Nole Slam vs Laver '62 amateur CYGS

big ted

Hall of Fame
Why? Because of 3 surfaces vs 2, 30 consecutive slam wins, or some other reason?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
well i wasnt alive when laver won but in my opinion he did only have
to deal with 2 surfaces, and no clay court dominators like nadal or borg...
also if laver wasnt australian maybe he wouldnt have even played the AO...
they say it wasnt the tournament it is now...
 

Eren

Professional
well i wasnt alive when laver won but in my opinion he did only have
to deal with 2 surfaces, and no clay court dominators like nadal or borg...
also if laver wasnt australian maybe he wouldnt have even played the AO...
they say it wasnt the tournament it is now...
Djokovic did not deal with a clay court dominating Nadal either in his run to the NCYGS. We can safely say that no one would win a NCYGS if Nadal is fit at RG. That domain would belong to Nadal no matter what version of Djokovic shows up at RG.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
If OE CYGS > OE NCYGS > amateur CYGS, where is bigger difference, between 1st two or the last two?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
Djokovic did not deal with a clay court dominating Nadal either in his run to the NCYGS. We can safely say that no one would win a NCYGS if Nadal is fit at RG. That domain would belong to Nadal no matter what version of Djokovic shows up at RG.
Nadal could :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
I don't know why people look down on Laver's first quadruple so much. Because they were all amateurs? Uh... So was he? His first two finals he beat Emerson who would win both those tournaments the following year when Laver departed. At Roland Garros he might not have knocked off any clay titans, but he dispatched Fraser who had beaten Pietrangeli, and Emerson who had beaten Manolo in their previous rounds. In New York he gets Emerson who is the defending champion who kicked him to the curb the year before (same applies to the Australia final)

As for that whole 2 surfaces versus 3 debate. I'm going to guess the Australian grass played more differently than the London grass, and both differently enough from the Paris clay to suggest more variety was required from Laver on his run than from Djokovic. Novak's 4 in a row didn't even include the channel slam. He literally did 4 in a row the 'weakest' way it's possible. Serena's two are much more impressive, order wise.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
I think Lew2 has to present to us some of his objective statistics to really give us all a clear answer to this one.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
I don't know why people look down on Laver's first quadruple so much. Because they were all amateurs? Uh... So was he? His first two finals he beat Emerson who would win both those tournaments the following year when Laver departed. At Roland Garros he might not have knocked off any clay titans, but he dispatched Fraser who had beaten Pietrangeli, and Emerson who had beaten Manolo in their previous rounds. In New York he gets Emerson who is the defending champion who kicked him to the curb the year before (same applies to the Australia final)

As for that whole 2 surfaces versus 3 debate. I'm going to guess the Australian grass played more differently than the London grass, and both differently enough from the Paris clay to suggest more variety was required from Laver on his run than from Djokovic. Novak's 4 in a row didn't even include the channel slam. He literally did 4 in a row the 'weakest' way it's possible. Serena's two are much more impressive, order wise.
If I understand you well, there are weak Grand Slams? :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
I don't know why people look down on Laver's first quadruple so much. Because they were all amateurs? Uh... So was he? His first two finals he beat Emerson who would win both those tournaments the following year when Laver departed. At Roland Garros he might not have knocked off any clay titans, but he dispatched Fraser who had beaten Pietrangeli, and Emerson who had beaten Manolo in their previous rounds. In New York he gets Emerson who is the defending champion who kicked him to the curb the year before (same applies to the Australia final)

As for that whole 2 surfaces versus 3 debate. I'm going to guess the Australian grass played more differently than the London grass, and both differently enough from the Paris clay to suggest more variety was required from Laver on his run than from Djokovic. Novak's 4 in a row didn't even include the channel slam. He literally did 4 in a row the 'weakest' way it's possible. Serena's two are much more impressive, order wise.
For me there are two reasons that Laver's close era amateur CYGS doesn't compare to today's CYGS or NCYGS.

First, AO was not an equal of the other 3 back then. In 1962 AO, Laver played just 5 matches in a 48-player draw (39 of whom were Australian). He also played only 6 matches in a 112-player French Open.

Second, there was a distinct gap between amateurs and pros at the time. After winning the 1962 amateur CYGS, Laver turned pro the next year, when he lost to Rosewall 13-38 in one year (Rosewall turned 29, Laver 25 in 1963. And yes pros played each other a lot back then.). Although Laver gained an upper hand over Rosewall in the following years, that 13-38 H2H epitomized amateur-pro difference. In other words, Laver didn't play the best tennis players in the world in 1962.

