Greatest single achievement (male)

Greatest single achievement in men's tennis

  • Budge's 6 consecutive victories in Slams

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    109

Steve132

Professional
What do you consider to be the greatest single achievement by a male player in tennis history? My nominees with comments are as follows:


1. Borg's 3 consecutive French Open-Wimbledon doubles. This is a remarkable feat, although it is probably easier to accomplish now that the grass at Wimbledon has been slowed. Only three other players (Laver, Kodes and Agassi) have won both titles even once in the Open era, and Kodes benefited from a boycott of Wimbledon by most of the leading pros.

2. Budge's 6 consecutive Slam titles, 1937-38. What makes this even more special is that Budge turned pro after the 1938 season and beat all the leading pros, including Perry and Vines.

3. Federer's 10 consecutive Slam finals, 2005-2007. This streak is still alive. The runner-up is Crawford with 7 in the 1930's, and the Open era runners-up are Laver and Agassi with 4.

4. Federer's 11 Slams in 4 years. No other player, male or female, has equaled this.

5. Federer's 190 consecutive weeks (and counting) as No.1. This is the record for both men and women. However, weekly rankings were not introduced until the mid-1970's, and it's likely that players from earlier generations (e.g. Tilden or Gonzalez) might have surpassed it.

6. Laver's 2 calendar year Grand Slams. No other player - man or woman - has equaled this, and only Steffi Graf has come close. Laver also won the professional equivalent of the Grand Slam in 1967.

7. Nadal's 81 match winning streak on clay. This is the male record for any surface, although it is well behind its WTA counterpart, Chris Evert's 125 match streak.

8. Sampras' 14 Grand Slams. The total number of majors won is the statistic most often used to evaluate players - in fact, sometimes it is the ONLY metric used. Nevertheless, this total is not out of reach of other players. Federer already has 12, and Laver would probably have accumulated more if he had not been barred from the Slams between 1962 and 1968.

9. Sampras' 286 weeks at No.1. This is only just ahead of Lendl (270 weeks) and Connors (268 weeks). As with Federer's consecutive weeks at No.1 record, other players might have equaled or surpassed it before weekly ratings were introduced.


My choice? I have found that one good way of assessing a men's tennis record is to look at the analogous women's record, which will usually be more remarkable because the leading women dominate the game much more easily than the leading men do. My own vote would go to Laver's 2 Slams, especially as he also completed the professional equivalent between his amateur and Open era triumphs.

In second place I would put Federer's 10 consecutive Slam finals - just ahead of Budge's 6 consecutive Slam titles, because of the greater competitive depth in today's game. Federer has at age 26 already set a remarkable number of records. I could have included his Wimbledon-U.S. Open four-peat, for instance.

What do you think?
 

Steve132

Professional
What about Fed's 4 consecutive US and Wimby.

I considered including this, but I already had three Federer options among the nine. Federer is easily the the most dominant No. 1 of the Open era, and many of his achievements are unprecedented.
 

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
#3 and #4 on your list could fall victim to the same criticism as #8--these cannot be considered true "all-time" records in that they don't account for the pro/amateur issue that divided tennis for four decades. Likewise #5 and #9 only date back to the start of the computer rankings in 1973... who is to say that Tilden or Kramer or Gonzales or Rosewall or Laver was not No. 1 for more weeks, or more consecutive weeks?

And I am shocked anyone would vote for something as trivial as Nadal's clay streak.

A few more suggestions:

*How about Laver's winning the most titles in one year of the amateur era (1962), the professional era (1967), AND the open era (1969)? Or his winning the most titles of any player in history (over 180)?

*How about Budge's winning the singles, doubles and mixed doubles at Wimbledon in back-to-back years? Or his 92-match winning streak?

*How about Tilden's season without a single defeat (1924)?

*How about H.L. Doherty's undefeated record in Davis Cup competition--at a time when Davis Cup not only mattered, but was considered the most important event in tennis?
 

2 Cent

Rookie
i think you're short-changing Borg a little bit.
the most impressive achievement by a male player is when Borg won 4 consecutive French Opens and 5 consecutive Wimbledons, with 3 years in between winning them both back to back.
 

Steve132

Professional
i think you're short-changing Borg a little bit.
the most impressive achievement by a male player is when Borg won 4 consecutive French Opens and 5 consecutive Wimbledons, with 3 years in between winning them both back to back.

