Grand Slam = GOAT?

[KG1965]

Grand Slam = AO + French Open + W + USO ... in the same year.

If a new player wins the GS (example in 2028) will be immediately considered GOAT Contender?
If he wins two consecutive GS will he automatically become GOAT (dethroning Federer)?
With 3 GS there is obviously no discussion.

 

[Tennisanity]

By stupid people, yes. By sane people, no.

/end thread

 

[KineticChain]

wut

 

[Le Master]

Djokovic did this. All four grand slams within 12 months. Calendar year is meaningless. 12 months is 12 months. This is coming from someone who wishes Djokovic never even picked up a racquet.

 

[KG1965]

By stupid people, yes. By sane people, no.

/end thread

 

[FederErizeD]

I'm sorry, what?

 

[van_Loederen]

imagine in 2007 Nadal would have been injured...

the "Grand Slam" can be very close connected to the level of competition at (the top of) the tour.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No.

Federer = GOAT

 

[Tennisanity]

Ohhhhh, good comeback! That part was originally offered to Clint by the way

 

[Tennis_Hands]

 

[KG1965]

Ohhhhh, good comeback! That part was originally offered to Clint by the way

Clint is Clint and will always remain Clint.
But Bronson made a large number here.

 

[BobbyOne]

Grand Slam = AO + French Open + W + USO ... in the same year.

If a new player wins the GS (example in 2028) will be immediately considered GOAT Contender?
If he wins two consecutive GS will he automatically become GOAT (dethroning Federer)?
With 3 GS there is obviously no discussion.

Yes, That's the reason why Laver still is acknowledged a GOAT contender.

 

[BobbyOne]

Grand Slam = AO + French Open + W + USO ... in the same year.

If a new player wins the GS (example in 2028) will be immediately considered GOAT Contender?
If he wins two consecutive GS will he automatically become GOAT (dethroning Federer)?
With 3 GS there is obviously no discussion.

Yes, That's the reason why Laver still is acknowledged a GOAT contender.

 

[BobbyOne]

Grand Slam = AO + French Open + W + USO ... in the same year.

If a new player wins the GS (example in 2028) will be immediately considered GOAT Contender?
If he wins two consecutive GS will he automatically become GOAT (dethroning Federer)?
With 3 GS there is obviously no discussion.

Yes, That's the reason why Laver still is acknowledged a GOAT contender.

Djokovic did this. All four grand slams within 12 months. Calendar year is meaningless. 12 months is 12 months. This is coming from someone who wishes Djokovic never even picked up a racquet.

Djokovic never won the Grand Slam!

 

[BobbyOne]

Grand Slam = AO + French Open + W + USO ... in the same year.

If a new player wins the GS (example in 2028) will be immediately considered GOAT Contender?
If he wins two consecutive GS will he automatically become GOAT (dethroning Federer)?
With 3 GS there is obviously no discussion.

Yes, That's the reason why Laver still is acknowledged a GOAT contender.

Djokovic did this. All four grand slams within 12 months. Calendar year is meaningless. 12 months is 12 months. This is coming from someone who wishes Djokovic never even picked up a racquet.

Djokovic never won the Grand Slam!

 

[NEW_BORN]

I would say he's just had a GOAT year, but not yet a GOAT contender.

 

[qindarka]

Djokovic has done the equivalent and no one is really calling him GOAT.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Djokovic did this. All four grand slams within 12 months. Calendar year is meaningless

Um...no, Djoker never achieved the CYGS. If you think it's "meaningless" whether or not he achieved it in a calendar year, then that's exclusively your opinion. The fact he won four in a row in different years renders the accomplishment as vastly inferior to what Budge and Laver did.

The news media hardly noticed his four in a row because it wasn't in one calendar year. It's like the "Serena slam," which no one remembers now.

 

[travlerajm]

In 3 years, there will not be any good tennis players left on the atp tour. That means that every grand slam from that point onward will be won a by a crappy player. If one of those crappy players happens to be enough better than the rest of the crappy players to win 4 majors in same year, it does not make him an all time great. Just means he is the best crappy player in the world.