Even in 1969, the first full year of the open era when pieces were still following into places, Laver played 5 rounds in a 48-player AO. Novak is the first to win 4 Majors in a row with a 128-player full draw at each major.
 

justasport

Professional
the nole slam by a long way....it's one of the top 3 greatest achievements in tennis history...no disrespect to laver at all but there is no comparison
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
the nole slam by a long way....it's one of the top 3 greatest achievements in tennis history...no disrespect to laver at all but there is no comparison
Where would you say is bigger difference - between 62 CYGS and Nole Slam, or between Nole Slam and 69 CYGS?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Zhilady

Professional
I don't know why people look down on Laver's first quadruple so much. Because they were all amateurs? Uh... So was he?
Not sure what your point is. So if I'm a club player and I beat club players to win 4 club titles, that is as impressive as a pro player beating pro players to win 4 pro titles? Doesn't work that way. If you win against amateurs, it is less impressive than winning against a better class of opposition. And we know the Pro Tour was a better class of opposition. Look at what happened when Laver entered the Pro Tour the next year.

Novak's 4 in a row didn't even include the channel slam. He literally did 4 in a row the 'weakest' way it's possible. Serena's two are much more impressive, order wise.
Do you have any stats or historical evidence that suggests winning the Channel Slam is tougher than any other double? This is often repeated as if it's a truism. I've never seen anybody present any evidence to support the claim.

In the Open Era, the Channel Slam was achieved 7 times. The AO-FO double was achieved just 4 times. Any counterevidence to suggest that the Channel Slam is tougher than the AO-FO double?
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
I don't know why people look down on Laver's first quadruple so much. Because they were all amateurs? Uh... So was he? His first two finals he beat Emerson who would win both those tournaments the following year when Laver departed. At Roland Garros he might not have knocked off any clay titans, but he dispatched Fraser who had beaten Pietrangeli, and Emerson who had beaten Manolo in their previous rounds. In New York he gets Emerson who is the defending champion who kicked him to the curb the year before (same applies to the Australia final).
Laver would not have won CYGS in 1962 if the professionals could then play the GS tournaments in this time. E.g Rosewall would not allow him to win the RG, Ken was the best clay court player of the 1960s.
You can mentioned a lot of names, with whom amateur Laver has measured strength, the fact is, that Laver didn't stand against complete competition.
 
In the Open Era, the Channel Slam was achieved 7 times. The AO-FO double was achieved just 4 times. Any counterevidence to suggest that the Channel Slam is tougher than the AO-FO double?
Thought you were better than this manipulation.

We know that AO was second or even third rate in 1970-1982, and even RG was skippable in the 70s, to the effect that very few top players - and never the best - participated in both AO and RG. Wimbledon and USO, though, never experienced such demotion in the OE and were always attended as fully as possible, barring the 1973 Wimbledon boycott.

In 1983, Wilander and Lendl began to play AO regularly, and that marked its return to the top echelon (though it remained the clear fifth until 90s, Connors persisted in not playing, and Agassi didn't bother until 1995; but others attended almost as well as Wim and USO).

Since 1983, the AO-RG double was achieved three times (Wilander, Courier, Djokovic), and the RG-Wim double was achieved three times (Nadal, Federer, Nadal). Nadal had two more close misses for AO-RG though, when he lost AO in 5 and then won RG in 12 and 17. There have been no close misses for RG-Wim, when a player would win one and lose a close final in the other. That's not enough sample size anyway, but there's also the matter of less time between the latter duo, which makes it more difficult. Both 08 and 09 doubles were near-misses with those epic Wimby finals, 2010 was one exception.
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
I don't know why people look down on Laver's first quadruple so much. Because they were all amateurs? Uh... So was he? His first two finals he beat Emerson who would win both those tournaments the following year when Laver departed. At Roland Garros he might not have knocked off any clay titans, but he dispatched Fraser who had beaten Pietrangeli, and Emerson who had beaten Manolo in their previous rounds. In New York he gets Emerson who is the defending champion who kicked him to the curb the year before (same applies to the Australia final)

As for that whole 2 surfaces versus 3 debate. I'm going to guess the Australian grass played more differently than the London grass, and both differently enough from the Paris clay to suggest more variety was required from Laver on his run than from Djokovic. Novak's 4 in a row didn't even include the channel slam. He literally did 4 in a row the 'weakest' way it's possible. Serena's two are much more impressive, order wise.
The answer is quite obvious imo, Laver won his grand slams against a limited competition, while Nole had to deal with all the professionals available at the time.

