Nole Slam vs Laver '62 amateur CYGS

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.
No inference may be drawn from pre-Open era results regarding modern tennis.
 

Zhilady

Professional
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.)
Except that Connors winning the AO that year is way more likely than there being 100% aces in a completed match, so I don't see what your point is.


They are better players because they play better tennis.
And what if I argued that Tomic is a better player than Federer because he plays better Tennis? Would you not, then, refer to their respective results?

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.
Just like arguing that Federer at Wimbledon is better than anybody Nadal faced at the French Open, so it's sane and merits analysis that Nadal is better at Wimbledon than at the French Open? And if you're going to mention finals and semifinals appearances, would it then follow that Djokovic is better at the USO than at the AO because he has more finals and semifinals at the USO than at the AO? You're just not being logically consistent.


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.
And I repeat, Laver's 1969 AO was missing 4 players from the top 10 at the time, including Ashe who was in the top 2. Djokovic's 2016 AO was only missing the #9 player, and he missed because he was injured.

If Laver's 1969 AO > Emerson's Slams because it had more top players, Djokovic's 2016 AO > Laver's 1969 AO for the very same reason. And it wasn't just lower rung players. Arthur Ashe was top 2 at the time and he skipped the 1969 AO, alongside 3 other top 10 players. That's not even getting into the fact that it had a smaller draw and that Laver only had to play 5 matches.
 

Zhilady

Professional
No inference may be drawn from pre-Open era results regarding modern tennis.
Why not, though? Even in the pre-Open Era, grass was grass and fast, and clay was clay and slow. The surface dynamics haven't changed. If anything, they were more pronounced back then than they are today.

Either way, even if we just considered the Open Era, the Channel Slam isn't rarer than how Djokovic won the W-FO double.
 

Zhilady

Professional
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.
Which is just your opinion based on theory. Empirically, the W-FO double that Djokovic achieved has been rarer than the FO-W double that you call the Channel Slam. I'll take empirical evidence over theory, any day.

I'm not saying that one is more difficult than the other or that one is not more difficult than the other.. I'm just saying that, going by evidence, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that one is more difficult than the other.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
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.
what happened in 2010 and 2011?.
 

Zhilady

Professional
what happened in 2010 and 2011?.
Soderling lost. But that doesn't detract from anything I said.

Soderling against Nadal at the French Open: 1-3 (with the 1 win being against prime, if not peak, Nadal on clay)
Djokovic against Nadal at the French Open: 1-6 (with the 1 win being against non-prime, if not the worst, Nadal on clay)
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
Which is just your opinion based on theory. Empirically, the W-FO double that Djokovic achieved has been rarer than the FO-W double that you call the Channel Slam. I'll take empirical evidence over theory, any day.

I'm not saying that one is more difficult than the other or that one is not more difficult than the other.. I'm just saying that, going by evidence, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that one is more difficult than the other.
And once again, this W-RG double is something that may have been done rarely, but for no particular tennis reason. When all this began and I said Djokovic didn't even do the channel slam, I meant that this most difficult way to spend a month and a half in the tennis calendar is not a period he has conquered. That's it. It's an actual difficult task to accomplish removed from all other considerations. No other combination of slams is comparable to it, and the fact that these combinations you're concocting have been done less does not make doing them any more impressive.
 

Zhilady

Professional
And once again, this W-RG double is something that may have been done rarely, but for no particular tennis reason.
According to you. I could argue that the W-FO double is tougher than the FO-W double because it'd mean having to maintain your Slam-winning form over 11 months. Not just 2 months, like you would with the FO-W double. I can come up with all the theories you can, but it doesn't mean anything if it isn't backed up by evidence or facts.

When all this began and I said Djokovic didn't even do the channel slam, I meant that this most difficult way to spend a month and a half in the tennis calendar is not a period he has conquered. That's it. It's an actual difficult task to accomplish removed from all other considerations. No other combination of slams is comparable to it, and the fact that these combinations you're concocting have been done less does not make doing them any more impressive.
Everything you just said here is complete nonsense with no backing in evidence or facts. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
Last edited:

ibbi

Hall of Fame
According to you. I could argue that the W-FO double is tougher than the FO-W double because it'd mean having to maintain your Slam-winning form over 14 months. Not just 2 months, like you would with the FO-W double. I can come up with all the theories you can, but it doesn't mean anything if it isn't backed up by evidence or facts.

