Laver: "It would be a mini-slam... but not the grand slam"

Rippy

Hall of Fame
#1
Rod Laver, on the possibility of Nadal winning Australia:

"It would be a mini-slam, or whatever you want to call it but it isn’t the grand slam.

It is 40-odd years since I did the grand slam, and before that you had to go way back to the 1930s for the last time that anyone did it, so it’s not easy.

Winning one grand slam tournament is difficult enough. I’m not knocking what would be a great achievement of Nadal’s to win four in succession, but I don’t think winning four in a row across two seasons would be the same as a calendar-year grand slam.

It would be an end and a beginning. It would be a start. After maybe winning in Melbourne he could then go for the grand slam. People always used to say after winning the Australian Open: 'I suppose I’m going for the grand slam now then’. Winning the Australian Open would be a start for him.

I think Martina Navratilova once won four in a row across two years, and she said herself that it did not have the same meaning as having won all four over the same calendar year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...pen-is-just-the-beginning-says-Rod-Laver.html

Is Laver right?

Discuss. :)
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#3
I disagree with Rod's opinion.

If you hold all 4 majors at the same time, it's the Grand Slam. All this calendar year stuff is irrelevant to the achievement of holding all 4 majors at the same time.
 

Speranza

Hall of Fame
#4
Watson: Oh my, I can see the theories coming out already.... Let me just grab the popcorn.... I left it in the- Holmes, have you tak-?

Holmes: (munch...chew....) Sit down Watson, this is going to be fun. :)
 
#5
It's hard to agree or disagree with that statement, because he doesn't really explain why he considers it that different.

For me, it's pretty much just as good IMO.
 
#6
Rod Laver, on the possibility of Nadal winning Australia:

"It would be a mini-slam, or whatever you want to call it but it isn’t the grand slam.

It is 40-odd years since I did the grand slam, and before that you had to go way back to the 1930s for the last time that anyone did it, so it’s not easy.

Winning one grand slam tournament is difficult enough. I’m not knocking what would be a great achievement of Nadal’s to win four in succession, but I don’t think winning four in a row across two seasons would be the same as a calendar-year grand slam.

It would be an end and a beginning. It would be a start. After maybe winning in Melbourne he could then go for the grand slam. People always used to say after winning the Australian Open: 'I suppose I’m going for the grand slam now then’. Winning the Australian Open would be a start for him.

I think Martina Navratilova once won four in a row across two years, and she said herself that it did not have the same meaning as having won all four over the same calendar year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...pen-is-just-the-beginning-says-Rod-Laver.html

Is Laver right?

Discuss. :)

This has been settled long ago.
No one in their right mind would say that the "Grand Slam" is just 4 slams in a row.
 
#7
I disagree with Rod's opinion.

If you hold all 4 majors at the same time, it's the Grand Slam. All this calendar year stuff is irrelevant to the achievement of holding all 4 majors at the same time.

BS.
The Grand Slam is far more prestigious than the Mustard Slam.
Because it is much more difficult to achieve.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#8
BS.
The Grand Slam is far more prestigious than the Mustard Slam.
Because it is much more difficult to achieve.
Look, we've gone through all this before. It's clear for everyone to see that winning 4 slams in a row is winning 4 slams in a row. The order in which it's done shouldn't matter one jot.
 
#9
If the Grand Slam is specifically winning all four in the same year then that's that.

All these variations of the term are there for a reason; to acknowledge that athlete in questions tremendous achievement.

If Nadal wins the Oz Open then he'll have achieved something that no man has achieved in over 40 years, and arguably it will be a greater achievement since he'll have achieved it over 3 distinct surfaces.

It won't be the Grand Slam, but it doesn't have to be. Why should the rules be bent in order to make his achievement more "special?" If anything it would diminish what he's achieved in my eyes.

If a sprinter misses out on a record breaking time in the 100 metres by 0.1 of a second, you don't round it down for him, otherwise what's the point in motivating yourself to try and achieve something so special?
 
#10
Laver surprises me with this comment. Is he a little worried about Nadal creeping closer or is he being real?

The true question is this:

One player wins Wimbledon, the US Open, the AO and the FO in a row.

Another player wins the AO, the FO, Wimbledon and the US Open in a row.

Who is better?

I see no difference.:neutral:
 
#13
Laver surprises me with this comment. Is he a little worried about Nadal creeping closer or is he being real?

The true question is this:

One player wins Wimbledon, the US Open, the AO and the FO in a row.

Another player wins the AO, the FO, Wimbledon and the US Open in a row.

Who is better?

