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

[Blahovic]

There's a degree to which it matters because people and players believe it matters.

I agree 'total number of slams' is very flawed as a one-and-done metric to determine greatness -- and for more reasons than you mentioned -- but people have accepted it as such and so now for the players these are the tournaments which they put their all into.

 

[Street]

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.

It was definitely a slam, you can look it up if you don't believe me. However, it was a slam a lot of top players didn't go to.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It was definitely a slam, you can look it up if you don't believe me. However, it was a slam a lot of top players didn't go to.

Which teaches us that a slam =! a major.

 

[3loudboys]

And they all lived happily ever after.

 

[PerilousPear]

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.

It had a status of a slam. Just because players preferred staying home for Xmas than playing it (since they were probably tired after a long season) doesn't take away anything from it.

 

[Street]

Which teaches us that a slam =! a major.

Major is another name for slams. But in the end, it is up to you to decide what you value the most. Federer fans will say federer is the goat, nadal fans will say that nadal is the goat, djokovic fans that djokovic is the goat and objective fans will probably follow the numbers.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Major is another name for slams. But in the end, it is up to you to decide what you value the most. Federer fans will say federer is the goat, nadal fans will say that nadal is the goat, djokovic fans that djokovic is the goat and objective fans will probably follow the numbers.

I'm a Nadal fan but I'd say Fed is ahead of Nadal who is ahead of Djokovic. But Sampras/Borg are ahead of all 3. And I'm not a huge fan of Sampras or Borg btw.

 

[The Blond Blur]

It's PETE'S fault.

 

[Shaolin]

Total slam titles is a quick and easy metric to use for people that like to ignore other accomplishments like Tour Finals and weeks #1.

Its ok though, Djokovic will finish with the overall slam titles record anyway.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Major is another name for slams. But in the end, it is up to you to decide what you value the most. Federer fans will say federer is the goat, nadal fans will say that nadal is the goat, djokovic fans that djokovic is the goat and objective fans will probably follow the numbers.

AO was not a major in 1970-82 when it had less than 2 top 10 participants on average per year. It was even officially demoted for a while.

 

[Kralingen]

Because of this modern obsession with numbers, data-driven rankings, and a very Western, non-historic, view of accumulation being the sole criterion to judge things.

There is very little historical basis for 'GOAT' races. It is all very gross indeed.

 

[Street]

I'm a Nadal fan but I'd say Fed is ahead of Nadal who is ahead of Djokovic. But Sampras/Borg are ahead of all 3. And I'm not a huge fan of Sampras or Borg btw.

Oh that's an interesting take, why do you think Federer is better than Nadal and Djokovic? And why are Sampras and Borg better than the big 3?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Oh that's an interesting take, why do you think Federer is better than Nadal and Djokovic? And why are Sampras and Borg better than the big 3?

I think Fed is better than Nadal cause he had slightly harder competition than Nadal. And Sampras are better than all three because of my first post and also that they played in the toughest era. So many slam contenders back then. Now there's is one, maybe two.

 

[Street]

I think Fed is better than Nadal cause he had slightly harder competition than Nadal. And Sampras are better than all three because of my first post and also that they played in the toughest era. So many slam contenders back then. Now there's is one, maybe two.

Hmm yeah, it's always hard to argue who had harder competition because it is all subjective. For example, i can't see the harder competition Federer had than Nadal. You mentioned slam contenders but there were very few slam contenders for Fed before Nadal arrived. I respect your opinion though.

 

[Keystoner]

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.

What a silly premise and silly to expect anyone to accept. You can acknowledge GOAT, and everything still makes sense and still enjoy the tennis without madness. When/If Djok gets 30 (!), are you still going to decry "GOAT"? I get it--you're a good guy. You're humble. Your guy is the GOAT and you don't want to minimize other ATGs. Good for you. Acknowledging GOAT isn't necessarily an insult to non-GOAT ATGs. And BTW, your position has changed. At one point in time, and it's always GOAT at any particular point in time, you considered Federer the GOAT.

 

[Graf1stClass]

Any metric used to establish the goat is a bad one. Better not to worry about who's goat at all.

There is one:

Golden Slam

 

[Hitman]

What a silly premise and silly to expect anyone to accept. You can acknowledge GOAT, and everything still makes sense and still enjoy the tennis without madness. When/If Djok gets 30 (!), are you still going to decry "GOAT"? I get it--you're a good guy. You're humble. Your guy is the GOAT and you don't want to minimize other ATGs. Good for you. Acknowledging GOAT isn't necessarily an insult to non-GOAT ATGs. And BTW, your position has changed. At one point in time, and it's always GOAT at any particular point in time, you considered Federer the GOAT.

I have always said that if I had to choose, someone putting a gun to my head that I had to choose, I would go with consensus of who had the most slams. Said that a few times. It is why I put Nadal still ahead of Djokovic due to the slam lead, and he would have the best case in my eyes now, if I was forced to choose.