Everything you just said here is complete nonsense with no backing in evidence or facts. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You and Lew should hook up. You'll get along great. Yes, FO-W double means maintaining your slam winning form over 14 months, wow. What about... Australian Open in one year and US Open in the next year?? Even longer maintaining of form! Look up the data on that one! Still not the same thing for the same reasons as the channel slam. Totally different accomplishment. One has nothing to do with the other.
 
Except that Connors winning the AO that year is way more likely than there being 100% aces in a completed match, so I don't see what your point is.
That Connors winning that AO against those guys was far too unlikely to consider.

And what if I argued that Tomic is a better player than Federer because he plays better Tennis? Would you not, then, refer to their respective results?
Tomic almost always loses earlier than Federer whenever they play in the same tournament, and it's effectively impossible that all of his victors play somehow better against him than they or their own conquerors play when losing to Federer, haha.

Just like arguing that Federer at Wimbledon is better than anybody Nadal faced at the French Open, so it's sane and merits analysis that Nadal is better at Wimbledon than at the French Open?
Nadal still has many more late round appearances at RG. But if we were discussing specific years, like 06-11 when he made finals at both except 09, then it's down to actual tennis observation rather than simply relying on win vs final.

And if you're going to mention finals and semifinals appearances, would it then follow that Djokovic is better at the USO than at the AO because he has more finals and semifinals at the USO than at the AO? You're just not being logically consistent.
That could be the case if his USO final opponents were all like 2010 Nadal. Alas, the rest were beatable and Djokovic choked big time. You gotta process and analyse what happens on court besides memorising and throwing around results.

And I repeat, Laver's 1969 AO was missing 4 players from the top 10 at the time, including Ashe who was in the top 2. Djokovic's 2016 AO was only missing the #9 player, and he missed because he was injured.

If Laver's 1969 AO > Emerson's Slams because it had more top players, Djokovic's 2016 AO > Laver's 1969 AO for the very same reason. And it wasn't just lower rung players. Arthur Ashe was top 2 at the time and he skipped the 1969 AO, alongside 3 other top 10 players. That's not even getting into the fact that it had a smaller draw and that Laver only had to play 5 matches.
Laver beat YE#2 Roche in an epic five-setter, 'nuff said. Nothing changes it, hence nothing can diminish the win.
 

Zhilady

Professional
You and Lew should hook up. You'll get along great.
I don't cherry-pick data the way he does. And in case you didn't know, I'm not a Djokovic fan. You and Trump should hook up, because you both speak out of your rear ends without caring about facts and evidence.

Yes, FO-W double means maintaining your slam winning form over 14 months, wow. What about... Australian Open in one year and US Open in the next year?? Even longer maintaining of form! Look up the data on that one! Still not the same thing for the same reasons as the channel slam. Totally different accomplishment. One has nothing to do with the other.
I don't have to look up the data on that one, because we're talking about Laver's CYGS and Djokovic's NCYGS here. None of them entails winning AO one year and USO the next, so that bit is irrelevant. What this comparison entails is comparing the FO-W double and the W-FO double, because that's what formed the crux of your silly argument. And it looks like I've torn it to shreds. You're welcome.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Soderling lost. But that doesn't detract from anything I said.

Soderling against Nadal at the French Open: 1-3 (with the 1 win being against prime, if not peak, Nadal on clay)
Djokovic against Nadal at the French Open: 1-6 (with the 1 win being against non-prime, if not the worst, Nadal on clay)

nadal overplayed (thanks tio toni) after his title in melbourne and the war against nole in madrid it was a highlight that prevented nadal from dominating that season.

pd: it wasnt peak bull.
 

Zhilady

Professional
nadal overplayed (thanks tio toni) after his title in melbourne and the war against nole in madrid it was a highlight that prevented nadal from dominating that season.

pd: it wasnt peak bull.
Conjecture. Dismissed.
 

Zhilady

Professional
That Connors winning that AO against those guys was far too unlikely to consider.
I disagree with that. Not sure what we're arguing about here, though, because I've already granted that it's no reason to discount that AO title.

