RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
You just need to convince one actually superlative athlete to take up tennis and all the records will fall in 6-7 years
Is winning 20 slams still that impressive nowadays?
- Thread starter Hyde
- Start date
You just need to convince one actually superlative athlete to take up tennis and all the records will fall in 6-7 years
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Yes and there weren't really any great grass courters pre McEnroe. I will give him credit for beating McEnroe in that epic 80 final, but that is about it as far as really tough competition. Connors is not a natural grass courter at all, he wins on grass through sheer guile, guts, and determination. He is even less of a natural grass courter than Borg. Besides Connors his main competition were probably like Roscoe Tanner? At that point people like Newcombe were washed up. Yeah not great, most guys including Borg were mainly clay or/and carpet specialists then, and it was not like the 90s when playing great on grass and carpet went hand in hand.
Sunny014
Legend
True.
If somebody could do channel slams in the 90s then that wud have been the ultimate feat.
But in 90s clay winners never came within sniffing distance of a win on grass and vice versa too when Sampras and Goran were trash on clay.
So a better question would be, which ATG is/was capable if doing a true channel slam in 90s? Even Andre failed
fishpiefriday
Semi-Pro
OP is seriously underestimating the effort and dedication it takes to get to the elite level of a sport. Winning just one slam is hugely impressive, in real terms, winning 20 is absolutely incredible.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I think Federer would most likely manage it in the 90s. Winning Wimbledon at some point is a no brainer but he was good enough on clay he would win there atleast once (probably more than once) in that era with a lot more clay depth than today, but no dominant figure like Nadal.
Djokovic might manage it. I see him struggling a lot more on 90s grass but with his return of serve abilities, athleticsm, and compact swings, I could see him having a chance to win 1 Wimbledon at some point as a baseliner. Winning the French at some point, like Federer, is a given.
Nadal I don't see winning Wimbledon on 90s grass.
more like all of them
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
With homogenized conditions and baseline play all tour long, all year long.. Not really. We'll see a few guys get to and surpass 20 in the next 20 years if conditions stay the same
Cortana
Legend
While I think records will always get broken eventually, I think it's going to take longer than that.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
3 guys came along and won 60 slams and counting under homogenized conditions. 2 guys can easily come along and win 80 plus. Homogenized conditions makes it 10000x easier for dominant players to stay dominant. Then continued advancements in medicine which helps players have longer careers.. THe big 3 will look like country club players to the future players that come along
Jeesh look at this year. A 34 year old well past his best days was in contention to equal Graf's accomplishments. LOL. Thats what homogenized conditions can do for a top player
Fiero425
Legend
Well there is a way, but I've been horrified to think of it for a while! We hinted at it out here and dismissed the possibility! With all the bellyaching of players about how strenuous the season is, it's only a matter of time before the MAJORS go BO3 sets! It's already been bad enough when Masters Finals were cut to BO3! It's made it possible for the Big 3 to rest up, concerve energy, and snatch up just about 90+% of all Masters' events for the last 15+ years! That special player(s) won't come out of this crop, but 50 years down the line when they go either BO5 using NG scoring or just totally weasel out and go BO3 at all the MAJORS! We won't see it, but it can easily happen if the rules continue to evolve as they have in the last decade or so! These changes have certainly faciitated this Big 3 of unprecedented dominance, but it can happen again on a bigger scale determined by newfangled fitness programs, stereoids being allowed to prevent injury or improve recover, and the sorriest option of weeding the scoring down in the name of brevity for TV streaming!
Of course it's impressive, but the fact that 3 guys have done it shows it's not an anomaly, a freak of nature. I don't know the next time there will be one of those will not be denied, super competitive athletes in tennis but when there is there won't be anything stopping them getting well over 20 slams. I could see a dominant player with no big 3 to hinder them getting to 30
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
Stupidity makes me so...
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Winning 24 Slams is impressive - someone will likely do it on the men’s side.
Having the GOAT BH, GOAT Return, GOAT movement is pretty impressive too along with having 3-Slam years and Career Slams after you turn 30.
Having the GOAT BH, GOAT Return, GOAT movement is pretty impressive too along with having 3-Slam years and Career Slams after you turn 30.
Last edited:
TennisLurker
Professional
I think winning wimbledon is less impressive ever since they modified the grass to make baseline rallies easier
Similar threads