If people think there MUST be a GOAT, that is up to them, but I have always said Sampras at his peak was one of the greatest I ever saw. And it was only because the consensus was pointing at Federer due to more slams that I have held this view. You know, when you have watched tennis for four decades, you understand just how crazy GOAT really is. That is my view.

 

[Keystoner]

I have always said that if I had to choose, someone putting a gun to my head that I had to choose, I would go with consensus of who had the most slams. Said that a few times. It is why I put Nadal still ahead of Djokovic due to the slam lead, and he would have the best case in my eyes now, if I was forced to choose.

If people think there MUST be a GOAT, that is up to them, but I have always said Sampras at his peak was one of the greatest I ever saw. And it was only because the consensus was pointing at Federer due to more slams that I have held this view. You know, when you have watched tennis for four decades, you understand just how crazy GOAT really is. That is my view.

I'm surprised you feel compelled to "go with the consensus." One metric--Grand Slams? Whatever--that's part of the debate--a debate that doesn't have to be contentious.

So you think it's Sampras? If you do, go with it! There is no shame in thinking that, and there is no shame on Federer if you think it's Djokovic.

 

[Hitman]

I'm surprised you feel compelled to "go with the consensus." One metric--Grand Slams? Whatever--that's part of the debate--a debate that doesn't have to be contentious.

So you think it's Sampras? If you do, go with it! There is no shame in thinking that, and there is no shame on Federer if you think it's Djokovic.

 

[leodevlin]

The one who wins the most slams, wins the slam race. There, you have it .

 

[Herald]

I would hate to see how this forum treats a child

 

[Adv. Edberg]

The one who wins the most slams, wins the slam race. There, you have it .

What if they made Halle a fifth slam? Then Fed would be getting like 8 more slams since nobody else played Halle.

That's exactly what people have done with AO.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

If people think there MUST be a GOAT, that is up to them, but I have always said Sampras at his peak was one of the greatest I ever saw. And it was only because the consensus was pointing at Federer due to more slams that I have held this view. You know, when you have watched tennis for four decades, you understand just how crazy GOAT really is. That is my view.

I'm surprised you feel compelled to "go with the consensus." One metric--Grand Slams? Whatever--that's part of the debate--a debate that doesn't have to be contentious.

So you think it's Sampras? If you do, go with it! There is no shame in thinking that, and there is no shame on Federer if you think it's Djokovic.

I'm leaning towards Sampras too, cause the era he played in was so hard. And court variation and all the rest of it.

 

[tennis_pro]

GUGUGAGAGUGU fedr

 

[Lleytonstation]

Well.. children shouldn’t be thinking about slam race. They should focus on learning and playing the game properly

The slam race isn't child appropriate. It is about rated R farm animals.

 

[helterskelter]

There is one:

Golden Slam

Nah.

 

[GabeT]

So, when a journalist loves making headlines very much…

 

[ibbi]

The slam race is just a race between three dudes to see who wins the most majors. The GOAT race, now that is some juvenile nonsense for dork-ass casuals and children who were born yesterday.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

The slam race is just a race between three dudes to see who wins the most majors. The GOAT race, now that is some juvenile nonsense for dork-ass casuals and children who were born yesterday.

Mayer. But seems like people think one of the big three is the goat. The one who ends up with most slams. Which will be Djoko

 

[SinneGOAT]

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.

Bigger number = Better

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Bigger number = Better

despite that it’s easier to win slams today than in the 90s?

 

[SinneGOAT]

despite that it’s easier to win slams today than in the 90s?

Recency bias

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Recency bias

what do you mean?

 

[adil1972]

I will explain when OP grow up which can take 20 years atleast

Lol

 

[Karma Tennis]

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.

The Australian Open is one of the FOUR MAJOR TOURNAMENTS in tennis.

Every tennis statistician and every tennis record book acknowledges that.

And the primary reason why many players you mention didn't come to play at Kooyong was because the L.T.A.A. (Lawn Tennis Association of Australia nowdays known as Tennis Australia) was not prepared to pay exhorbitant appearance fee money to players.

You can virutally guarantee, there is absolutely NO WAY, Roger, Rafa, or Novak would have been coming down here every year either without the six figure sums they are offered just to show up.

 

[SinneGOAT]

what do you mean?

When discussing tennis records or the such, people’s memory only focus on maybe the past 20/30 years. For example not many bring up Laver or other players that did great things before around the 1980’s/1990’s. Their focus is mainly on recent players.

 

[bobleenov1963]

When discussing tennis records or the such, people’s memory only focus on maybe the past 20/30 years. For example not many bring up Laver or other players that did great things before around the 1980’s/1990’s. Their focus is mainly on recent players.

It is because all of us have short term memory. Nobody talked about Jesse Owens won the 1936 gold medal in Berlin in 2022, except in the context of history that it happened in Germany.

 

[BGod]

Truth. Borg's dominance is still 2nd to none.

And the USOs he lost the draws were far better than how Fed was losing at FO or Nadal losing on grass.

He basically had to beat 2 of either prime Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Nastase. And people might laugh at Tanner's name but matches are up on YouTube the guy had a massive serve with ground and net game.