Tomic almost always loses earlier than Federer whenever they play in the same tournament, and it's effectively impossible that all of his victors play somehow better against him than they or their own conquerors play when losing to Federer, haha.
Oh, so the results matter now, huh? I wonder why.

Nadal still has many more late round appearances at RG. But if we were discussing specific years, like 06-11 when he made finals at both except 09, then it's down to actual tennis observation rather than simply relying on win vs final.
Okay, so Nadal was better at Wimbledon from 2006-2011 than he was at the French Open from 2006-2011. Good to know.


That could be the case if his USO final opponents were all like 2010 Nadal. Alas, the rest were beatable and Djokovic choked big time. You gotta process and analyse what happens on court besides memorising and throwing around results.
Djokovic faced 5-time US Open champion Federer, 3-time US Open champion Nadal, 1-time US Open champion Murray, and 1-time US Open champion Wawrinka at the US Open. All he had at the AO were 6-time champion Federer, 1-time champion Nadal, and 1-time champion Wawrinka. His competition was stronger at the US Open, so he is better at the US Open than at the Australian Open. Your line or reasoning, not mine.

Laver beat YE#2 Roche in an epic five-setter, 'nuff said. Nothing changes it, hence nothing can diminish the win.
So you don't care who was the #2 ranked player at the time of the tournament but you care who was the #2 player 11 months later? Makes sense :D:D:D

The 1969 AO was missing a top 2 player and 3 other top 10 players. It is not an equal of the 2016 AO. Djokovic's 2016 AO > 1969 AO. We're all done here.
 
Oh, so the results matter now, huh? I wonder why.
That can be discussed tennistically, too. There's nothing Tomic does better than Federer generally, even at faking and slicing Federer is better.


Okay, so Nadal was better at Wimbledon from 2006-2011 than he was at the French Open from 2006-2011. Good to know.
I didn't say that. I said it can and should be argued from the tennis rather than results only. I think it's arguable that Nadal was equal at RG and Wim in 2011 and the final opponent made the difference, other years he was still better at RG even if facing a stronger opponent at Wimbledon.

Djokovic faced 5-time US Open champion Federer, 3-time US Open champion Nadal, 1-time US Open champion Murray, and 1-time US Open champion Wawrinka at the US Open. All he had at the AO were 6-time champion Federer, 1-time champion Nadal, and 1-time champion Wawrinka. His competition was stronger at the US Open, so he is better at the US Open than at the Australian Open. Your line or reasoning, not mine.
Competition is measured by level of play in H2H matches, not accomplishments.

So you don't care who was the #2 ranked player at the time of the tournament but you care who was the #2 player 11 months later? Makes sense :D:D:D

The 1969 AO was missing a top 2 player and 3 other top 10 players. It is not an equal of the 2016 AO. Djokovic's 2016 AO > 1969 AO. We're all done here.
Roche was eventually the second best player of the year and he played like it, giving the eventual best player of the year an epic semifinal match. That's what matters most. Having some top players absent or fewer rounds players can't diminish a title that involved such a great match. That is all.
 

Zhilady

Professional
That can be discussed tennistically, too. There's nothing Tomic does better than Federer generally, even at faking and slicing Federer is better.
Disagree. Tomic has a better serve, a better return, a better forehand, a better backhand, better volleys, and better movement than Federer. They're about even in terms of mental strength. Federer is only better in terms of stamina.

I didn't say that. I said it can and should be argued from the tennis rather than results only. I think it's arguable that Nadal was equal at RG and Wim in 2011 and the final opponent made the difference, other years he was still better at RG even if facing a stronger opponent at Wimbledon.
I disagree. Nadal was clearly better at Wimbledon from 2006-2011 than at the French Open. After all, he made the same number of finals. It's just that Federer at Wimbledon > Federer at French Open.

Competition is measured by level of play in H2H matches, not accomplishments.
Level of play is cognitively relative. Against me, even Tomic would look like a worldbeater compared to how Federer looks against Nadal. You may trust your eyes, but I don't. Results are reliable. Your eyes and my eyes are not.


