Grand Slam winners - AO not included

[RealBrotzu]

As far as i know, from 1970 to 1982 AO was a "minor" tournament, not even close to FO, W, USO. Top players used to skip it most of times. Therefore when comparing Grand Slam titles of 70-82 players and current players, we should not take into acount AO. (However, when comparing total wins of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, etc AO must be included).
That's how the list (open era titles) would appear, quite different from the "official" list! It seems Borg, Connors (who won one edition though), and to a lesser extent McEnroe, Lendl and even Wilander (82) could have won more Grand Slam titles had they participated in the tournament every year. Any thoughts?

Nadal 15
Federer 14
Sampras 12
Borg 11
Djokovic 7
McEnroe 7
Connors 7
Lendl 6
Edberg 4
Becker 4
Laver 4
Agassi 4
Wilander 4
Newcombe 3

 

[Waspsting]

As far as i know, from 1970 to 1982 AO was a "minor" tournament, not even close to FO, W, USO.

It's a tad trickier than this

The French, Wimbledon and US weren't exactly equals either

Wimbledon was up there as a virtual world championship, US a bit further down but a clear #2 and the French well behind

Far as I can tell, the French was closer in value to Rome in terms of prestige than the US and Wimbledon (Rome it should be noted was also much higher than it is now)

But yes, Aus was bottom of the barrel of the 4... and continued to be all the way into the 90s even (though the gap was smaller by then)

It seems Borg, Connors (who won one edition though), and to a lesser extent McEnroe, Lendl and even Wilander (82) could have won more Grand Slam titles had they participated in the tournament every year

Of course, but if they had, than the AO wouldn't have been the weak sister Slam to begin with ... the field makes the prestige and the prestige attracts the field.

Bit of a chicken and egg thing

(Slam count sans AO)

Nadal 15
Federer 14
Sampras 12
Borg 11
Djokovic 7
McEnroe 7
Connors 7
Lendl 6
Edberg 4
Becker 4
Laver 4
Agassi 4
Wilander 4
Newcombe 3

Slam count as a measure of greatness is a pretty modern phenomena

It became a thing as Pete Sampras was approaching the all-time record of 12 of Roy Emerson (who nobody rated particularly highly)

By contrast, when Borg was approaching it, no one seems to have made a thing of it. He was Bjorn Borg - "the 5 time Wimbledon champion", not "the 11 time Slam winner"

So yeah, people tend to backwards impose present day values onto the past. Which is poor logic

You've adjusted for changing values nicely with the excercise of omitting AO titles from the modern players, but the context I think you're applying remains high value for overall Slam count as we have now... is that right?

I'm not sure that context holds perfectly for Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl etc... its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole

 

[suwanee4712]

You should follow your thread and see where it goes. Maybe it will prove something. But I completely disagree with the premise that the AO was not a grand slam title. It was a grand slam title at all times. If certain players chose not to play it then that's on them. Many of the greats that I love hurt themselves by not playing the AO and the FO at times. They may or may not have had decent reasons. But it was their mistake and their own shortsightedness in terms of history.

 

[RealBrotzu]

Yes it's tricky, i'm just curious about opinions.
Same goes for Olympics. Nobody seemed to care in the past, and yet it is now considered an important tournament (like a Masters 1000? i don't know).
That's a further reason you can't compare careers of different players from different eras.

ps i didn't know Rome was so prestigious back in time... maybe it will regain some of its past glory next year when (or if?) will be upgraded to "supermasters"/"mini-slam".

 

[Limpinhitter]

As far as i know, from 1970 to 1982 AO was a "minor" tournament, not even close to FO, W, USO. Top players used to skip it most of times. Therefore when comparing Grand Slam titles of 70-82 players and current players, we should not take into acount AO. (However, when comparing total wins of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, etc AO must be included).
That's how the list (open era titles) would appear, quite different from the "official" list! It seems Borg, Connors (who won one edition though), and to a lesser extent McEnroe, Lendl and even Wilander (82) could have won more Grand Slam titles had they participated in the tournament every year. Any thoughts?

Nadal 15
Federer 14
Sampras 12
Borg 11
Djokovic 7
McEnroe 7
Connors 7
Lendl 6
Edberg 4
Becker 4
Laver 4
Agassi 4
Wilander 4
Newcombe 3

The French Open was also considerably less prestigious than Wimbledon and the U.S. Open until the 90's (to my recollection). Many top players have skipped the FO on many occasions in eras past. Consider the following:
- All time great clay courter and 7 time FO champion, Chris Evert, skipped 3 FO's three straight years in a row in the prime of her career.
- Arguably the greatest clay courter of all time and 6 time FO champion, Bjorn Borg, skipped 1 FO in the prime of his career.
- John McEnroe skipped the FO in the first 2 years of his prime.
- Jimmy Connors skipped the FO 5 straight years in a row in the prime of his career.
- After winning the Grand Slam in 1969, Rod Laver never played the FO again.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Yes it's tricky, i'm just curious about opinions.
Same goes for Olympics. Nobody seemed to care in the past, and yet it is now considered an important tournament (like a Masters 1000? i don't know).
That's a further reason you can't compare careers of different players from different eras.

ps i didn't know Rome was so prestigious back in time... maybe it will regain some of its past glory next year when (or if?) will be upgraded to "supermasters"/"mini-slam".

There was no Olympic tennis for over 60 years between 1924 and 1988. Olympic tennis has little history or prestige.