Emerson was a decent opponent, but the field lacked players like Pancho, Rosewall, Cooper, Hoad...and he also "avoided" his clay nemesis Santana at the French.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Thought you were better than this manipulation.
I didn't manipulate anything. Those are hard facts.

We know that AO was second or even third rate in 1970-1982, and even RG was skippable in the 70s, to the effect that very few top players - and never the best - participated in both AO and RG. Wimbledon and USO, though, never experienced such demotion in the OE and were always attended as fully as possible, barring the 1973 Wimbledon boycott.

In 1983, Wilander and Lendl began to play AO regularly, and that marked its return to the top echelon (though it remained the clear fifth until 90s, Connors persisted in not playing, and Agassi didn't bother until 1995; but others attended almost as well as Wim and USO).
Okay, the point about Australian Open not being very valuable until the early '80s is valid. But even still, the Channel Slam hasn't been a rarer achievement than the AO-FO, like we just saw from your own figures. If we consider it to have reached complete top-4 Slam status by 1990 (which you yourself conceded), we go back to the Channel Slam being more frequent than the AO-FO double (3>2).

Since 1983, the AO-RG double was achieved three times (Wilander, Courier, Djokovic), and the RG-Wim double was achieved three times (Nadal, Federer, Nadal). Nadal had two more close misses for AO-RG though, when he lost AO in 5 and then won RG in 12 and 17. There have been no close misses for RG-Wim, when a player would win one and lose a close final in the other. That's not enough sample size anyway,
Your "close but no cigar" argument doesn't fly because you could just as easily argue that Nadal was close to winning the Channel Slam in 2007 (lost 2 tiebreak sets in the final and still took it to 5 at Wimbledon) and that Federer was close to winning the Channel Slam in 2006/2007 (lost in 4 sets in the French Open finals). You're the one trying to manipulate the factual figures here. 3 = 3. That's the end of it.

but there's also the matter of less time between the latter duo, which makes it more difficult. Both 08 and 09 doubles were near-misses with those epic Wimby finals, 2010 was one exception.
Your theory about how the Channel Slam should be more difficult to achieve is all well and good, but theory means little when it isn't backed up by facts. In theory, a baseliner like Djokovic who prefers slower courts should be better at the French Open than at Wimbledon. We know that isn't the case. Empirical evidence beats theory everytime. Please give some kind of evidence to show how the Channel Slam is tougher to achieve than the AO-FO double. From what I can gather, even disregarding Borg's 3 Channel Slams doesn't help you in your argument.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic did not deal with a clay court dominating Nadal either in his run to the NCYGS. We can safely say that no one would win a NCYGS if Nadal is fit at RG. That domain would belong to Nadal no matter what version of Djokovic shows up at RG.
I Believe peak Djokovic on clay can take down any version of Nadal at RG. How high the possibility for that is left to discuss but let's not completely count Djokovic out.

Since 2012 at RG:

3-1 Nadal. One of the matches was a nailbiting 5th set that finished 9-7. A set where Djokovic pressured arguably the greatest level from Rafa on clay in a set where he hit 28 winners and Djokovic almost won. Rest of the matches went to 4 and Djokovic won one in straights. So here we can see that prime to prime Djoko on clay definitely has the Goods to hang with Rafa at RG and even beat him.

If there is anyone in history it's Djokovic who can do the challenge, wich we have seen. So Djokovic winning NCYGS is well deserved and nothing to do with Nadal being gone.He is the Most complete out there and we have seen proof of that with his level on any surface and the fact that he is the biggest challenge to the undisputed greatest clay court player ever.

Djokovic is one in a billion player.
 
Last edited:

Zhilady

Professional
I Believe peak Djokovic on clay can take down any version of Nadal at RG. How high the possibility for that is left to discuss but let's not completely count Djokovic out. If there is anyone in history it's Djokovic who can do the challenge, wich we have seen.
I don't know what you've seen, but I see Djokovic being 1-6 down against Nadal at the French Open, with the 1 win coming in the year Nadal failed to win a single Masters event on clay.

If there is any guy in history that has shown that he can beat any version of Nadal at the French Open, it's Soderling at the 2009 French Open. Nadal won two Masters on clay that year.
 
Last edited:

Eren

Professional
I Believe peak Djokovic on clay can take down any version of Nadal at RG. How high the possibility for that is left to discuss but let's not completely count Djokovic out.

