Has anyone Male/Female defeated 4 ATGs to win a Grand Slam ?

Sunny014

Legend
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
 

Sunny014

Legend
Ivanisevic, 2001 WIM
Moya, Roddick, Safin, Rafter. 4 GS winners, not quite all time greats. Still impressive.
But Moya is not a grass courter... and others are not ATGs.

ATG means at least 6 time slam winners....
 

Whisper

Rookie
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
1990 Sampras also beat Muster, so that’s 4 guys who were no.1

McEnroe 1980 USO has to be the most impressive, beating Lendl, Connors and Borg the last 3 matches in a row.
 

Enceladus

Legend
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
3 wins over ATG players at one winning Grand Slam event is the obviously maximum in the Open Era.
However, I found another run with 3 wins over ATG players:
Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker (2R), John McEnroe (SF) and Ivan Lendl (F) to win RG 1985
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Chris Evert 1985
French Open Championships (May 27-June 9; Paris, France, clay, seeded 2): 1R def. Janine Thompson 6-2, 6-1; 2R def. Lisa Bonder 7-5, 6-3; 3R def. Angeliki Kanellopoulou 6-3, 7-5; 4R def. Steffi Graf [11] 6-2, 6-3; QF def. Terry Phelps 6-4, 6-0; SF def. Gabriela Sabatini [14] 6-4, 6-1; F def. Martina Navratilova [1] 6-3, 6-7 (4), 7-5
 

Sunny014

Legend
3 wins over ATG players at one winning Grand Slam event is the obviously maximum in the Open Era.
However, I found another run with 3 wins over ATG players:
Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker (2R), John McEnroe (SF) and Ivan Lendl (F) to win RG 1985
wow .... Nice

So on 5 occasions this this has been done.

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

All this in the period of 11 years (1980-1990).
 

Sunny014

Legend
Why especially 6? Sounds like quite an artificial border. But then on the other hand the whole concept of ATG is artificial anyway.
6 because guys who won 6 normally won multiple slams at least twice ... you won't find anyone who won a slam 5 times and then won another slam only once, so that is why 6 is kept as cut off for an all time great..... 5 slams could also be put there as a cut off but 6 seems better in my opinion.
 

egrorian

Rookie
6 because guys who won 6 normally won multiple slams at least twice ... you won't find anyone who won a slam 5 times and then won another slam only once, so that is why 6 is kept as cut off for an all time great..... 5 slams could also be put there as a cut off but 6 seems better in my opinion.
By what criteria? Purely your own it seems. It's still subjective.
 

MadariKatu

Professional
Not a slam, but Nalbandian won the 2007 Madrid Masters1000 by beating Berdych, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer (only time ever that anyone beat the big3 back to back to back)

Nadal's 2007 RG win was over Hewitt, Moyá, Djokovic and Federer. They all were slam champions and all had been #1. Except Djokovic who was #1 later and won his first slam next year
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Is 3 the Maximum Number ?

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
Sampras and Edberg were certainly no ATG-caliber on clay; both combined for 0 titles at RG. Sounded much more impressive that it really was.

In 1990, McEnroe and Lendl were over the hill; 6 and 3 years removed from their latest Slam victories. Sounded much more impressive that it really was.
 

Turing

Rookie
wow .... Nice

So on 5 occasions this this has been done.

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

All this in the period of 11 years (1980-1990).
McEnroe in the 1984 USO: beat Edberg, Connors, and Lendl.
 

Sunny014

Legend
McEnroe in the 1984 USO: beat Edberg, Connors, and Lendl.
Yes... checked now... 6-1, 6-0, 6-2 ... what a belting to edberg in round 2

Updated list :

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- John McEnroe defeated Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to win USO 1984
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990
 

Enceladus

Legend
By what criteria? Purely your own it seems. It's still subjective.
According to what criteria must a tennis player win at least 6 games to get a set? This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen. It's the same with the frontier of the ATG category, the tennis player has to win half a dozen grandslams to be an ATG player.
 