I see no difference.:neutral:
I honestly think Nadal's 3 surface slam is more impressive than Laver's "Grand Slam"
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! If you don't win all four in the same calendar year, it's not a Grand Slam. Impressive feat? Of course; only two men and five women have ever done it. Grand Slam? No.
 
#14
Maybe it's like having the same thought process as a collector. If someone collects action figures I imagine they'd want to have a full collection, and not having to substitute a missing piece with a previous years model or something. Like having the 2010 French, Wimbledon and US Trophies, and a 2011 Australian Trophy?


...I'm probably talking nonsense, I'm tired and my brain needs sleep, so I'm leaving it at that :D
 
#15
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! If you don't win all four in the same calendar year, it's not a Grand Slam. Impressive feat? Of course; only two men and five women have ever done it. Grand Slam? No.
OK, OK.

So Laver sets the "Grand Slam" record. And Rafa sets the new record of four in a row.

I'm fine with that.:)
 
#17
Two different Concepts

Concept 1: The definition of the Grand Slam was set in the 1930's - it was defined as winning all of the Major tennis titles in one calendar year.

Concept 2: Impressiveness of a particular feat.

I don't think Rod Laver is saying that Nadal's achievements aren't impressive for one minute. He is simply stating the definition of a Grand Slam - which is all 4 in one calendar year.

Yes it is just as impressive winning it over 2 years - but it still isn't (according to the definition) a Grand Slam.

Once thing that I am sure Rod would feel even more strongly about (which I completely) is the habit that has been around since the 80's of calling the individual events as 'Grand Slams'. You hear players saying, yeah - Bagdatis got to the final of a Grand Slam etc. This has to stop. Call them Majors not Grand Slams.
 
#19
Laver surprises me with this comment. Is he a little worried about Nadal creeping closer or is he being real?

The true question is this:

One player wins Wimbledon, the US Open, the AO and the FO in a row.

Another player wins the AO, the FO, Wimbledon and the US Open in a row.

Who is better?

I see no difference.:neutral:

One player wins AO, FO, Wimbledon and USO in four different years.
Another player wins AO, FO, Wimbledon and USO in two years but in a row.

I see no difference.
Four different slams are four different slams.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
It is not about winning four slams.
It is not about winning four different slams.
It is not about winning four different slams in a row.
It is about winning four different slams in a row in one year.

What is so difficult to understand here, idiot?
The fact that the calendar year bit is placed on a pedestal. If April was considered the first month of the year, you'd think differently. That has nothing to do with the tennis achievement.
 
#21
It is not about winning four slams.
It is not about winning four different slams.
It is not about winning four different slams in a row.
It is about winning four different slams in a row in one year.

What is so difficult to understand here, idiot?
Mustard ain't an idiot, first thing. Clearly, you delight in being sarcastic while being anonymous. OK, we know your type....

A Grand Slam Year is what you're referencing. I think we can understand that...no problem. We're just pointing out that Rafa winning four in a row - albeit not a Grand Slam Year - is still an achievement that would be quite remarkable. If you find fault with this, I'd wonder about ya.:)
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
#22
The fact that the calendar year bit is placed on a pedestal. If April was considered the first month of the year, you'd think differently. That has nothing to do with the tennis achievement.
Good point/logical argument. Holding 4 in a row is the key.
 
#23
The fact that the calendar year bit is placed on a pedestal. If April was considered the first month of the year, you'd think differently. That has nothing to do with the tennis achievement.

The fact that this "in a row" bit is placed on a pedestal.

Isn't a greater achievement to win AO in 2011, FO in 2012, Wimbledon in 2013 and USO in 2014? You have to be in slam-winning form for more than 3 years.
What is this with your arbitrary "in a row" bit?

Agassi has won Wimbledon in 1992, USO in 1994, AO in 1995 and FO in 1999.
He was in top form for 7 years!
Far more impressive than just being at one's peak for 12 months.
For me Agassi has won the Grand Slam.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#24
Mustard ain't an idiot, first thing. Clearly, you delight in being sarcastic while being anonymous. OK, we know your type....

A Grand Slam Year is what you're referencing. I think we can understand that...no problem. We're just pointing out that Rafa winning four in a row - albeit not a Grand Slam Year - is still an achievement that would be quite remarkable. If you find fault with this, I'd wonder about ya.:)
If Nadal wins the Australian Open, the anti-Nadal brigade will be out in force to say it's not a Grand Slam and all the rest. The same thing happened in golf 10 years ago when Tiger Woods won 4 majors in a row. A lot of people were insisting that Woods hadn't achieved the Grand Slam because it wasn't all in one calendar year, even though Woods had all 4 major trophies at his house at the same time.
 