Since 2012 at RG:

3-1 Nadal. One of the matches was a nailbiting 5th set that finished 9-7. A set where Djokovic pressured arguably the greatest level from Rafa on clay in a set where he hit 28 winners and Djokovic almost wob. Rest went to 4 and Djokovic won one in straights.

If there is anyone in history it's Djokovic who can do the challenge, wich we have seen. So Djokovic winning NCYGS is well deserved and nothing to do with Nadal being gone.He is the Most complete out there and we have seen proof of that with his level on any surface and the fact that he is the biggest challenge to the undisputed greatest clay court player ever.

Djokovic is one in a billion player.
I think Djokovic is an absolutely amazing player despite some of his delusional fans here. However, Peak Nadal is a factor no human being has ever been able to overcome at RG.

Djokovic's NCYGS was earned because he won it, simple as that. It doesn't mean that he would have won RG 2016 with a fully fit Nadal.

Djokovic is the best challenger to Nadal on clay in BO3, but not really in a BO5. No one is a real challenge to Nadal in a BO5 at RG.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Since 2012 at RG:

3-1 Nadal. One of the matches was a nailbiting 5th set that finished 9-7. A set where Djokovic pressured arguably the greatest level from Rafa on clay in a set where he hit 28 winners and Djokovic almost won. Rest of the matches went to 4 and Djokovic won one in straights. So here we can see that prime to prime Djoko on clay definitely has the Goods to hang with Rafa at RG and even beat him.
The hell? How was 2015 Nadal in his prime?

Nadal in 2015 didn't win a single Masters title on clay. The only year he failed to do that from 2005-2018.
Nadal in 2015 had a record of 26-6 on clay that year. That's 81%, compared to his overall career clay record of 92%.

His level in 2015, when Djokovic beat him, was worse than his average level on clay, let alone prime level. Your claim is nonsensical. It's like saying 2005 Djokovic was in his prime at the Australian Open.
 
Okay, the point about Australian Open not being very valuable until the early '80s is valid. But even still, the Channel Slam hasn't been a rarer achievement than the AO-FO, like we just saw from your own figures. If we consider it to have reached complete top-4 Slam status by 1990 (which you yourself conceded), we go back to the Channel Slam being more frequent than the AO-FO double (3>2).
1988 AO had all the top contenders; McEnroe and Connors were past winning, Agassi was too young yet (he did take Wilander to 5 sets at RG - and lost the fifth to love). The semis were Edberg-Wilander and Lendl-Cash, both five-setters. The Wilander-Cash was also a five-setter. A very good tournament, no reason to discount it.

Your "close but no cigar" argument doesn't fly because you could just as easily argue that Nadal was close to winning the Channel Slam in 2007 (lost 2 tiebreak sets in the final and still took it to 5 at Wimbledon) and that Federer was close to winning the Channel Slam in 2006/2007 (lost in 4 sets in the French Open finals). You're the one trying to manipulate the factual figures here. 3 = 3. That's the end of it.
Losing in four sets is not that close. 3 = 3 is a small sample size as it is, yet it's telling that AO-RG was achieved in three different tennis landscapes (yes, 1988 and 1992 are quite different, looking at the leading players), by three different players, while RG-Wim was done three times in a row by two different players when conditions met.

Your theory about how the Channel Slam should be more difficult to achieve is all well and good, but theory means little when it isn't backed up by facts. In theory, a baseliner like Djokovic who prefers slower courts should be better at the French Open than at Wimbledon. We know that isn't the case. Empirical evidence beats theory everytime. Please give some kind of evidence to show how the Channel Slam is tougher to achieve than the AO-FO double. From what I can gather, even disregarding Borg's 3 Channel Slams doesn't help you in your argument.
What tells you Djokovic is better at Wimbledon? Of course, he has better results, but there's someone called Rafael Nadal 11 RG champ who stopped Djokovic from 3 or 4 extra titles (depends on how you think 08 would go) playing top tennis. Actually, during Djokovic's 2011-16 prime, I would say he played better at RG in 2011, 13 and 16, and at Wimbledon in 2012 and 2015, 2014 being tied/close.