MadariKatu

Professional
According to what criteria must a tennis player win at least 6 games to get a set? This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen. It's the same with the frontier of the ATG category, the tennis player has to win half a dozen grandslams to be an ATG player.
lol, this is so funny. According to what criteria must a player win 6 games to win a set (it can be 7 by the way)? The ATP rules. Where does that come from historically? I don't know. Don't care either. But extrapolating that to use it as a measure of slams needed to consider a player an ATG, which is something completely arbitrary and subjective, is absurd.
It's ok if you believe that to be the criteria for it, but don't go as if it were an absolutely objective measure that nobody can disagree with. It's not math.

I can consider Wawrinka an ATG. Based on my eye test. Feel free to disagree.
 

egrorian

Rookie
According to what criteria must a tennis player win at least 6 games to get a set? This was set due to the fact that the number 6 in the old measuring systems means half a dozen. It's the same with the frontier of the ATG category, the tennis player has to win half a dozen grandslams to be an ATG player.
Yes, but says who?
 

Enceladus

Legend
lol, this is so funny. According to what criteria must a player win 6 games to win a set (it can be 7 by the way)? The ATP rules. Where does that come from historically? I don't know. Don't care either. But extrapolating that to use it as a measure of slams needed to consider a player an ATG, which is something completely arbitrary and subjective, is absurd.
It's ok if you believe that to be the criteria for it, but don't go as if it were an absolutely objective measure that nobody can disagree with. It's not math.

I can consider Wawrinka an ATG. Based on my eye test. Feel free to disagree.
Profit rule at least 6 games for to win the set were set by a tennis creators in the 19th century, almost 100 years before the creation of the open professional circuit, which is now called the ATP Tour (in the female game is WTA Tour, of course). Why did tennis creators set the number 6 and not 5 or 7 in the 19th century? I have already stated the reason, because 6 is half a dozen. There is nothing arbitrary, there is a hidden symbolism behind it. Many things in tennis are surrounded by symbolism.

Somewhere a limit must be set, this is true of many common things in life, equally in the debate about ATG players, otherwise we get to a sloping surface. The frontier for entering the ATG category is gain of 6 grandslams, which is number, which recognized by the tennis community.
 

egrorian

Rookie
Profit rule at least 6 games for to win the set were set by a tennis creators in the 19th century, almost 100 years before the creation of the open professional circuit, which is now called the ATP Tour (in the female game is WTA Tour, of course). Why did tennis creators set the number 6 and not 5 or 7 in the 19th century? I have already stated the reason, because 6 is half a dozen. There is nothing arbitrary, there is a hidden symbolism behind it. Many things in tennis are surrounded by symbolism.

Somewhere a limit must be set, this is true of many common things in life, equally in the debate about ATG players, otherwise we get to a sloping surface. The frontier for entering the ATG category is gain of 6 grandslams, which is number, which recognized by the tennis community.
This 6 Grand Slams to be an ATG...this is the first I have heard of this "recognised criteria"! Sounds bogus to me, sorry.
 

ibbi

Legend
Edberg wasn't much as early as 1984 though, was he?
Most of the people being listed in this thread weren't 'much' when they were beaten :-D otherwise they'd be ranked highly, and it purely wouldn't be possible to run through so many of them. They're all either a long way from being the player they would become, or years over the hill. The Lendl 87 one is the closest to being truly meaningful out of all of the mens one listed.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Not quite up with some others, but Novak Djokovic d. Lleyton Hewitt, #5 David Ferrer, #4 Andy Murray, #2 Rafael Nadal to win 2012 Australian Open.

