Kudos, Steffi Graf, Rod Laver, Don Budge.

[bluetrain4]

Watching the USO men's final, it;s CLEAR that winning the Grand Slam involves an ENORMOUS mental component. Medvedev played great, no doubt (but, oof, those games at the end when he was double faulting had me on edge), but I think it was clear that mentally finishing the Grand Slam got to Novak. It really is THAT hard to do. Serena was on the verge in 2015 - a round earlier against a lesser opponent, but she at least won a set before it all set it and she collapsed. Novak just, at times, look resigned to NOT win. It's a fascinating glimpse into the psychology of sports. And speaks to how hard it is to finish even if you are the best player.

And can we stop referring to the "Calendar Slam" vs. the "Non Calendar Year Slam" - aka Serena Slam, Djoker Slam. It's a great achievement to hold all four Slams at once, but doing it over two seasons involves 1/20th of the pressure of doing it in a calendar year- the actual Grand Slam. Back when Navratilova won 6 in a row over multiple years, no one dubbed it a type of Grand Slam. It's a recent, ridiculous creation that diminishes the actual Grand Slam - which should ONLY mean winning all four Slam in a calendar year.

I thought this might be coming today. Once Medvedev got up two breaks, I knew it wasn't going to happen for Novak. Just an incredible sequence of events. I'm still pretty stunned.

 

[Rattler]

Margaret Court and Maureen Connolly did it too.

and Graf is the only winner of the Grand Slam (‘88) who also held all four titles in 1994.

 

[stringertom]

Stefan Edberg won the Boys version in 1983.

Any walking encyclopedia out there know if there were others? I know Monfils got to USO with the first three but lost to Troicki in 3R.

 

[gameovais]

Great achievement by them for sure. But let's not pretend for even a moment they were under the pressures Serena and Novak were. I've heard somewhere up until the 80s the CYGS wasn't even a big thing. Winning indvidual slams was bigger.

 

[tennis24x7]

It has definitely become a lot harder with different countries now open to tennis. But Laver is above that as he has technically won it twice.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Watching the USO men's final, it;s CLEAR that winning the Grand Slam involves an ENORMOUS mental component. Medvedev played great, no doubt (but, oof, those games at the end when he was double faulting had me on edge), but I think it was clear that mentally finishing the Grand Slam got to Novak. It really is THAT hard to do. Serena was on the verge in 2015 - a round earlier against a lesser opponent, but she at least won a set before it all set it and she collapsed. Novak just, at times, look resigned to NOT win. It's a fascinating glimpse into the psychology of sports. And speaks to how hard it is to finish even if you are the best player.

And can we stop referring to the "Calendar Slam" vs. the "Non Calendar Year Slam" - aka Serena Slam, Djoker Slam. It's a great achievement to hold all four Slams at once, but doing it over two seasons involves 1/20th of the pressure of doing it in a calendar year- the actual Grand Slam. Back when Navratilova won 6 in a row over multiple years, no one dubbed it a type of Grand Slam. It's a recent, ridiculous creation that diminishes the actual Grand Slam - which should ONLY mean winning all four Slam in a calendar year.

I thought this might be coming today. Once Medvedev got up two breaks, I knew it wasn't going to happen for Novak. Just an incredible sequence of events. I'm still pretty stunned.

I guess you didn’t follow tennis in 1984, the ITF specifically ruled that if Martina won the French, it should be called a grand slam. And they gave her a million dollar bonus when she did. media at the time reported on her joining laver etc as a grand slam winner. Then a few years later they changed the definition(Martina seemed annoyed during the 88 USO about it)

it was even reported on by bbc before Wimbledon 85 that Wilander had won the first 2 legs of the Grand Slam(referring to 84 AO, 85 RG)

 

[bluetrain4]

I guess you didn’t follow tennis in 1984, the ITF specifically ruled that if Martina won the French, it should be called a grand slam. And they gave her a million dollar bonus when she did. media at the time reported on her joining laver etc as a grand slam winner. Then a few years later they changed the definition(Martina seemed annoyed during the 88 USO about it)

it was even reported on by bbc before Wimbledon 85 that Wilander had won the first 2 legs of the Grand Slam(referring to 84 AO, 85 RG)

I didn't know this, as my tennis fandom was just burgeoning. It's an incredible thing to hold all 4 at the same time, but I still don't think it comes anywhere near winning the "Calendar" Grand Slam and shouldn't be considered as such.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Great achievement by them for sure. But let's not pretend for even a moment they were under the pressures Serena and Novak were. I've heard somewhere up until the 80s the CYGS wasn't even a big thing. Winning indvidual slams was bigger.

it’s interesting to see how often different achievements are elevated/downgraded over the years. When borg won his 5th Wimbledon in a row, tennis magazine asked an international poll of tennis journalists to rank the greatest achievements in history and borg’s 5 in a row won in a landslide. It’s sort of why he was arguably the most famous athlete in the world at the time. His French open achievements or “channel slam” weren’t as highly regarded as they are today. Wimbledon was just so huge then compared to all the other majors.

but a possible grand slam was mentioned every time he won RG/W when the USO began (a big topic was if he won the USO would he go to Australia - played in Dec, with very few top players attending back then. And another question was would other top players who would usually skip it go to Australia to stop him - Connors famously said he would go to the ends of the earth to stop him - when asked about it.