 

[thrust]

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.

Whether on likes it or not, officially the AO was considered a slam long before the mid 80's. If players decided not to compete in certain slams, that is their fault. If they are injured, that is either thier fault or bad luck. The competition IS wat it IS, so that if a player wins slams in weaker eras that is not their fault and deserve their win. Officially, Nadal has 22 well deserved slams, Novak has 21, Roger-21. Learn to deal with those FACTS!

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Whether on likes it or not, officially the AO was considered a slam long before the mid 80's. If players decided not to compete in certain slams, that is their fault. If they are injured, that is either thier fault or bad luck. The competition IS wat it IS, so that if a player wins slams in weaker eras that is not their fault and deserve their win. Officially, Nadal has 22 well deserved slams, Novak has 21, Roger-21. Learn to deal with those FACTS!

Sure, but you can't deny that it was harder to win slams back in 1993 for example. Not even taking the competition into account. Just for all the other reasons.

 

[mtommer]

....But how can it even remotely be valid?

Like a child then? Slams represent the best players and hardest contests in tennis. The Slams are literally THE measuring stick from which all else flows.

 

[Arak]

Truth. Borg's dominance is still 2nd to none.

And the USOs he lost the draws were far better than how Fed was losing at FO or Nadal losing on grass.

He basically had to beat 2 of either prime Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Nastase. And people might laugh at Tanner's name but matches are up on YouTube the guy had a massive serve with ground and net game.

I have always been of the opinion that, if there must be someone regarded as the goat, then by all means it must be Borg. He’s the only player who dominated both clay and grass in a very strong era of incredible players.

 

[RaulRamirez]

When discussing tennis records or the such, people’s memory only focus on maybe the past 20/30 years. For example not many bring up Laver or other players that did great things before around the 1980’s/1990’s. Their focus is mainly on recent players.

I don't think it's an arbitrary period like 20-30 years. For instance, I'm well aware of the records of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and even some who preceded them, but the start of the Open Era (US Open, 1968) seems to be a clear dividing line.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Whether on likes it or not, officially the AO was considered a slam long before the mid 80's. If players decided not to compete in certain slams, that is their fault. If they are injured, that is either thier fault or bad luck. The competition IS wat it IS, so that if a player wins slams in weaker eras that is not their fault and deserve their win. Officially, Nadal has 22 well deserved slams, Novak has 21, Roger-21. Learn to deal with those FACTS!

Yes, but... Roger has 21?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Like a child then? Slams represent the best players and hardest contests in tennis. The Slams are literally THE measuring stick from which all else flows.

Without taking them in context of their respective era? It was no doubt harder to win a slam in the early 90s for example.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

I have always been of the opinion that, if there must be someone regarded as the goat, then by all means it must be Borg. He’s the only player who dominated both clay and grass in a very strong era of incredible players.

He also won 40% of the slams he played. Nobody is close to that.

 

[paolo2143]

The Grand slams are without a doubt the biggest and most important tournaments in tennis.

However trying to say that a player is the GOAT based solely on his grand slam record is not only flawed but also not based on reality.

If Player A has 15 slams and Player B 14 slams but player B has superiority in every other area (Masters tournaments, overall tournaments, winning h2h, better distribution of slams, better overall career winning %, more year end Number 1's, held all 4 slams at same time, and several year end ATP Masters titles) then trying to say Player A is better just because he has one slam more appears nonsense, because it would be nonsense.

Sure if overall all their other major stats are almost equally balanced then i might say Player A has the slightest of edges due to that 1 extra slam but not in a scenario as i described.

 

[bobleenov1963]

The Grand slams are without a doubt the biggest and most important tournaments in tennis.

However trying to say that a player is the GOAT based solely on his grand slam record is not only flawed but also not based on reality.

If Player A has 15 slams and Player B 14 slams but player B has superiority in every other area (Masters tournaments, overall tournaments, winning h2h, better distribution of slams, better overall career winning %, more year end Number 1's, held all 4 slams at same time, and several year end ATP Masters titles) then trying to say Player A is better just because he has one slam more appears nonsense, because it would be nonsense.

Sure if overall all their other major stats are almost equally balanced then i might say Player A has the slightest of edges due to that 1 extra slam but not in a scenario as i described.

LOL... Nobody said that Tiger Wood is better than Jack Nicklaus when Nicklaus won 18 majors vs. 15 for Tiger.

 

[mahatma]

Because of this modern obsession with numbers, data-driven rankings, and a very Western, non-historic, view of accumulation being the sole criterion to judge things.

There is very little historical basis for 'GOAT' races. It is all very gross indeed.

It sells as a marketing concept and abused in all sports - be it football, cricket, badminton.... that is about it.

 

[SinneGOAT]

I don't think it's an arbitrary period like 20-30 years. For instance, I'm well aware of the records of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and even some who preceded them, but the start of the Open Era (US Open, 1968) seems to be a clear dividing line.

I was speaking about the general fan of tennis, the average club goer whose memory only goes back to Sampras or MAYBE McEnroe/Borg, sorry for the confusion.