The question may be reframed: what is more difficult - for an RG contender to win AO or for a Wimbledon contender to win RG? For decades the answer was the former, because the players with the proper grasscourt skills and those with the proper claycourt skills were rather different subsets; Borg was an amazing exception, the only ATG who was better on both clay and grass than hard. In the modern era, with Big 3 contending for all slams, and Nadal hoarding RG being the key obstacle for both combos, it's situational. The one time Nadal lost so Federer could clinch RG, he had already denied him AO, so RG-Wim double was the only one possible, and Fed did it. The other time he withdrew and Djokovic took RG, he had already won AO and the Channel Slam was on the cards as well, but he would rather choke to Sam Querrey (plain bad form, not like he was stopped by epic grasscourtery). Nadal himself was stopped at Wimbledon by better grasscourters in Federer and Djokovic; the one time both struggled and lost, he also took the win. The difference is that he managed to beat Federer directly once as well, something that Fedovic couldn't against a contending Nadal (because when Djok beat him, not only Wawrinka but Murray was much tougher too).
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
I Believe peak Djokovic on clay can take down any version of Nadal at RG. How high the possibility for that is left to discuss but let's not completely count Djokovic out. If there is anyone in history it's Djokovic who can do the challenge, wich we have seen. So Djokovic winning NCYGS is well deserved and nothing to do with Nadal being gone.He is the Most complete out there and we have seen proof of that with his level on any surface and the fact that he is the biggest challenge to the undisputed greatest clay court player ever.

Djokovic is one in a billion player.
Reminded me of that presser
Nadal's made almost every final at RG since Djokovic became a pro, and in all that time peak Djokovic on clay didn't make an appearance against Rafa at RG even once. Such a shame.

Not sure what clay match/matches of Djokovic you have in mind as his peak but if it's the best of Nadal at RG - and there's plenty of that goodness - I'm counting Djokovic out every time.
 
Even in 1969, the first full year of the open era when pieces were still following into places, Laver played 5 rounds in a 48-player AO. Novak is the first to win 4 Majors in a row with a 128-player full draw at each major.
Why does this keep getting touted as something important, mostly by Djole fans, hmm.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
What about the differences between 62 CYGS vs Nole Slam and Nole Slam vs 69 CYGS? Which pair has larger gap between?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Zhilady

Professional
1988 AO had all the top contenders; McEnroe and Connors were past winning, Agassi was too young yet (he did take Wilander to 5 sets at RG - and lost the fifth to love). The semis were Edberg-Wilander and Lendl-Cash, both five-setters. The Wilander-Cash was also a five-setter. A very good tournament, no reason to discount it.
I think it's a little unfair to say Connors was past winning when he was ranked #4 in the world and had made the previous two Grand Slam semifinals. Even McEnroe was top 10. I wouldn't discount it, but I wouldn't call it the full-fledged Slam it would become yet.

Losing in four sets is not that close. 3 = 3 is a small sample size as it is, yet it's telling that AO-RG was achieved in three different tennis landscapes (yes, 1988 and 1992 are quite different, looking at the leading players), by three different players, while RG-Wim was done three times in a row by two different players when conditions met.
See, again, you are trying to manipulate the numbers. 3 = 3. If we're going into how close the matches were, you could argue that the 2012 Australian Open should have never gone 5 sets (because Djokovic should have won the 4th) and that the 2007 French Open final should have gone to 5 if Federer didn't miss all those break points. It's still 3 = 3.

What tells you Djokovic is better at Wimbledon? Of course, he has better results, but there's someone called Rafael Nadal 11 RG champ who stopped Djokovic from 3 or 4 extra titles (depends on how you think 08 would go) playing top tennis. Actually, during Djokovic's 2011-16 prime, I would say he played better at RG in 2011, 13 and 16, and at Wimbledon in 2012 and 2015, 2014 being tied/close.
You do realize one could make the same argument about anything? "What tells you the Channel Slam is tougher than the AO-FO double? It's just that there's someone called Roger Federer, the 8-time Wimbledon champion, who stopped Nadal from winning 2 extra Channel Slams. There was nobody that good stopping Nadal at the AO from 2006-2008."

Again, I go by results and hard facts. And they tell me Djokovic is better at Wimbledon than at the French Open.