I tried to keep the descriptions of the achievements as simple as possible. This inevitably meant that some aspects of a player's achievements were omitted. This limitation, however, applies to all players, not just Borg. For example, Federer has ongoing streaks for the No.1 ranking and Slam finals reached. These are listed separately, and I did not even include his simultaneous 4 consecutive U.S. Open and 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles.
 

Steve132

Professional
#3 and #4 on your list could fall victim to the same criticism as #8--these cannot be considered true "all-time" records in that they don't account for the pro/amateur issue that divided tennis for four decades. Likewise #5 and #9 only date back to the start of the computer rankings in 1973... who is to say that Tilden or Kramer or Gonzales or Rosewall or Laver was not No. 1 for more weeks, or more consecutive weeks?

And I am shocked anyone would vote for something as trivial as Nadal's clay streak.

A few more suggestions:

*How about Laver's winning the most titles in one year of the amateur era (1962), the professional era (1967), AND the open era (1969)? Or his winning the most titles of any player in history (over 180)?

*How about Budge's winning the singles, doubles and mixed doubles at Wimbledon in back-to-back years? Or his 92-match winning streak?

*How about Tilden's season without a single defeat (1924)?

*How about H.L. Doherty's undefeated record in Davis Cup competition--at a time when Davis Cup not only mattered, but was considered the most important event in tennis?

Chaognosis: Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I addressed the weeks at No. 1 records in my initial post, noting that these covered only the period from the mid-1970's when weekly computer ratings were introduced and that players of previous generations might have equaled or surpassed these streaks. I included them because Federer's consecutive week and Sampras' total week records are often cited as impressive achievements.

In some other cases we - or at least I - don't have the information or perhaps even the frame of reference to assess the achievements. This would apply to Doherty's Davis Cup record. We would need to know how many matches he won, who his opponents were, etc. In fact, it's difficult to obtain complete career records for as recent a player as Laver. I have never seen a complete list of his titles, although I know that he won more than 150 of them. The ATP web site credits him as winning only 39 tournaments, all from 1968 onwards, which is absurd.

I think, however, that Federer's 4 year Slam total and consecutive finals reached records remain outstanding achievements, because recent changes in the game make them more rather than less difficult to attain. The abolition of the distinction between amateurs and pros since 1968 means that all the world's best players are now eligible to play in the Slams. In addition, in this decade participation in majors has been mandatory for all players, and as a result virtually all of them have competed in EVERY Slam unless they are injured. As recently as 15 years ago players would skip events (Agassi now regrets that he did not play in the Australian Open before 1995) but this no longer happens.

In order to reach a Slam final today you have to win six matches against as deep a pool of competitive talent as has ever existed in the game. Doing so 10 straight times, or winning 11 Slams in 4 years, are very, very difficult feats to achieve.
 

ElSuegro

Rookie
I voted like S & V above. But I have a feeling we will have to revise that accomplishment every year. What Laver did was impressive, but at that time there were only two surfaces - grass and clay, and at least one of his slams was before the open era. If he won both GS's on the surfaces like today, and in the open era, then I would vote for him.
 

BluBarry

Semi-Pro
Agassi Slam w/ Gold Medal & Marrying Steffi Graf & fathering two beautiful Kids & creating an environment for under privilege children to advance & growing into a well rounded individual.

That's my Vote
 

CyBorg

Legend
Agassi Slam w/ Gold Medal & Marrying Steffi Graf & fathering two beautiful Kids & creating an environment for under privilege children to advance & growing into a well rounded individual.

That's my Vote

ahahaha

Oh, wait. You're serious.
 

CyBorg

Legend
Some others that come to mind...

- Pancho Gonzalez's 8 years as the tennis #1.

- Ken Rosewalls' 7 consecutive French Pro titles.

- Laver's 181 (roughly) career titles.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Borg winning the French and Wimbledon back to back for all those years.

I'm actually surprised so many people voted for Laver's calendar slam. Not to diminish it, but he did it on 2 surfaces. (grass/clay). Today's calendar slam is much more difficutly to accomplish.
 

BluBarry

Semi-Pro
ahahaha

Oh, wait. You're serious.

Yeah of course bcuz do you really think there's going 2B some conclusive conclusion to this question? Might as well talk about what impressed me the most. Oh Yeah and I almost forgot, humbling himself to a point where he played the Challenger Circuit, dropping to #141 in the World, shaking off dust and rising to #1 in Light Speed time.
 
Last edited:

CyBorg

Legend
Yeah of course bcuz do you really think there's going 2B some conclusive conclusion to this question? Might as well talk about what impressed me the most. Oh Yeah and I almost forgot, humbling himself to a point where he played the Challenger Circuit, dropping to #141 in the World, shaking off dust and rising to #1 in Light Speed time.