Roche was eventually the second best player of the year and he played like it, giving the eventual best player of the year an epic semifinal match. That's what matters most. Having some top players absent or fewer rounds players can't diminish a title that involved such a great match. That is all.
Epic matches don't make a depleted field complete. The 1969 AO was missing a top 2 player and 3 other top 10 players. It was a depleted Slam and doesn't compare to the 2016 AO. No amount of epic matches or future ranking changes will change that.
 
Disagree. Tomic has a better serve, a better return, a better forehand, a better backhand, better volleys, and better movement than Federer. They're about even in terms of mental strength. Federer is only better in terms of stamina.
You're free to disagree (or rather feign disagreement, I see) on anything, it doesn't matter.

I disagree. Nadal was clearly better at Wimbledon from 2006-2011 than at the French Open. After all, he made the same number of finals. It's just that Federer at Wimbledon > Federer at French Open.
Say that again.

Level of play is cognitively relative. Against me, even Tomic would look like a worldbeater compared to how Federer looks against Nadal. You may trust your eyes, but I don't. Results are reliable. Your eyes and my eyes are not.
Of course results are not a completely reliable proxy for level. We have Johansson (AO title) vs Murray (0-5 in AO finals), Hewitt (1 USO title, 1 final) vs Borg (0-4 in USO titles) as some of the prominent cases where the non-titlist was quite painfully better but foiled by superior competition (and a bit of choking on their part). It's a complex issue.

Epic matches don't make a depleted field complete. The 1969 AO was missing a top 2 player and 3 other top 10 players. It was a depleted Slam and doesn't compare to the 2016 AO. No amount of epic matches or future ranking changes will change that.
Quite simply, that is of no consequence. Laver faced strong opposition and thus earned the nominal worth of the title as a Slam despite some absences.
 

Goret

Rookie
IMHO, an Open Era Calendar Year GS (like Laver's 1969) isn't more difficult than an Open Era Non-Calendar Year GS (like Djokovic's 2015-16) because of the opposition. After all, a player would face the exact same opposition at a CYGS attempt as at a NCYGS attempt: the active players of his generation.
Also, it's perhaps more difficult to adjust from RG to WC in few weeks, but that's true for every player including the opposition. Which evens it out. On the other side, deeper draws mean more chances of upsets, and even lower-ranked players than top 4 can be a threat (after all, 2009 Federer got stopped in his NCYGS attempt by #6 seed Del Potro at USO).

However, the differences are that there are more opportunities for a NCYGS than for a CYGS, and that the prestige of the "true" CYGS induces additional pressure at the final legs (remember S. Williams against Roberta Vinci, who's definitely not ATG material...).

Even though there could be valid arguments Djokovic's NCYGS had perhaps tougher opposition, for me they don't offset Laver's 1969 CYGS fewer opportunities, mental difficulty, and prestige. Whereas in Laver's 1962 CYGS case, the difficulty difference (due to amateurs-pros split field) is really larger.

I'd thus value Laver's 1969 higher than Djokovic's 2015-16. By the way, Djokovic himself seemed to consider the CYGS as the "ultimate challenge" and acknowledged only Laver did it, so it looks like he agrees...
 

Zhilady

Professional
Of course results are not a completely reliable proxy for level. We have Johansson (AO title) vs Murray (0-5 in AO finals), Hewitt (1 USO title, 1 final) vs Borg (0-4 in USO titles) as some of the prominent cases where the non-titlist was quite painfully better but foiled by superior competition (and a bit of choking on their part). It's a complex issue.
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that the results tell us that Johansson was better than Murray at the AO. I don't think they do. I think 5 runners-up is clearly better than 1 title.


Quite simply, that is of no consequence. Laver faced strong opposition and thus earned the nominal worth of the title as a Slam despite some absences.
And Djokovic faced stronger competition because he didn't have the luxury of having to play just 5 matches against a field missing 4 of the top 10 players, which makes Laver's title worth less than Djokovic's. If that is "of no consequence", you might as well argue that a 250 title is worth the same as Indian Wells.
 
And Djokovic faced stronger competition because he didn't have the luxury of having to play just 5 matches against a field missing 4 of the top 10 players, which makes Laver's title worth less than Djokovic's.
He didn't face stronger competition because his actual opponents in the draw were nothing special. Laver faced tougher opposition at that, because he had peak Roche give him an epic match. That's based on the actual matches that were played. I daresay Roche was more difficult to beat that the entirety of Novak's draw put together.