The question may be reframed: what is more difficult - for an RG contender to win AO or for a Wimbledon contender to win RG? For decades the answer was the former, because the players with the proper grasscourt skills and those with the proper claycourt skills were rather different subsets; Borg was an amazing exception, the only ATG who was better on both clay and grass than hard. In the modern era, with Big 3 contending for all slams, and Nadal hoarding RG being the key obstacle for both combos, it's situational. The one time Nadal lost so Federer could clinch RG, he had already denied him AO, so RG-Wim double was the only one possible, and Fed did it. The other time he withdrew and Djokovic took RG, he had already won AO and the Channel Slam was on the cards as well, but he would rather choke to Sam Querrey (plain bad form, not like he was stopped by epic grasscourtery). Nadal himself was stopped at Wimbledon by better grasscourters in Federer and Djokovic; the one time both struggled and lost, he also took the win. The difference is that he managed to beat Federer directly once as well, something that Fedovic couldn't against a contending Nadal (because when Djok beat him, not only Wawrinka but Murray was much tougher too).
Which is all theory that sounds good on paper, but that isn't good enough for me. Like I said, empirical evidence beats theory every time. I'm just asking you for evidence to show that the Channel Slam is tougher to achieve than the AO-FO double.
 

Eren

Professional
Reminded me of that presser
Nadal's made almost every final at RG since Djokovic became a pro, and in all that time peak Djokovic on clay didn't make an appearance against Rafa at RG even once. Such a shame.

Not sure what clay match/matches of Djokovic you have in mind as his peak but if it's the best of Nadal at RG - and there's plenty of that goodness - I'm counting Djokovic out every time.
Was an epic response from Nadal.
 
I think it's a little unfair to say Connors was past winning when he was ranked #4 in the world and had made the previous two Grand Slam semifinals. Even McEnroe was top 10. I wouldn't discount it, but I wouldn't call it the full-fledged Slam it would become yet.
Which he lost in straight sets to none other than Cash and Lendl. Yeah, not winning it realistically.

You do realize one could make the same argument about anything? "What tells you the Channel Slam is tougher than the AO-FO double? It's just that there's someone called Roger Federer, the 8-time Wimbledon champion, who stopped Nadal from winning 2 extra Channel Slams. There was nobody that good stopping Nadal at the AO from 2006-2008."
In the modern era, with diluted differences, perhaps not, alright.

Again, I go by results and hard facts. And they tell me Djokovic is better at Wimbledon than at the French Open.
No, they tell you Djokovic is more successful at Wimbledon. It's your personal conclusion that he was also better, i.e. played better tennis.

Which is all theory that sounds good on paper, but that isn't good enough for me. Like I said, empirical evidence beats theory every time. I'm just asking you for evidence to show that the Channel Slam is tougher to achieve than the AO-FO double.
So I take it that from 1983 to 2007 the Channel Slam was harder because it was never achieved during that period, while AO-RG was achieved twice. Then, when Fedal won the Wim-RG double thrice in a row, suddenly it became easier. Lastly, when Djokovic won AO-RG in 2016, it became equal, because 3 = 3. Funny logic.
 

Zhilady

Professional
I thought you were all about cold hard facts, was I wrong?
How does that go against cold, hard facts?

The 1969 AO was not as strong as the 2016 AO. It wasn't a full-fledged Slam. The 1969 AO had a much smaller draw (Laver only had to win 5 matches), and it was also missing 4 players from the top 10 of the previous year. Djokovic had no such luxury.

Even the 2016 FO had a fuller field than the 1969 FO, though not by as much as the AO.
 
The 1969 AO is nowhere near as valuable as the 2016 AO. It wasn't a full-fledged Slam. The 1969 AO had a much smaller draw (Laver only had to win 5 matches), and it was also missing 4 players from the top 10 of the previous year. Djokovic had no such luxury.
What relevance does any of this have to 'value'?
 

Zhilady

Professional
Which he lost in straight sets to none other than Cash and Lendl. Yeah, not winning it realistically.
Are you saying there is absolutely no way he could have won if he had played?

In the modern era, with diluted differences, perhaps not, alright.
Not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here.

No, they tell you Djokovic is more successful at Wimbledon. It's your personal conclusion that he was also better, i.e. played better tennis.
True, just like results only tell me that Roger Federer is a more successful Tennis player than I am. It's my personal conclusion whether he was also better, i.e. played better Tennis.


So I take it that from 1983 to 2007 the Channel Slam was harder because it was never achieved during that period, while AO-RG was achieved twice. Then, when Fedal won the Wim-RG double thrice in a row, suddenly it became easier. Lastly, when Djokovic won AO-RG in 2016, it became equal, because 3 = 3. Funny logic.
You do know what empirical evidence is, right? Please tell me you do. Or you'd just be another cherry-picking Lew II.
 
Are you saying there is absolutely no way he could have won if he had played?
Given the level the four semifinalists displayed (both semis and the final are available for watching), yes. At that stage of his career Connors wasn't capable of besting that.