 

[Aabye5]

I guess you didn’t follow tennis in 1984, the ITF specifically ruled that if Martina won the French, it should be called a grand slam. And they gave her a million dollar bonus when she did. media at the time reported on her joining laver etc as a grand slam winner. Then a few years later they changed the definition(Martina seemed annoyed during the 88 USO about it)

it was even reported on by bbc before Wimbledon 85 that Wilander had won the first 2 legs of the Grand Slam(referring to 84 AO, 85 RG)

The ITF is a very silly organization...but I'm glad they changed the definition again. A CYGS is just harder....

 

[Moose Malloy]

from the Washington Post after 84 RG:

Today, Navratilova made the lyric her own as she defeated Chris Evert Lloyd, 6-3, 6-1, in the French Open final to become the first woman to win the slam since Margaret Smith Court in 1970 and only the third woman in history. The only other woman to win the slam--successive victories in the world's four major tennis tournaments--is Maureen Connolly in 1953. Among the men, only Don Budge in 1938 and Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969 have won the slam.

With the grand slam, Navratilova also wins a $1 million bonus from the ITF, which two years ago changed the official interpretation of the grand slam to include anyone who won the four majors (the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. and Australian opens) consecutively. Previously, only those who won all the tournaments in the same calendar year were recognized.

"I was in the same situation last year," said Evert, who had won three in a row after taking the championship here. "I think any player nowadays who does it deserves the grand slam. The caliber of play is much higher and there is more depth."

 

[urban]

I think, Butch Buchholz won all junior titles in one year, maybe 1958 like Stefan Edberg.

 

[Chanwan]

from the Washington Post after 84 RG:

Today, Navratilova made the lyric her own as she defeated Chris Evert Lloyd, 6-3, 6-1, in the French Open final to become the first woman to win the slam since Margaret Smith Court in 1970 and only the third woman in history. The only other woman to win the slam--successive victories in the world's four major tennis tournaments--is Maureen Connolly in 1953. Among the men, only Don Budge in 1938 and Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969 have won the slam.

With the grand slam, Navratilova also wins a $1 million bonus from the ITF, which two years ago changed the official interpretation of the grand slam to include anyone who won the four majors (the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. and Australian opens) consecutively. Previously, only those who won all the tournaments in the same calendar year were recognized.

"I was in the same situation last year," said Evert, who had won three in a row after taking the championship here. "I think any player nowadays who does it deserves the grand slam. The caliber of play is much higher and there is more depth."

Evert is before my time, so take this as an open question. But how can a player, who got to the semis or better in 52 of the 56 slams she played, talk about depth? She has a 90,0 winning record for her career, highest of any man or woman.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Evert is before my time, so take this as an open question. But how can a player, who got to the semis or better in 52 of the 56 slams she played, talk about depth? She has a 90,0 winning record for her career, highest of any man or woman.

She was just throwing that in there as a way to elevate the women's game at the time, which was constantly criticized by the media for its lack of depth. And many men's players at the time were calling women's tennis a joke and saying that they didn't deserve equal pay etc. There were many testy press conferences involving her or Martina answering questions about the overall quality of a tour where they both essentially breezed into the finals week after week, year after year. It's weird how so many here don't remember this and act like the 80s were some golden age for women's tennis compared to today.

Evert is much more honest today - she frequently says during her commentary that there was pretty much no depth in the game when she played in comparison to today.

 

[Chanwan]

She was just throwing that in there as a way to elevate the women's game at the time, which was constantly criticized by the media for its lack of depth. And many men's players at the time were calling women's tennis a joke and saying that they didn't deserve equal pay etc. There were many testy press conferences involving her or Martina answering questions about the overall quality of a tour where they both essentially breezed into the finals week after week, year after year. It's weird how so many here don't remember this and act like the 80s were some golden age for women's tennis compared to today.

Evert is much more honest today - she frequently says during her commentary that there was pretty much no depth in the game when she played in comparison to today.

" where they both essentially breezed into the finals week after week, year after year " - that was my understanding of it as well.

"as a way to elevate the women's game at the time,"
In times of war, the truth is the first to die, right? Nothing wrong with overstating the depth to elevate the women's game in the long run. Tennis is one of the few sports, where I follow the women - thanks to BJK, Evert and a lot of other trailblazers.