If that is "of no consequence", you might as well argue that a 250 title is worth the same as Indian Wells.
A 250 title may be tougher than a masters, in the past especially when strong tournaments like Queen's were 250 equivalents, but it's worth less by design so you can't upgrade it. Some masters were clearly tougher to win than some majors, but tournament category is fixed.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Which one do you rate higher? Imo, Djokovic's NCYGS is greater achievement than Laver's amateur CYGS.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
I rate the Nole slam way higher than Laver's amateur slam. The best players in the world Laver never had to face then.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
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.
Whoa....Emerson was "decent"? In an open 1962, he would probably have been third. Better than Pancho (because Pancho did not play in 1962), Cooper,

Buchholz, Olmedo, even Gimeno.

Santana lost a close match to Emmo at RG because Emerson was playing great tennis that year at RG, and according to Laver, Emmo should have won that 1962

RG final but for a strategic error.

We have no idea how well Laver's game would have developed by 1962 or even 1961....my guess is that in an open tennis world Laver would have been

overwhelming at Wimbledon in both 1961 and 1962. Might have had a chance for an open GS.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
We have no idea how well Laver's game would have developed by 1962 or even 1961....my guess is that in an open tennis world Laver would have been overwhelming at Wimbledon in both 1961 and 1962. Might have had a chance for an open GS.
Or might have failed miserably. No one knows, but it didn't happen that way. Let's stick to what actually happened, not what couda, woulda, shoulda...
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Except that Connors winning the AO that year is way more likely than there being 100% aces in a completed match, so I don't see what your point is.


And what if I argued that Tomic is a better player than Federer because he plays better Tennis? Would you not, then, refer to their respective results?

Just like arguing that Federer at Wimbledon is better than anybody Nadal faced at the French Open, so it's sane and merits analysis that Nadal is better at Wimbledon than at the French Open? And if you're going to mention finals and semifinals appearances, would it then follow that Djokovic is better at the USO than at the AO because he has more finals and semifinals at the USO than at the AO? You're just not being logically consistent.


And I repeat, Laver's 1969 AO was missing 4 players from the top 10 at the time, including Ashe who was in the top 2. Djokovic's 2016 AO was only missing the #9 player, and he missed because he was injured.

If Laver's 1969 AO > Emerson's Slams because it had more top players, Djokovic's 2016 AO > Laver's 1969 AO for the very same reason. And it wasn't just lower rung players. Arthur Ashe was top 2 at the time and he skipped the 1969 AO, alongside 3 other top 10 players. That's not even getting into the fact that it had a smaller draw and that Laver only had to play 5 matches.
Those absentees from the 1969 AO were not absent because of a boycott or a tennis ban, but because they CHOSE not to leave the good old U.S.A. and journey

around the world to Australia for one big tournament.

No one forced them to stay at home, they were not injured or under rules by the US tennis authorities to play in some minor U.S. tournaments.

If a player chooses to skip a major, they have to take the consequences of skipping a major....they don't get any credit for not being there, and their absence

does not diminish the title for those who do participate.

Their absence has to be rated as a concession.

Even Tilden has to take a downgrade of his record for not showing up for Wimbledon in the mid-1920's.

The tennis world does not come to a standstill for no-shows.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Or might have failed miserably. No one knows, but it didn't happen that way. Let's stick to what actually happened, not what couda, woulda, shoulda...
Exactly, that is what I am saying, we cannot speculate about what might have happened in an open tennis world because it did not happen.

There are no "automatics" in this speculation. We cannot just assume that Laver would have had no chance at Wimbledon in 1961 or 1962 in an open world.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Exactly, that is what I am saying, we cannot speculate about what might have happened in an open tennis world because it did not happen.

There are no "automatics" in this speculation. We cannot just assume that Laver would have had no chance at Wimbledon in 1961 or 1962 in an open world.
Nor can we assume he would have won or even made the final, in an open world.
 
