How important is a Career-Grand-Slam-finishing Slam?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Let's say you have 3 Wimbledons, 3 US Opens, 3 Australian Opens and 0 French Open titles.

Would you rather win 1 French Open over (1 W + 1 USO) or (1 W + 1 AO) or (1 USO + 1 AO)?

If so, would you go one step further and rather win 1 French Open over 1 W + 1 USO + 1 AO

In effect, would you rather be a 10-time Grand Slam champion with a career Grand Slam or a 11/12-time Grand Slam champion without a career Grand Slam?

Vote in the poll and justify your choice the best you can.

Personally, I'd rather be a 10-time Grand Slam champion with a career Grand Slam than an 11-time Grand Slam champion without a career Grand Slam. But I'll take 12 Slams without a career Grand Slam over 10 with a career Grand Slam. 3 Slams is just too much for 1, however significant it is.

 

[firepanda]

Firstly, there's no poll.

Secondly, you aren't making an iota of sense. Does this honestly matter?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Firstly, there's no poll.

Secondly, you aren't making an iota of sense. Does this honestly matter?

Something came up, couldn't finish making the poll.

And if it makes no sense and doesn't matter, why respond? Do you enjoy being a pain?

 

[sbengte]

Secondly, you aren't making an iota of sense. Does this honestly matter?

simplified question

Would you rather take :

(a) ONE additional slam that lets you complete a career grand slam

OR

(b) MULTIPLE additional slams none of which will complete your career grand slam.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

simplified question

Would you rather take :

(a) ONE additional slam that lets you complete a career grand slam

OR

(b) MULTIPLE additional slams none of which will complete your career grand slam.

(A).





10as.

 

[Gonzo_style]

I would trade five Grand Slam titles for victory over Nadal in French Open final.

 

[tennisaddict]

I would trade five Grand Slam titles for victory over Nadal in French Open final.

That is because you are a Nole fan. Wait till he gets his first FO and then see whether you would sing the same song.

 

[tennisaddict]

I would trade 2 slams to get the career slam. Nothing more.

Borg is still a legend without winning AO or USO. If Nole wins a FO and does not get any more majors, he would not be considered anywhere closer to Borg.

Borg and Nadal both have 11 majors. 6 FO and 5 Wimbledon does not pale in comparison to what Nadal has achieved.

 

[kishnabe]

I would trade an Australian Open for a French Open.

Wimbledon and US Open are the most important slams in terms of prestige.

 

[Hood_Man]

I wouldn't trade one for the other, I'd simply want to add the other as an extra. They're all far too special.

It depends on the expectations I guess. If Federer never won the French Open it would have felt like a missed opportunity since he's reached 5 finals, but for someone like Sampras who only made it past the quarter finals once (and lost in straight sets when he did), I don't think it matters too much.

 

[Steve0904]

I wouldn't trade one for the other, I'd simply want to add the other as an extra. They're all far too special.

It depends on the expectations I guess. If Federer never won the French Open it would have felt like a missed opportunity since he's reached 5 finals, but for someone like Sampras who only made it past the quarter finals once (and lost in straight sets when he did), I don't think it matters too much.

Totally agree. Having said that, I'd trade 2 slams for a career slam, but it's hard to quantify something like this. It sounds strange, but if Federer was missing RG, I'd feel a bit empty inside like he was missing something in his career, considering that he would've been incredibly close a number of times. However, if someone is flat out terrible on a surface, and never comes close to getting the career GS then you just accept it easier.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I would trade an Australian Open for a French Open.

Wimbledon and US Open are the most important slams in terms of prestige.

I think the US Open and the Australian Open are about as important as each other, Wimbledon being slightly above them and the French Open being equal with the two former titles. The reason Wimbledon is above the others is because it's widely regarded by many people as being a tournament with prestige, and even people who aren't fans of tennis know about it and (some) of it's history.

 

[nethawkwenatchee]

I would trade an Australian Open for a French Open.

Wimbledon and US Open are the most important slams in terms of prestige.

I agree with the second statement. Also, I bet Andy R. would trade a number of his trophy's for one missed volley.

I still cringe when I picture that.

 

[mattennis]

Don't ever underestimate how difficult is to win ONE GS tournament (anyone of them).

I'd trade ONE, or TWO at most, but "to lose" even ONE GS total (even if doing so you win the four of them, as the OP suggests) is hard to swallow.

Think of how hard it was for Djokovic to win the AusOpen'12 for example. Imagine a genie in a bottle tells him: "Take ONE RG crown but I'll make your last two AusOpen titles dissapear, they never happened"

If I was Djokovic I'd say: "God, NO, it was so damn hard to win the 2012 AusOpen, I was 5 h battling a SF and then 6 h battling the final, I don't want THAT to dissapear like nothing"

EVERY GS tournament won is something incredibly difficult and especial. It is hard to lose even one of them (if you drop two in exchange of the one you lack).

 

[tennis_pro]

Let's say you have 3 Wimbledons, 3 US Opens, 3 Australian Opens and 0 French Open titles.

Would you rather win 1 French Open over (1 W + 1 USO) or (1 W + 1 AO) or (1 USO + 1 AO)?

If so, would you go one step further and rather win 1 French Open over 1 W + 1 USO + 1 AO

In effect, would you rather be a 10-time Grand Slam champion with a career Grand Slam or a 11/12-time Grand Slam champion without a career Grand Slam?

Vote in the poll and justify your choice the best you can.

Personally, I'd rather be a 10-time Grand Slam champion with a career Grand Slam than an 11-time Grand Slam champion without a career Grand Slam. But I'll take 12 Slams without a career Grand Slam over 10 with a career Grand Slam. 3 Slams is just too much for 1, however significant it is.

In this particular case I could trade one of AO, US and Wimbledon (AT MOST) for 1 French Open (which makes it 3 for 1)

It all goes down to preference in the end, anyway. F.e. would you rather have 1 FO and 1 Wimbledon or 2 Wimbledons? In the first scenario it means that your game has more variety, the 2nd means you are best in what you specialize in (the GOAT tournament nevertheless).

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Since the French Open is dominated by so few people, and Wimbledon looks to be becoming an indoor tournament, clearly Roland Garros will wind up being the most prestigious slam.

 

[kishnabe]

Since the French Open is dominated by so few people, and Wimbledon looks to be becoming an indoor tournament, clearly Roland Garros will wind up being the most prestigious slam.

Since French Open is dominated by so few people, it must mean that there is a lack of competition thus it is the least prestigous slam.

 

[Kirijax]

They are all equally valuable and I wouldn't trade them for anything else. A career GS is all the rage now but is it really that important?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

They are all equally valuable and I wouldn't trade them for anything else. A career GS is all the rage now but is it really that important?

It's important, but this thread is really to see how important people here feel it is. I've seen some already consider Nadal's career better than Sampras's, which made me wonder.