 

[RealBrotzu]

There was no Olympic tennis for over 60 years between 1924 and 1988. Olympic tennis has little history or prestige.

I know it. Britons make a big deal of Olympics though, due to Murray wins.

 

[KG1965]

As far as i know, from 1970 to 1982 AO was a "minor" tournament, not even close to FO, W, USO. Top players used to skip it most of times. Therefore when comparing Grand Slam titles of 70-82 players and current players, we should not take into acount AO. (However, when comparing total wins of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, etc AO must be included).
That's how the list (open era titles) would appear, quite different from the "official" list! It seems Borg, Connors (who won one edition though), and to a lesser extent McEnroe, Lendl and even Wilander (82) could have won more Grand Slam titles had they participated in the tournament every year. Any thoughts?

The question that you ask is of particular relevance.
The conclusion does not seem correct because Djokovic, Federer, Agassi and all the others have fought and won a very important Major in the last 30 years. Excluding the Major from the calculation is not fair against them.

What can you do? Difficult to say if one wants to equate the 4 Majors (= slam) of now with 4 Majors of 40 years ago.
There was no fourth comparable title. We need to make other reasonings if we want to obtain an equality.

I wish you a good search.

 

[KG1965]

I know it. Britons make a big deal of Olympics though, due to Murray wins.

It's true, it's an Olympic title and could have great value between 30 years.
The fact remains that it has a recent history, the first editions have been embarrassing.

 

[natalia]

Let’s make rafi greater than Roger - at any cost! Bamos!!!

 

[RealBrotzu]

Let’s make rafi greater than Roger - at any cost! Bamos!!!

What's the point of this comment?

 

[RealBrotzu]

The question that you ask is of particular relevance.
The conclusion does not seem correct because Djokovic, Federer, Agassi and all the others have fought and won a very important Major in the last 30 years. Excluding the Major from the calculation is not fair against them.

What can you do? Difficult to say if one wants to equate the 4 Majors (= slam) of now with 4 Majors of 40 years ago.
There was no fourth comparable title. We need to make other reasonings if we want to obtain an equality.

I wish you a good search.

Maybe we should take into account, for each year, the 4 tournaments most top players participated in. Such a demanding task!

 

[KG1965]

Maybe we should take into account, for each year, the 4 tournaments most top players participated in. Such a demanding task!

It seems easy but in fact it is challenging because the 4th most important is the Masters GP but
1) has been since 1977
2)) is not a Major because it has an 8-player Round Robin (they are the current ATP Finals).

In practice there was not a very large tournament (major) in which everyone participated, the one that was closest was held in Philadelphia (US Pro Indoor) but it was not a Major.

I do not have the solution, I'm sorry.

 

[jean pierre]

As far as i know, from 1970 to 1982 AO was a "minor" tournament, not even close to FO, W, USO. Top players used to skip it most of times. Therefore when comparing Grand Slam titles of 70-82 players and current players, we should not take into acount AO. (However, when comparing total wins of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, etc AO must be included).
That's how the list (open era titles) would appear, quite different from the "official" list! It seems Borg, Connors (who won one edition though), and to a lesser extent McEnroe, Lendl and even Wilander (82) could have won more Grand Slam titles had they participated in the tournament every year. Any thoughts?

Nadal 15
Federer 14
Sampras 12
Borg 11
Djokovic 7
McEnroe 7
Connors 7
Lendl 6
Edberg 4
Becker 4
Laver 4
Agassi 4
Wilander 4
Newcombe 3

AO was less important than FO, USO and Wimbledon, but it was a Grand Slam, and those who are absent are always wrong ...Players who had the courage to go to Australia during Christmas were rewarded. And except Edmondson and maybe Teacher, AO winners were top players during this period (Newcombe, Connors, Gerulaitis, Vilas, Tanner, Kriek).

 

[hoodjem]

Yes it's tricky, i'm just curious about opinions.
Same goes for Olympics. Nobody seemed to care in the past, and yet it is now considered an important tournament (like a Masters 1000? i don't know).
That's a further reason you can't compare careers of different players from different eras.

Well, you are right that no one cared about Olympics tennis from 1925 until 1988.

 

[hoodjem]

The French Open was also considerably less prestigious than Wimbledon and the U.S. Open until the 90's (to my recollection). Many top players have skipped the FO on many occasions in eras past. Consider the following:
- All time great clay courter and 7 time FO champion, Chris Evert, skipped 3 FO's three straight years in a row in the prime of her career.
- Arguably the greatest clay courter of all time and 6 time FO champion, Bjorn Borg, skipped 1 FO in the prime of his career.
- John McEnroe skipped the FO in the first 2 years of his prime.
- Jimmy Connors skipped the FO 5 straight years in a row in the prime of his career.
- After winning the Grand Slam in 1969, Rod Laver never played the FO again.

Two points here:
1) Yes, the FO is considered on here to have been less than in the 70s and 80s.
2) Further evidence that no one was counting slam totals back when


*Of course most top players skipped Wimbledon in 1973. Do we demote it from being a slam that year?

 

[BTURNER]

History is not recorded as a series of statistics. This is a three step process. First you add up how many majors player X won. Then you put that stat into historical context so that folks do not make an inaccurate assumption that the stat measures the same thing for a century. Then comes the hard part. You ask how you can find information that may supplement what you have, to measure what you want, during the era that player X played in, if that one measure major count) is deemed insufficient.