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

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...

i doubt if you maintained the same stand 12 years ago when fed was winning slams left and right.....did you really?
 
Some Thoughts - in top-of-the-head fashion:

  • The "Slam Race" is valid as a starting point for those who played entirely in the Open Era. It's not everything, and I do see "everything else" as more than just tiebreakers to those tied in number of slams.
  • As the "slam race" affects mythical Goathood (it's the largest single component of it for me), it does have some validity.
  • I've pretty much been around since the beginning of the Open Era, and there have always been four majors in all that time - and even prior to then, but prior to then, of course, the overall tour was split between amateurs and pros, so that period was harder to assess.
  • Discounting the Australian Open doesn't make any sense, although it should be noted that there were quite a few years when top players did not compete there. We can't arbitrarily just award those Opens to, say, Borg, Connors, whomever, but it is an intangible factor.
  • Drawing on that, no amount of revision will get Borg or Connors or Mac or Lendl...whoever...close to 20 career majors/slams. (If people insist on writing "slam" for an individual major, at least do it without "Grand", and keep it lower case. Too much to ask? Okay, I vented.
  • I consider Borg and Sampras to be, generally, in the same class (as players) as each of The Big Three. Probably, so too were Laver, Rosewall and probably, Pancho, but my definition for "GOAT" is greatest from the start of the OE until now.
  • When it comes to GOAThood, it is kind of silly, but there's nothing wrong with being objective about ranking the best of the best. Within the all-Open Era, I'd have to really contort myself to consider anyone else other than Fed, Rafa and Novak. As of right now, I see Novak's resume as slightly superior to Rafa's, which is slightly superior to Roger's. But if anyone thinks this makes Roger a third wheel, they are delusional.
 
The courts all play the same but Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all dominate each other on certain courts and struggle against each other on certain courts :rolleyes:

The slam race is a compelling narrative that is extremely good for the sport, enjoy it while it lasts ;)
 
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...
It’s the most important metric. Look at hard it is for any of these younger players to win them. Even as great as Murray and Wawrinka were they could only win 3 each. A lot of them can’t even get 1. Some who did, then put that much into it, then they faded ala cilic or thiem.

It takes a lot to win 7 straight best of 5 matches in the big events which all players save their best form for. Only the elite players can.
 
Djokovic_is_the_best#1 said:
It’s the most important metric. Look at hard it is for any of these younger players to win them. Even as great as Murray and Wawrinka were they could only win 3 each. A lot of them can’t even get 1. Some who did, then put that much into it, then they faded ala cilic or thiem.

It takes a lot to win 7 straight best of 5 matches in the big events which all players save their best form for. Only the elite players can.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but at least Murray only had 3 players. Somebody like Courier had like 6-10 Fedalovic on top of all the other things like no roofs, 16 seed, court variation etc. Then you can talk about being hard.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
No, but I belong to the few who can view this from an objective point of view.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. You are trying to do whatever it takes to convince readers that your beloved Fed is the GOAT. (You are like his sponsor Rolex releasing a commercial claiming that 'numbers don't matter'.) Fed devotees have claimed since forever that he is the GOAT, I wonder why you have understood this obsession. :unsure:
 
Nadal - GOAT said:
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).
Click to expand...
Because we all know it's beyond ridiculous to suggest Fed could've beaten Djoko.
 
octobrina10 said:
No, you don't. You are trying to do whatever it takes to convince readers that your beloved Fed is the GOAT. (You are like his sponsor Rolex releasing a commercial claiming that 'numbers don't matter'.) Fed devotees have claimed since forever that he is the GOAT, I wonder why you have understood this obsession. :unsure:
Click to expand...

But I don't think he's goat. I think Lendl might even be ahead of Fed. Cause nobody had a tougher era than Lendl.

But most likely Borg or Sampras is the goat. Fed is probably top 5
 
bobleenov1963 said:
LOL... Nobody said that Tiger Wood is better than Jack Nicklaus when Nicklaus won 18 majors vs. 15 for Tiger.
Click to expand...
Yes they have. Just go online and you will find plenty of players, ex-players, commentators and sports writers as well as golfing fans who believe Tiger is greatest golfer of all time. I do not but there are plenty who think otherwise.
 
It's valid because every single iota of your career and production value is best represented by a single integer which tallies how many times you won 3 sets before someone else a few times in a row.

Hmmm... Perhaps not intelligible by a child...

I'm out.
 
paolo2143 said:
Yes they have. Just go online and you will find plenty of players, ex-players, commentators and sports writers as well as golfing fans who believe Tiger is greatest golfer of all time. I do not but there are plenty who think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Tiger Wood said himself that Nicklaus is the greatest golfer who ever played the game. That makes everyone else opinions essentially worthless.
 
As OP wrote, everyone's discussing the slam race obsessively, and the final chapter's being written right now.

Btw are we denying we are lucky to witness it? I don't see this happening again in the near future. But then again I thought Michael Johnson was a once-in-a-lifetime freak and then came Usain Bolt.

I'm just wondering... given the hype going on right now already, what about in a couple dozen/inches/furlongs years when our grandchildren will probably just look at the statistics about our own present time (if you allow me, I'd name it "the Laver effect", with due respect)? It'll feel like a golden era to look at with nostalgia, still - nowadays - we're arguing about weak eras and cheap speculations.
My hypothetical obsessive-about-tennis grandpa would have had something to say about that.
 