True, just like results only tell me that Roger Federer is a more successful Tennis player than I am. It's my personal conclusion whether he was also better, i.e. played better Tennis.
False equivalence/analogy.

You do know what empirical evidence is, right? Please tell me you do. Or you'd just be another cherry-picking Lew II.
I know the difference between facts and opinions.

The same relevance that puts Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall over Roy Emerson.
It's not the same. Another false statement.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Given the level the four semifinalists displayed (both semis and the final are available for watching), yes. At that stage of his career Connors wasn't capable of besting that.
I disagree.


False equivalence/analogy.
How?

I know the difference between facts and opinions.
And it is an opinion that the Channel Slam is tougher than any other double.

It's not the same. Another false statement.
Again, how? If all Grand Slams are the same, Roy Emerson has more of them than Laver and Rosewall. If we're going to value Emerson's Slams less because their fields were missing most top players, why wouldn't you value Laver's Slam less because it was also missing a few top players?
 
I disagree.
"It's impossible for a player to hit 100% aces in a completed match." "I disagree!"
[/QUOTE]

How not, is a better question that you should answer. You presented the analogy, you defend it.

And it is an opinion that the Channel Slam is tougher than any other double.
It is. Everything other than factual statements is an opinion at some point.

Again, how? If all Grand Slams are the same, Roy Emerson has more of them than Laver and Rosewall. If we're going to value Emerson's Slams less because their fields were missing most top players, why wouldn't you value Laver's Slam less because it was also missing a few top players?
Emerson's slams were missing Laver and Rosewall, i.e. the best of the best. Laver already bested him in his last amateur year, when he was significantly worse than Rosewall yet, as demonstrated the following year when he turned pro and took time to improve.

Laver's AO 1969 had all the very best players: Laver himself, Rosewall, Newcombe, and Roche - generally considered to make up the YE top 4. Not his fault Rosewall failed and lost to Gimeno, who made the final instead. Top 4 is enough, as one strong opponent is tougher to defeat than several average ones. Laver did in fact encounter stark resistance from Roche, who forced him into a 90-game semifinal. Emerson (another YE top 10) seems to have given a decent account of himself as well in the round before.
 

Zhilady

Professional
"It's impossible for a player to hit 100% aces in a completed match." "I disagree!"
Technically, I'd be right.

How not, is a better question that you should answer. You presented the analogy, you defend it.
That's kind of silly, but okay. It's not a bad analogy because, apparently, better results don't mean you're a better player, according to you. So Federer, despite having better results than I do, is not necessarily a better player. Just like Nadal, despite having better results on clay than on grass, is not necessarily a better claycourter than a grasscourter.

Emerson's slams were missing Laver and Rosewall, i.e. the best of the best. Laver already bested him in his last amateur year, when he was significantly worse than Rosewall yet, as demonstrated the following year when he turned pro and took time to improve.

Laver's AO 1969 had all the very best players: Laver himself, Rosewall, Newcombe, and Roche - generally considered to make up the YE top 4. Not his fault Rosewall failed and lost to Gimeno, who made the final instead. Top 4 is enough, as one strong opponent is tougher to defeat than several average ones. Laver did in fact encounter stark resistance from Roche, who forced him into a 90-game semifinal. Emerson (another YE top 10) seems to have given a decent account of himself as well in the round before.
The 1969 AO was missing Arthur Ashe, who was in the top 2 at the time. It was also missing 3 other top 10 players in Graebner, Ralston, and Drysdale. The 2016 AO was missing only the #9, Richard Gasquet, and he didn't voluntarily skip. He was injured.

If you think Laver's 1969 AO > Emerson's Slams because it had more top players, it logically follows that Djokovic's 2016 AO > 1969 AO because it had more top players. Pretty straightforward.
 
Last edited:

Zhilady

Professional
Thought you were better than this manipulation.

We know that AO was second or even third rate in 1970-1982, and even RG was skippable in the 70s, to the effect that very few top players - and never the best - participated in both AO and RG. Wimbledon and USO, though, never experienced such demotion in the OE and were always attended as fully as possible, barring the 1973 Wimbledon boycott.
Okay, I found something more reliable. I've looked at both Open Era history and overall Tennis history and compiled a list of all the players that have held Wimbledon and French Open at the same time. As we know, there are two ways of doing that:

1. Channel Slam: Win the FO-W double in the same calendar year, the way Federer did in 2009.
2. Non-Channel Slam: Win the W-FO double, by winning Wimbledon in one calendar year and then the French Open in the next calendar year, the way Djokovic did in 2015-2016.