OMG, Humble 2 zee max! Agassi is the mother Teresa of tennis.

For suuure. Far out. Totally.
 

tHotGates

Rookie
I'm gonna go with Borg.

RE: Greatest single achievement (male)? That honor goes to Wilt (the stilt) Chamberlain notching 20K. Way to go Big Dipper. R.I.P. :cool:
 

diesorde

New User
I think winning olympic gold both singles and doubles is the most oustanding thing ever to be achieved...It's true, that guy Massu never did anything similar again but I doubt anyone will ever be able to repeat such a thing. You need 2 weeks to win a Slam (I know, 5 setter are hard) but to play a singles and a doubles match every day for 1 week is impressive.(olympic tournament lasts only 1 week)
My vote goes to "John Doe" Massu and his only historical achievement.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
#3 and #4 on your list could fall victim to the same criticism as #8--these cannot be considered true "all-time" records in that they don't account for the pro/amateur issue that divided tennis for four decades. Likewise #5 and #9 only date back to the start of the computer rankings in 1973... who is to say that Tilden or Kramer or Gonzales or Rosewall or Laver was not No. 1 for more weeks, or more consecutive weeks?

According to some, Laver was no. 1 for seven years (1963-69).

Let's see that's about 364 weeks.
 

FED-EX

New User
wow, I can't believe you remembered that!
yeah well, Massu isn't gonna reach any Hall of fame and won't probably win any other big tournament but his win in Athens was for sure good for Adidas "impossible is nothing" marketing campaign.
I do agree though, that it's gonna be very hard for anyone else to match.
 

Steve132

Professional
According to some, Laver was no. 1 for seven years (1963-69).

Let's see that's about 364 weeks.

I'm not sure about 1963, but he was number one from 1964 to 1969. The problem is that it's difficult to translate this into weeks at number one unless you assume that he held the number one ranking continuously. At the time weekly ratings were not calculated and published.
 
If Laver's first of two Grand Slams were against the best players in the World at the time I would agree it is the most impressive, but that clearly is not the case. That is why Borg's 3 times Wimbledon-French Open double is clearly the most impressive for me. If Federer stretches his streak of Slam finals for another year that might win out though, especialy considering he is only losing to the possible future GOAT on clay.
 

galatti

Rookie
I considered including this, but I already had three Federer options among the nine. Federer is easily the the most dominant No. 1 of the Open era, and many of his achievements are unprecedented.

Which proves Fed is the all time best. BTW I'm not a big fan. I just admire how good he is!
 

ninman

Hall of Fame
If you were going to consider winning streaks, how about 56 straight wins by Federer on Hard Courts, or 51 straight wins on grass (I think), or llendl's 18 consecutive finals, or Wilanders longest winning streak? How about Federer holding 4 winning streaks of 20 or more matches? How about Federer holding record equalling winning streaks at 3 of the 4 slams? How about Federer winning 28 or 29 consecutive matches in MS events?
 

Gizo

Legend
Laver's 1967 (the most dominant season in the history of the pro tour, and more impressive than his grand slam as an amateur in 1962), and 1969 (the most dominant season in the history of the open era). In 1969, he won 18 titles, including the biggest and most important titles across each of grass, clay, hard and carpet.
 
I thought you meant greatest single wins....
If it was that how can you not count chang at FO? that match took some balls.

For this one, I would have to say Laver in his dominance and consistency wins
 

robinho17

New User
If Laver's first of two Grand Slams were against the best players in the World at the time I would agree it is the most impressive, but that clearly is not the case. That is why Borg's 3 times Wimbledon-French Open double is clearly the most impressive for me. If Federer stretches his streak of Slam finals for another year that might win out though, especialy considering he is only losing to the possible future GOAT on clay.

Well Laver won a Calander Slam on 3 levels (amatuer,pro,open era) with Pro,Open era having the best players in the world, what more can you ask of a player of his generation?
 

CyBorg

Legend
Your implication is correct: that is it is hard to say for sure. Stan Smith or John Newcombe were probably no. 1s for 1971.

Laver was still the best player in '71. I don't know what the computer rankings had to say though.
 
Well Laver won a Calander Slam on 3 levels (amatuer,pro,open era) with Pro,Open era having the best players in the world, what more can you ask of a player of his generation?

Then I guess you could still consider him to have won the Grand Slam twice, but just count it as 1967 and 1969 instead. There is no way I could look at 1962 as a real Grand Slam.
 
Top