#25
The fact that this "in a row" bit is placed on a pedestal.

Isn't a greater achievement to win AO in 2011, FO in 2012, Wimbledon in 2013 and USO in 2014? You have to be in slam-winning form for more than 3 years.
What is this with your arbitrary "in a row" bit?

Agassi has won Wimbledon in 1992, USO in 1994, AO in 1995 and FO in 1999.
He was in top form for 7 years!
Far more impressive than just being at one's peak for 12 months.
For me Agassi has won the Grand Slam.
You doth protest too much.:)

Four in a row. Aside from Laver, who else has done that?
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
The fact that this "in a row" bit is placed on a pedestal.
Obviously, since this shows dominance over the most recent period, that a player holds all 4 majors at the same time.

Isn't a greater achievement to win AO in 2011, FO in 2012, Wimbledon in 2013 and USO in 2014? You have to be in slam-winning form for more than 3 years.
What is this with your arbitrary "in a row" bit?
The in a row bit shows the dominance over a recent period, the fact that one player holds all 4 majors at the same time.

Agassi has won Wimbledon in 1992, USO in 1994, AO in 1995 and FO in 1999.
He was in top form for 7 years!
Far more impressive than just being at one's peak for 12 months.
For me Agassi has won the Grand Slam.
Agassi has the career Grand Slam, something that Nadal, Federer, Laver, Emerson, Budge and Perry have also achieved.
 
#29
Good point/logical argument. Holding 4 in a row is the key.
Nobody's saying it's not an incredible accomplishment; as I stated earlier, only two men and five women have ever done it. The inescapable, irrefutable F-A-C-T remains that unless it's done within the same calendar year, it isn't a Grand Slam. I, for one, hope Nadal does pull it off this year, because that would make SEVEN majors in a row.
 
#31
Nobody's saying it's not an incredible accomplishment; as I stated earlier, only two men and five women have ever done it. The inescapable, irrefutable F-A-C-T remains that unless it's done within the same calendar year, it isn't a Grand Slam. I, for one, hope Nadal does pull it off this year, because that would make SEVEN majors in a row.
We'll take "incredible accomplishment" as a tag here! I certainly agree it would be amazing and very incredible. Of course, we have to wait and see if our guy Rafa pulls it off. But if anyone can, it'd be him. :)
 
#32
It should definitely be considered a Grand Slam. The history and definition of the term are far less important than how big a fan you are of a certain player. If you really like a player, then winning four majors in a row more than qualifies as being a Grand Slam. In fact, if one's fanhood reaches extraordinary proportions, winning any four tournaments in a row should be considered a Grand Slam. Even if one is a Challenger tournament.

Also hyperbole is more important than accuracy. That's why Federer has already won sixteen Grand Slams. Laver just won a measly two.
 
#37
You doth protest too much.:)

Four in a row. Aside from Laver, who else has done that?

Court, Graf (twice), Navratilova, S. Williams.
And there are even more pros who have won all 4 slams. Agassi, Federer, Nadal, King, Evert. It is the Career Grand Slam.

Four in a row is better, though. The Non-calendar-year Grand Slam
But four in row AND in the same year is the best. It is called "The Grand Slam".

Guess why no one mentions a "Grand Slam" when Navratilova's achievements are discussed but everybody mentions the Grand Slam when Steffi Graf is discussed? What do you think might be the reason for this?
 
#38
Similar things happen in golf. A few years ago, Tiger Woods won all four major tournaments over a two year period. Was it a Grand Slam? No. The announcers called it a "Tiger slam," and that was the term used to describe it, but regardless of what it was called, it was quite possibly the most impressive accomplishment by the most impressive golfer the world had known at that time. Tiger, however, did not have a major rival like Nadal does. I would say if Nadal were to accomplish the same feat at the Australian Open, it would be a very impressive feat nonetheless, however the trolling would begin as to it being an excellent accomplishment (from the Nadal supporters) and being a second rate accomplishment (from the haters). Nobody will look at it objectively for what it is.
 
#40
Obviously, since this shows dominance over the most recent period, that a player holds all 4 majors at the same time.
....


Winning 4 different slams in 4 different years shows peak slam winning form for a far longer period.
Winning 4 different slams in 4 consecutive years, that's it. That is the "Grand Slam". I don't understand your "in a row" bit.
 