Here are the results:

In the Open Era:
Channel Slam: 7
Non-Channel Slam: 7

In the pre-Open Era:
Channel Slam: 8
Non-Channel Slam: 5

Overall:
Channel Slam: 15
Non-Channel Slam: 12


So, over the course of Tennis history, it looks like holding both Wimbledon and French Open at the same time, the way Djokovic has, has happened less often than the Channel Slam. This is a way bigger sample size, and we don't have any inconsistencies in terms of prestige of Slams and participation the way we had with the Australian Open.
 
Technically, I'd be right.
The theoretical non-zero probability is just that. I'd bet everything I've got it would never happen in our lifetimes that someone doesn't serve anything but aces in a complete match. (But it's quite possible to hit four straight aces and then win by retirement 1-0 ret., probably happened at some point.)

That's kind of stupid, but okay. It's not a bad analogy because, apparently, better results don't mean you're a better player, according to you. So Federer, despite having better results than I do, is not necessarily a better player. Just like Nadal, despite having better results on clay than on grass, is not necessarily a better claycourter than a grasscourter.
They are better players because they play better tennis. Certainly, you don't need results to tell they are better than you; pick any random futures match between two unknown players and they are obviously leagues better than us, which is visible in every stroke.

Djokovic has 8 semis at both RG and Wimbledon at the moment, so supposing the difference in titles is only/mostly due to the difference in quality of SF/F opponents is sane and merits analysis. Not like he was losing early at RG other than winning once.

The 1969 AO was missing Arthur Ashe, who was in the top 2 at the time. It was also missing 3 other top 10 players in Graebner, Ralston, and Drysdale. The 2016 AO was missing only the #9, Richard Gasquet, and he didn't skip. He was injured.

If you think Laver's 1969 AO > Emerson's Slams because it had more top players, it logically follows that Djokovic's 2016 AO > 1969 AO because it had more top players. Pretty straightforward.
I repeat, Emerson's slams didn't have the very best. At least two pros were always better than the best amateurs; as #3, you can compete with everyone from #4 to #1000, but if you don't see #1 and #2 because they're busy elsewhere, your wins are not that great. Laver had the '69 top 4 in the draw, and more importantly, actually played YE#2 (by most accounts) Roche and pulled through in an all-time epic. That by itself is enough, he could have played mugs in all other rounds and that one win would've instantly legitimised the title at full worth.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
Your theory about how the Channel Slam should be more difficult to achieve is all well and good, but theory means little when it isn't backed up by facts. In theory, a baseliner like Djokovic who prefers slower courts should be better at the French Open than at Wimbledon. We know that isn't the case. Empirical evidence beats theory everytime. Please give some kind of evidence to show how the Channel Slam is tougher to achieve than the AO-FO double. From what I can gather, even disregarding Borg's 3 Channel Slams doesn't help you in your argument.
It's less about theory versus fact, and more about common sense thinking based on watching the game versus numbers on a page. Why is the Australian-French double so rarely accomplished? (Aside from the already touched on issue that most top guys have only been trying to win it in the open era for about half the time of all the others) Nobody can say for sure, but is there any actual tennising reason you can pick up on? There isn't one. It's just a coincidence basically. When the Australian Open took place on grass it played more similarly to Roland Garros than any of the other majors. Even when they went to rebound ace the two probably shared more in common than with either Wimbledon or the USO.

You can watch clay and grass tennis and see that they are polar opposite forms of the game played in such a tiny window of time. It makes perfect sense why that thing is tough to accomplish. For all of the times the channel slam has been done in the open era, it has only been done by 4 different men, two of whom monopolized the Roland Garros title during their time in the game (if you lift Nadal out of history how many Australian-French doubles you think we're going to have? '06, '07, '08, '09, '12, '13 all seem safe-ish bets, right?)

Why were both those guys able to win Wimbledon a bunch of times more than Australia? I mean Borg didn't play Australia, and for Nadal you have the issue where guys today are all far more comfortable playing on hard than grass, so guys like him and Novak with generally less than optimal games for grass court tennis rise to the top based on pure class. A point proven by the fact that Wimbledon is the only major not won by anyone outside the big 4 since 2003 (6 different winners in Australia and Paris in that time, and 8 in New York).

All rambling aside what it basically boils down to is the channel slam is not done that often because it's hard (much less hard than it used to be with the different grass, and now an extra week between them), AO/RG double is not done for reasons other than because it's really difficult.
 
Top