Not only that I value Djokovic's NCYGS more then Laver's amateur CYGS, but I value it more than his Open Era slam. Why? Here are the reasons:

1. In Laver's era 3 GS were played on grass and grass courts hardly existed enywhere outside of US, Australia, GB, maybe India, South Africa and Netherlands. Forget about grass courts in Eastern Europe, South America, Sweden, Italy, Spain etc. Even if they existed, their number were insignificant.
2. Total competition was weaker than today with significantly smaller number of professional tennis players.
3. Prior to 1983 AO was not involving the best players and only from 1988 it became the real GS equal with other 3 GS.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
IMHO, an Open Era Calendar Year GS (like Laver's 1969) isn't more difficult than an Open Era Non-Calendar Year GS (like Djokovic's 2015-16) because of the opposition. After all, a player would face the exact same opposition at a CYGS attempt as at a NCYGS attempt: the active players of his generation.
Also, it's perhaps more difficult to adjust from RG to WC in few weeks, but that's true for every player including the opposition. Which evens it out. On the other side, deeper draws mean more chances of upsets, and even lower-ranked players than top 4 can be a threat (after all, 2009 Federer got stopped in his NCYGS attempt by #6 seed Del Potro at USO).

However, the differences are that there are more opportunities for a NCYGS than for a CYGS, and that the prestige of the "true" CYGS induces additional pressure at the final legs (remember S. Williams against Roberta Vinci, who's definitely not ATG material...).

Even though there could be valid arguments Djokovic's NCYGS had perhaps tougher opposition, for me they don't offset Laver's 1969 CYGS fewer opportunities, mental difficulty, and prestige. Whereas in Laver's 1962 CYGS case, the difficulty difference (due to amateurs-pros split field) is really larger.

I'd thus value Laver's 1969 higher than Djokovic's 2015-16. By the way, Djokovic himself seemed to consider the CYGS as the "ultimate challenge" and acknowledged only Laver did it, so it looks like he agrees...
If I understand you well, if Djokovic would win RG this year, his 2xNCYGS would be greater achievement than Laver's OE CYGS + Amateur CYGS?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

axlrose

Professional
Why does this keep getting touted as something important, mostly by Djole fans, hmm.
I think if winning a Bo5 final makes a Master Shield biggest, than winning a 128 Slam could be used as an argument.

That's just the logic. I myself see Laver as the Goat though my favorite is Rosewall.
 
I think if winning a Bo5 final makes a Master Shield biggest, than winning a 128 Slam could be used as an argument.

That's just the logic. I myself see Laver as the Goat though my favorite is Rosewall.
A masters title is a masters title to me. Of course, a final like Rome 06 is far more impressive than one like IW 16, but the title value is one and the same.
 

Zhilady

Professional
He didn't face stronger competition because his actual opponents in the draw were nothing special. Laver faced tougher opposition at that, because he had peak Roche give him an epic match. That's based on the actual matches that were played. I daresay Roche was more difficult to beat that the entirety of Novak's draw put together.
All opinions. I could express similar opinions and argue that Emerson’s 12 Slams are the equivalent of Laver’s Open Era Slams.

But the fact remains: Laver had to just win 5 matches in a draw that was missing 4 of the top 10 players because they didn’t care to play it. A luxury Djokovic didn’t have.



A 250 title may be tougher than a masters, in the past especially when strong tournaments like Queen's were 250 equivalents, but it's worth less by design so you can't upgrade it. Some masters were clearly tougher to win than some majors, but tournament category is fixed.
If the “tournament category is fixed”, Emerson > Laver because 12 > 11. Funny how you count the depleted fields of the pre-Open Era against Emerson but not against Laver’s 1969 AO.
 
Last edited:

Zhilady

Professional
Those absentees from the 1969 AO were not absent because of a boycott or a tennis ban, but because they CHOSE not to leave the good old U.S.A. and journey

around the world to Australia for one big tournament.

No one forced them to stay at home, they were not injured or under rules by the US tennis authorities to play in some minor U.S. tournaments.
Which is precisely my point. That they chose to skip it because they couldn’t be damned shows that the 1969 AO wasn’t yet a full-fledged Slam, like the 2016 AO was.


If a player chooses to skip a major, they have to take the consequences of skipping a major....they don't get any credit for not being there, and their absence

does not diminish the title for those who do participate.