#41
Similar things happen in golf. A few years ago, Tiger Woods won all four major tournaments over a two year period. Was it a Grand Slam? No. The announcers called it a "Tiger slam," and that was the term used to describe it, but regardless of what it was called, it was quite possibly the most impressive accomplishment by the most impressive golfer the world had known at that time. Tiger, however, did not have a major rival like Nadal does. I would say if Nadal were to accomplish the same feat at the Australian Open, it would be a very impressive feat nonetheless, however the trolling would begin as to it being an excellent accomplishment (from the Nadal supporters) and being a second rate accomplishment (from the haters). Nobody will look at it objectively for what it is.
Well, I think tennis commentators would, at least. The ESPNs of the world would, too. That won't satisfy the Joe Pikes of the world, but that's of little consequence now, isn't it?:twisted:

But I sound mean-spirited myself here. Forgive me! I'm just shaking my head over the vitriol about Rafa possibly earning a bit of men's tennis history of his own.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#42
Winning 4 different slams in 4 different years shows peak slam winning form for a far longer period.
That's why it's a career Grand Slam. You can argue which is the most impressive out of winning 4 majors in a row or 4 majors in a career, if you wish.

Winning 4 different slams in 4 consecutive years, that's it. That is the "Grand Slam". I don't understand your "in a row" bit.
Because that's not a situation where one player holds all 4 majors at the same time. It's not rocket science.
 
#43
Similar things happen in golf. A few years ago, Tiger Woods won all four major tournaments over a two year period. Was it a Grand Slam? No. The announcers called it a "Tiger slam," and that was the term used to describe it, but regardless of what it was called, it was quite possibly the most impressive accomplishment by the most impressive golfer the world had known at that time. Tiger, however, did not have a major rival like Nadal does. I would say if Nadal were to accomplish the same feat at the Australian Open, it would be a very impressive feat nonetheless, however the trolling would begin as to it being an excellent accomplishment (from the Nadal supporters) ...
It would be an excellent accomplishment.
But no Grand Slam.

Sampras's seven Wimbledons are an excellent accomplishment, too.
But not Grand Slam either.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
#44
Rafa can do the Rafa slam, just like Serena has the Serena slam.

But the grand slam is always looked upon as the calender year Grand Slam, that is what it is.

Winning all four in ONE season, not over two season. Basically it is one player having the PERFECT season, all FOUR titles for that year.

Holding all four is still incredible, but doing it in one season, having that PERFECT season, that is something special.

Rafa can win all four in AO, but Laver's GS will still be the last true one.
 
#45
That's why it's a career Grand Slam. You can argue which is the most impressive out of winning 4 majors in a row or 4 majors in a career, if you wish.



Because that's not a situation where one player holds all 4 majors at the same time. It's not rocket science.

And winning FO, Wimbledon, USO in one year and AO in the next year is not a situation where one player wins all 4 majors in the the same year. It's not rocket science.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
#46
That's why it's a career Grand Slam. You can argue which is the most impressive out of winning 4 majors in a row or 4 majors in a career, if you wish.



Because that's not a situation where one player holds all 4 majors at the same time. It's not rocket science.
But the situation you describe isn't one where one player wins 4 majors in one calendar year.
 
#47
Rafa can do the Rafa slam, just like Serena has the Serena slam.

But the grand slam is always looked upon as the calender Grand Slam, that is what it is.

Winning all four in ONE season, not over two season. Basically it is one player having the PERFECT season, all FOUR titles for that year.

Holding all four is still incredible, but doing it in one season, having that PERFECT season, that is something special.

Rafa can win all four in AO, but Laver's GS will still be the last true one.
I can live with that.:)
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
#48
But the situation you describe isn't one where one player wins 4 majors in one calendar year.
What does it matter? I don't see how the FO-W-USO-AO, W-USO-AO-FO and USO-AO-FO-W ways of winning 4 in a row are any less prestigious than the calendar year version AO-FO-W-USO way of winning 4 in a row. Holding all 4 majors at the same is the Grand Slam tennis achievement.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
#49
What does it matter? I don't see how the FO-W-USO-AO, W-USO-AO-FO and USO-AO-FO-W ways of winning 4 in a row are any less prestigious than the calendar year version AO-FO-W-USO way of winning 4 in a row. Holding all 4 majors at the same is the Grand Slam tennis achievement.
I thought the "grand slam" by definition meant winning all 4 in a calendar year.
 

Speranza

Hall of Fame
#50
Watson: By jove, if the opening 5 minutes are anything to go by, this should be one wonderful thr-

Holmes: Yes, yes, whatever. Just give me back the popcorn.
 
Top