Last edited:
Court homogenisation will *likely* become less of a thing with the end of the Big 3.

Nobody else has proven themselves capable of winning across all surfaces repeatedly even if the court surfaces are similar now.
 
At one point it wasn't super relevant.

Borg retired very young being very close to the record.


Adv. Edberg said:
Yeah :/ But fair should be fair.

Besides, he won some doubles slams too. Conveniently they're not counted either anymore since the big 3 don't play doubles.
Click to expand...

Doubles not being counted has nothing to do with the Big 3. They were always different. Nobody said McEnroe had the record when Sampras was chasing it. Nobody ever considered the Bryans in the GOAT debate.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

We should adjust for this across eras by just removing AO titles from players' tallies. That would make for a fairer comparison.
 
Adv. Edberg said:
He also won 40% of the slams he played. Nobody is close to that.
Click to expand...

Okay. Borg is one of my favorite players ever, but this stat is just misleading. He basically retired at age 25 so he left near his peak. physical if not mental. If he had played out his career, he would not have maintained that 40% as McEnroe and Lendl rose to their own respective peaks. It's also why Borg has one of the highest winning percentages ever in tennis. He never had to deal with his declining years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bud
zvelf said:
...If he had played out his career, he would not have maintained that 40% as McEnroe and Lendl rose to their own respective peaks. It's also why Borg has one of the highest winning percentages ever in tennis. He never had to deal with his declining years.
Click to expand...
Who's to say McEnroe and Lendl would have risen had Borg stayed? Who's to say his winning percentage wouldn't have continued to increase?
 
mtommer said:
Who's to say McEnroe and Lendl would have risen had Borg stayed? Who's to say his winning percentage wouldn't have continued to increase?
Click to expand...

Because every player has a peak, and by definition, they get worse once they are past that peak. It just happens that Borg retired at or near his peak. Also, McEnroe beat Borg 3 times in a row in their final 3 matches, including at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. This was all in Borg's last full year on tour. It didn't look like Borg was going to hold off McEnroe. And when Borg came back in the early 90s and played 12 matches, he lost all 12. Only one of these matches was against a top 20 player and 4 of his opponents were ranked out of the top 100. #196 Lionel Roux even bageled Borg 6-0, 6-4.
 
zvelf said:
Because every player has a peak, and by definition, they get worse once they are past that peak. It just happens that Borg retired at or near his peak. Also, McEnroe beat Borg 3 times in a row in their final 3 matches, including at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.
Click to expand...

Did he lose because was losing motivation or just getting tired of playing? My only point to all this is just that it's pure speculation. One can assume he left at his peak but nobody knows if that's accurate or not. One can assume his losses was due to an opponent simply being better but no one knows. What we DO know is that he left at a time when he was proverbially at the top and had every reason to stay......yet he didn't. One can't count on anything definitive except for that which he himself might confirm, deny or clarify. And to that end, his word, truthful or not, is all we would have.
 
Bud said:
As soon as Federer ended up third, the slam race no longer matters :laughing:
Click to expand...

well tbf im a Nadal fan. But I have to remain objective. And it has been a lot easier for Nadal to win slams in the last 10-12 than if he’d played in the early 90s for example
 
They're valid because they are the hardest to win. He who has the most slams, has done what is the hardest to do the most, and therefore is the best - more or less.
 
brewpats said:
They're valid because they are the hardest to win. He who has the most slams, has done what is the hardest to do the most, and therefore is the best - more or less.
Click to expand...

Player One wins 20 AO Titles.
Player Two wins 20 Roland Garros Titles.
Player Three wins 20 Wimbeldon Titles.
Player Four wins 20 USO Titles.

Player Five wins 16 MAJORS (4 AO, 4 RG, 4 Wimb, 4 USO)

It could be argued that Player Five is the best even though they have won 4 fewer Major Titles than each of the other four players mentioned.
And how would Player Five be placed if they won a GRAND SLAM or two as part of the collection?
 
slam race became a thing when sampras overtook bjorn borg, laver and co. i personally dont care that much for grand slam wins. the tennis players i loved to watch barely have any slams among them. safin, davydenko and fernando gonzalez have 2 slams. who cares? entertainment is subjective and you can have as much or more fun watching a 90 ranked atp player as the big 3
 
OKUSA said:
slam race became a thing when sampras overtook bjorn borg, laver and co. i personally dont care that much for grand slam wins. the tennis players i loved to watch barely have any slams among them. safin, davydenko and fernando gonzalez have 2 slams. who cares? entertainment is subjective and you can have as much or more fun watching a 90 ranked atp player as the big 3
Click to expand...

Actually Slam Race became a thing when it became apparent that Sampras could match or surpass Emerson's Singles Major Title record. Once again, it was the good old American media that decided to beat the whole thing up and turn it into a prize jewel. Just like they did many decades earlier with the "GRAND SLAM" term.

Roy Emerson was Pete Sampras's idol. The main reason Sampras switched to a single handed backhand was to pursue success at Wimbledon and mimic the achievements of his idol Roy Emerson.

And I can relate to your views regarding tennis matches. It doesn't really matter what level the players are at. If a tennis match is close and tense, it is often a very entertaining spectacle. Some of the 14 year old juniors at our local club have participated in incredibly exciting tennis matches that were great to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Slam race ended in 2019
Replies
8
Views
694
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