of rain, while lower seeded players will. Making it easier for the top seeds to win slam.
4. Court homogenisation. There's way less difference between surfaces these days. Meaning that if you're good on one surface you're more or less good on all surfaces. Making it easier to win multiple slams as they all play more or less the same.
5. In the future, because big changes will come to tennis when Fedal retires, IW could very well become a fifth slam. That would then mean another 3 slams for Nadal and 5 for Fed. Or should they not be counted? But AO is now counted as a slam even in the 70s and 80s when it wasn't considered a slam.

The list goes on and on. ITF and the slams put all this in order after golden age of tennis in the 90s ended and interest in tennis was going down worldwide. They needed to create new superstars to take over from Sampras/Agassi to get the hype back up.

So why are people obsessing over the slam count when clearly it's a really bad metric to use to establish the goat. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
"There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now."
Protects top players in early rounds but doesn't it make the middle rounds more challenging? Genuine question because I pretty much agree with you. AND I loathe the slam count obsession
 
Texas Tennis Fan said:
It is real simple. While the Slams are the most important, only Nadal fans argue it is the only thing (they slip at times and add the gold medal) because those are the only arguments they have against Djokovic being better. So if slams came in units of 0.1, they would say 22.1>>>>>>>>> 22.0, Bub.
Click to expand...

I'm a Nadal fan but I've never understood the obsession
 
medieval_remnant said:
"There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now."
Protects top players in early rounds but doesn't it make the middle rounds more challenging? Genuine question because I pretty much agree with you. AND I loathe the slam count obsession
Click to expand...
Actually it does.
 
Street said:
Well, thats just wrong info. You can look it up and inform yourself. :)
Click to expand...

Yes. Lets take a few non Australian top players at the time and see how many times they bothered playing by 85 lets say.

Borg - 1
McEnroe - 1
Connors - 2
Vilas - 4
Nastase - 1
Lendl - 4

It was basically too much of a hassle to travel to Australia in the until the 80s more or less. Also the venue AO was at at the time was too small to host a big tournament.

It wasn't a slam basically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Slam race ended in 2019
Replies
8
Views
725
BauerAlmeida
BauerAlmeida
R
How did ATP Tour Masters going from Bo5 to Bo3 impact the slam race?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Robert F
R
D
  • Poll Poll
AO2022 - Turning point in Slam race?
2 3
Replies
113
Views
5K
PrinceMoron
PrinceMoron
S
normalized slam counts of big-3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Start da Game
S
M
Djokovic, Nadal, Alcaraz and the slam race
Replies
27
Views
2K
nolefam_2024
N
Back
Top