 

[Le Master]

Um...no, Djoker never achieved the CYGS. If you think it's "meaningless" whether or not he achieved it in a calendar year, then that's exclusively your opinion. The fact he won four in a row in different years renders the accomplishment as vastly inferior to what Budge and Laver did.

The news media hardly noticed his four in a row because it wasn't in one calendar year. It's like the "Serena slam," which no one remembers now.

There's is zero, absolutely zero, logic for it being inferior. The ranking systems renders them equal. Just because people like to acknowledge it more since they like to think of things more in terms of a calendar year doesn't give it any more value.

 

[Pheasant]

If Mr X came along and won the calendar slam in consecutive years, but then never won anything else besides that, then he would not be nearly great enough to be called GOAT.

But let’s take this a little further. Imagine that Mr X also went 100-2 during each of those 2 years. I.e, imagine a record of 200-4 over 2 years with 2 calendar slams, 20 masters titles, and 30 titles overall. After this, Mr X crumbles like Safin did after 2005 and ends up with a 650-200 record with 8 slams, 22 Masters titles and 50 titles overall. Where would this guy rank? I still would not put him #1, although he would have a pretty strong case.

Speaking of GOAT, Federer’s record of 247-15 from 2004-2006 something that I haven’t heard mentioned before. But that record is incredible. That is an average of 82-5 each year. How many players since 1990 have gone 82-5 for a single season? Now imagine averaging that level for 3 years. Unreal.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

It would be an amazing feat but I don't think that it would automatically mean that they are GOAT. The ATG 3 and Pete Sampras before them have set the bar at a high level to beome an ATG let alone goat:

• Slams: need to win on average two a year to be in the conversation right throughout a ten-year career. This most likely includes winning slams in your teens, 20's and 30's like Rafa or winning late into your 30's like Fed
• Career Grand Slam - at least once
• YE#1: 5 or 6 minimum
• WTF: 5 or 6 minimum
• M1000: 3 a year on average throughout a ten-year career

That's where the bar currently is so I don't think that a one-off Grand Slam would cut it. But someone who is capable of achieving it, and does so young enough is certainly well placed for chasing down most of the above.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

It would be an amazing feat but I don't think that it would automatically mean that they are GOAT. The ATG 3 and Pete Sampras before them have set the bar at a high level to beome an ATG let alone goat:

• Slams: need to win on average two a year to be in the conversation right throughout a ten-year career. This most likely includes winning slams in your teens, 20's and 30's like Rafa or winning late into your 30's like Fed
• Career Grand Slam - at least once
• YE#1: 5 or 6 minimum
• WTF: 5 or 6 minimum
• M1000: 3 a year on average throughout a ten-year career

That's where the bar currently is so I don't think that a one-off Grand Slam would cut it. But someone who is capable of achieving it, and does so young enough is certainly well placed for chasing down most of the above.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Um...no, Djoker never achieved the CYGS. If you think it's "meaningless" whether or not he achieved it in a calendar year, then that's exclusively your opinion. The fact he won four in a row in different years renders the accomplishment as vastly inferior to what Budge and Laver did.

The news media hardly noticed his four in a row because it wasn't in one calendar year. It's like the "Serena slam," which no one remembers now.

Bolded: that also is your opinion.

 

[Wander]

No. It doesn't make any sense. Nobody calls anyone the greatest ever in any other sport just on the basis of a single most dominant year. That's a separate category which someone could top without necessarily having the longevity and career achievements to be in the GOAT debate at all.

If Mats Wilander had somehow won the Wimbmledon title in 1988 instead of losing the quarterfinals, with all other things remaining the same, would he be considered a GOAT contender because he now won The Grand Slam? Not at all.

Now, with multiple years with all 4 Grand Slams, it becomes more of an argument, but your Slam total would also have to still be close to the top of the all time rankings.

 

[ChrisRF]

There's is zero, absolutely zero, logic for it being inferior. The ranking systems renders them equal. Just because people like to acknowledge it more since they like to think of things more in terms of a calendar year doesn't give it any more value.

I agree with you that NCYGS is also a huge achievement, but there is still one important difference. For just “4 in a row” you can start an any point and therefore you have only 3 Slams where you have the pressure of a must-win-situation. With the CYGS you have it at all 4 Slams, always starting in Australia or having to postpone it for a full year.