I'm adding seedings and if not seeded, rankings at the time to give more context to these runs:

#2 John McEnroe d. #10 Ivan Lendl, #3 Jimmy Connors and #1 Bjorn Borg to win 1980 U.S. Open
#1 John McEnroe d. (unseeded) #22 Stefan Edberg, #3 Jimmy Connors, #2 Ivan Lendl to win 1984 U.S. Open
#4 Mats Wilander d. (unseeded) #20 Boris Becker, #1 John McEnroe, #2 Ivan Lendl to win 1985 French Open
#1 Ivan Lendl d. #8 John McEnroe, #6 Jimmy Connors and #3 Mats Wilander to win 1987 U.S. Open
#15 Michael Chang d. (unseeded) #92 Pete Sampras, #1 Ivan Lendl and #3 Stefan Edberg to win 1989 French Open
#12 Pete Sampras d. #6 Thomas Muster, #3 Ivan Lendl, (unseeded) #20 John McEnroe and #4 Andre Agassi to win 1990 U.S. Open
#125 Goran Ivanisevic d. #21 Carlos Moya, (unseeded) #33 Andy Roddick, #4 Marat Safin, #6 Tim Henman, #3 Patrick Rafter to win 2001 Wimbledon
#2 Rafael Nadal d. (unseeded) #59 Juan Martin del Potro, #14 Lleyton Hewitt, #23 Carlos Moya, #6 Novak Djokovic, #1 Roger Federer to win 2007 French Open
#6 Juan Martin del Potro d. #24 Juan Carlos Ferrero, #16 Marin Cilic, #3 Rafael Nadal, #1 Roger Federer to win 2009 U.S. Open
 
Last edited:

McLovin

Legend
I love these threads...starts out with what seems like a simple question. Then when people submit answers, all the 'qualifiers' are added:
  • He/She was washed up by then
  • It was early in their career and He/She was not an 'ATG' at that point
  • He/She wasn't very good on that surface
  • To be an ATG He/She has to have achieved (insert some random level)
Hilarious.
 

egrorian

Rookie
I love these threads...starts out with what seems like a simple question. Then when people submit answers, all the 'qualifiers' are added:
  • He/She was washed up by then
  • It was early in their career and He/She was not an 'ATG' at that point
  • He/She wasn't very good on that surface
  • To be an ATG He/She has to have achieved (insert some random level)
Hilarious.
Nothing hilarious about it to my mind, just adds interest to the discussion. For example, pointing out that McEnroe beating Edberg in 1984 seemed no big deal at the time is a valid observation. It gained significance after the fact because of what Edberg went on to achieve of course.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
But Moya is not a grass courter... and others are not ATGs.

ATG means at least 6 time slam winners....
well if thats the case then 2 of the ones you listed in your own OP don't even count because at the time they happened several people in them were not ATG's then? Agassi wasn't even close in 1990 and neither was Pete in 1989. Lets be consistent in our standards shall we?
 

Sunny014

Legend
What do we consider an ATG ?

We consider that the person to have maybe defended his title or having won a title 2 times .... because 1 can be seen as a fluke but not 2.
Nd if a person can do 2 times at a slam at least twice then that guy is close to be considered an ATG.
So 6 slams is a good cut off since you won't find anyone who won 1 slam FIVE time and then won another slam only once. that person would win multiple times for sure..... Thats why 6 is the number for ATGs .....

1 times and 2 timers and 3 timers all get filtered out, there are no ATGs....
 

Whisper

Rookie
Somewhere a limit must be set, this is true of many common things in life, equally in the debate about ATG players, otherwise we get to a sloping surface. The frontier for entering the ATG category is gain of 6 grandslams, which is number, which recognized by the tennis community.

So a player who wins 3 to 5 Wimbledons is not an ATG if he has less than 6 slams total?
 

Sunny014

Legend
So a player who wins 3 to 5 Wimbledons is not an ATG if he has less than 6 slams total?
Yes they are not ATGs.

List of ATGs in the Open Era :

01. Roger Goaterer
02. Rafael Claydal
03. Novak D-joker
04. Peter Sampras
05. Bjorn Borg
06. Jimmy Connors
07. Ivan Lendl
08. Andre Agassi
09. John McEnroe
10. Boris Becker
11. Mats Wilander
12. Stefan Edberg

These are people who won multiple slams multiple times....
 
Top