Their absence has to be rated as a concession.
Would you make the same argument for Emerson over Laver and Rosewall? After all, if Laver and Rosewall choose to go Pro knowing full well that they couldn’t participate in Slams, they have to take the consequences for it, right?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Which is precisely my point. That they chose to skip it because they couldn’t be damned shows that the 1969 AO wasn’t yet a full-fledged Slam, like the 2016 AO was.


Would you make the same argument for Emerson over Laver and Rosewall? After all, if Laver and Rosewall choose to go Pro knowing full well that they couldn’t participate in Slams, they have to take the consequences for it, right?
Well, they chose to skip it, so they get no credit or "leave of absence" for failing to show.

It reflects on THEM, not the tournament. That was made clear in time, as eventually the pros caved, and showed up for the Aussie Open.

The tournament won out over their laziness (?), or whatever reason they believed they had for skipping.

I give them a failing grade for no-shows....if you don't show up, don't complain about not getting the win. It's ridiculous.

Sure, Laver and Rosewall paid a huge price for going pro, both in terms of the quality of tournaments they played as pros, the low-grade venues and

living conditions, less money than the amateurs, less media recognition....they paid a heavy price.

And Emerson and Santana made more money as amateurs than Laver and Gimeno made as pros.....it was a heavy price to pay.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Well, they chose to skip it, so they get no credit or "leave of absence" for failing to show.
Not giving them any credit. They get 0 credit.

It reflects on THEM, not the tournament. That was made clear in time, as eventually the pros caved, and showed up for the Aussie Open.
It reflects the time, not them. Are you suggesting the 1962 Australian Open was as important as the 1978 Wimbledon? After all, they’re both Slams.


Sure, Laver and Rosewall paid a huge price for going pro, both in terms of the quality of tournaments they played as pros, the low-grade venues and

living conditions, less money than the amateurs, less media recognition....they paid a heavy price.

And Emerson and Santana made more money as amateurs than Laver and Gimeno made as pros.....it was a heavy price to pay.
You haven’t answered my question. Is Emerson > Laver/Rosewall because it’s on Laver and Rosewall for eliminating themselves from Slam contention?
 
All opinions. I could express similar opinions and argue that Emerson’s 12 Slams are the equivalent of Laver’s Open Era Slams.
Emerson didn't play the other top 3/4 players.

But the fact remains: Laver had to just win 5 matches in a draw that was missing 4 of the top 10 players because they didn’t care to play it. A luxury Djokovic didn’t have.
5 vs 7 is a factor but hardly much. Beating a few more early round mugs adds little in terms of difficulty. An opinion supported by the stat that slam winners rarely struggle in the first three rounds. Not worth enough to offset the tough draw Laver had.

As for the latter, I already said: it doesn't matter who wasn't playing, but who was and how they played. Laver got to play YE#2 in a difficult match so it's fine, tougher than some full draws.

If the “tournament category is fixed”, Emerson > Laver because 12 > 11. Funny how you count the depleted fields of the pre-Open Era against Emerson but not against Laver’s 1969 AO.
Within a given season/period when the tour structure is stable. Subject to change between eras.

Emerson had the opportunity to prove himself in the first years of the Open era but couldn't even reach a major final, which effectively asserts he would have hardly won against the top pro competition (not only Laver and Rosewall, even old Pancho beat Emmo in RG '68). Laver won plenty against all and sundry in '69, so no devaluing titles on the basis of "he would probably lose against those absent in the draw".[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Not giving them any credit. They get 0 credit.

It reflects the time, not them. Are you suggesting the 1962 Australian Open was as important as the 1978 Wimbledon? After all, they’re both Slams.


You haven’t answered my question. Is Emerson > Laver/Rosewall because it’s on Laver and Rosewall for eliminating themselves from Slam contention?
Sure, they get 0 credit, but their choice to skip does not reflect on the tournament, it just rates as a concession, they conceded the major to some other player.

We should remember how the "Grand Slam" came into being in the early 1930's.

It represented the national championships of the four major Davis Cup nations, the only ones to win the Davis Cup.

The Davis Cup was the most important event in tennis at that time, and really the Davis Cup remained the most important tennis event until 1967.

The Grand Slam was simply an outgrowth of the Davis Cup.