 

[hoodjem]

Watching the USO men's final, it;s CLEAR that winning the Grand Slam involves an ENORMOUS mental component. Medvedev played great, no doubt (but, oof, those games at the end when he was double faulting had me on edge), but I think it was clear that mentally finishing the Grand Slam got to Novak. It really is THAT hard to do. Serena was on the verge in 2015 - a round earlier against a lesser opponent, but she at least won a set before it all set it and she collapsed. Novak just, at times, look resigned to NOT win. It's a fascinating glimpse into the psychology of sports. And speaks to how hard it is to finish even if you are the best player.

And can we stop referring to the "Calendar Slam" vs. the "Non Calendar Year Slam" - aka Serena Slam, Djoker Slam. It's a great achievement to hold all four Slams at once, but doing it over two seasons involves 1/20th of the pressure of doing it in a calendar year- the actual Grand Slam. Back when Navratilova won 6 in a row over multiple years, no one dubbed it a type of Grand Slam. It's a recent, ridiculous creation that diminishes the actual Grand Slam - which should ONLY mean winning all four Slam in a calendar year.

I thought this might be coming today. Once Medvedev got up two breaks, I knew it wasn't going to happen for Novak. Just an incredible sequence of events. I'm still pretty stunned.

And I keep wondering if any of the newer fans will start to think that maybe The Grand Slam isn't as easy as it it was thought to be.
Will they develop a newfound respect for Laver?
Nah, just a lot of excuses: e.g. only two surfaces, only 26 matches, it involved only weekend club players, etc.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Great achievement by them for sure. But let's not pretend for even a moment they were under the pressures Serena and Novak were. I've heard somewhere up until the 80s the CYGS wasn't even a big thing. Winning indvidual slams was bigger.

You have no idea under which pressure Steffi was before the USO 88.
To compare that with Laver or Court is brazen.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Evert is before my time, so take this as an open question. But how can a player, who got to the semis or better in 52 of the 56 slams she played, talk about depth? She has a 90,0 winning record for her career, highest of any man or woman.

No, it is not the highest.
Not even close.

 

[R. Schweikart]

She was just throwing that in there as a way to elevate the women's game at the time, which was constantly criticized by the media for its lack of depth. And many men's players at the time were calling women's tennis a joke and saying that they didn't deserve equal pay etc. There were many testy press conferences involving her or Martina answering questions about the overall quality of a tour where they both essentially breezed into the finals week after week, year after year. It's weird how so many here don't remember this and act like the 80s were some golden age for women's tennis compared to today.

Evert is much more honest today - she frequently says during her commentary that there was pretty much no depth in the game when she played in comparison to today.

Evert is paid to say this.
Imagine she would say otherwise. She would be fired at once.

 

[gameovais]

You have no idea under which pressure Steffi was before the USO 88.
To compare that with Laver or Court is brazen.

Do people even bother to read comments before the reply. I said and quote " up until the 80s the CYGS wasn't even a big thing. Winning indvidual slams was bigger." This is implies Graf was under immense pressure because what she did came after the year 1980 started.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Do people even bother to read comments before the reply. I said and quote " up until the 80s the CYGS wasn't even a big thing. Winning indvidual slams was bigger." This is implies Graf was under immense pressure because what she did came after the year 1980 started.

Do people even bother to read their own comments before replying to comments on their comments.
In post #4 you were quite obviously referring to the three players mentioned in the thread title - Graf, Laver, Budge. In contrast to Serena and Djokovic.

 

[Drob]

Margaret Court and Maureen Connolly did it too.

and Graf is the only winner of the Grand Slam (‘88) who also held all four titles in 1994.

And Ken Rosewall in 1963 - US PRO; Wembley, French PRO, and the World Pro Championship Series. Arguably Laver a third time, in 1967: US PRO, Wembley, French PRO and Wimbledon Pro.

 

[hoodjem]

And Ken Rosewall in 1963 - US PRO; Wembley, French PRO, and the World Pro Championship Series. Arguably Laver a third time, in 1967: US PRO, Wembley, French PRO and Wimbledon Pro.

Yep.
Laver with three Grand Slams: 1962-Amateur GS, 1967-Pro GS, 1969-Open GS.

 

[hoodjem]

Do people even bother to read comments before the reply. I said and quote " up until the 80s the CYGS wasn't even a big thing. Winning indvidual slams was bigger." This is implies Graf was under immense pressure because what she did came after the year 1980 started.

Yes. Winning slams (or national championships) was always rather important, particularly Wimbledon (which for many players and journalists was considered the most prestigious and thus an unofficial world championship).
But totalling up the number of slams and keeping track to ascertain the GOAT was unheard of.

Laver tells a good story from about c. 1971. He and Emmo were playing doubles together, and in the locker room one day just to make conversation he asked Emmo how many "majors" he had won in total.
Emerson (with 12 singles slams) responded to Laver (with 11 singles slams) that he had no idea--he had never kept track of them all.