I suspect that Vines was the first player to attempt to win the Grand Slam, when he sailed to Australia in late 1932 and contested the Australian title in 1933.

Crawford won that 1933 Australian, plus the French and Wimbledon titles in 1933, and the term "Grand Slam" was borrowed by a newspaper tennis writer

from Bobby Jones' 1930 golf wins of the 4 major golf titles to apply to Crawford's attempt to win the U.S. title to make it 4 for 1933.

Perry attempted to win the GS in 1935, but was stopped by Crawford at the Australian final.

Budge won the first GS in 1938.

The importance of the GS was that it represented winning the national titles of the four most important tennis nations, as defined by Davis Cup success.

The Davis Cup is now won by many more nations, and the concept of GS is now anachronistic.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Emerson didn't play the other top 3/4 players.
And Laver won against a field missing 4 of the top 10 players.

5 vs 7 is a factor
Thank you.

As for the latter, I already said: it doesn't matter who wasn't playing, but who was and how they played. Laver got to play YE#2 in a difficult match so it's fine, tougher than some full draws.
Yeah, no. There is no way that the draw missing 4 of the top 10 players, including the world #2, isn’t significant. Djokovic’s Slam > Laver’s Slam by the same logic Laver’s Slam > Emerson’s Slam.

Emerson had the opportunity to prove himself in the first years of the Open era but couldn't even reach a major final, which effectively asserts he would have hardly won against the top pro competition (not only Laver and Rosewall, even old Pancho beat Emmo in RG '68). Laver won plenty against all and sundry in '69, so no devaluing titles on the basis of "he would probably lose against those absent in the draw".
I’m not saying Laver would probably lose. I’m saying Djokovic won against a stronger field, because it wasn’t missing 4 of the top 10 players.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Sure, they get 0 credit, but their choice to skip does not reflect on the tournament, it just rates as a concession, they conceded the major to some other player.
You could say the same about how Laver and Rosewall conceded the Majors Emerson won by opting to play on the Pro tour.
 

Goret

Rookie
If I understand you well, if Djokovic would win RG this year, his 2xNCYGS would be greater achievement than Laver's OE CYGS + Amateur CYGS?
No, for me it wouldn't, because achieving a lesser thing twice doesn't necessarily fill the gap.
After all, it's still better to have a victory and a QF, than finishing runner-up twice. Winning two WTFs don't make you greeater than winning a single Slam and a M500. Etc.

Now, if Novak would get a CYGS in addition to his NCYGS, I'd rank this achievement higher than Laver's two amateur and open CYGS. If he were to achieve it this year, thus as a 6-in-a-row CYGS, I'd say he'd have blown away everyone else in this, male and female players included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
And Laver won against a field missing 4 of the top 10 players.
None of them was better than him (that year), so it's not like his title was apparently dependent on anyone missing.

Yeah, no. There is no way that the draw missing 4 of the top 10 players, including the world #2, isn’t significant. Djokovic’s Slam > Laver’s Slam by the same logic Laver’s Slam > Emerson’s Slam.
You're conflating your reasoning with mine. Stop doing this.

I’m not saying Laver would probably lose. I’m saying Djokovic won against a stronger field, because it wasn’t missing 4 of the top 10 players.

You don't play the entire field, you play the draw, so it doesn't make sense to compare the field instead of the draws, and Laver's may have actually been tougher despite two matches fewer because of the Roche match (and Emerson gave a decent fight too, going by the scoreline).

Summation: Emerson's results before (i.e. 1962, when he was already thoroughly bested by Laver as an amateur) and after his 1963-67 amateur reign heavily suggest he was unlikely to beat the best pros during his reign if he played them, which is why his titles are strongly devalued. Laver's 1969 results suggest he was entirely capable to win big titles in full attendance, so the absence of some top players doesn't serve to devalue titles when there were still multiple top players in the draw. Since Laver did, in fact, have to get through a fairly tough match against Emerson and a very tough match against Roche, it stands to reason then for his draw to be considered properly difficult despite reduced tournament attendance, so it doesn't get devalued compared to better attended slams.

That's it, that's my reasoning. Time for you to realise your take on this is an opinion too. We can have different takes, no problem.
 
Top