Oldest Major winners in Open Era
- Thread starter Feather
- Start date
1 Ken Rosewall 1972 37y 2m 1d
2 Ken Rosewall 1971 36y 2m 12d
3 Ken Rosewall 1970 35y 10m 11d
4 Andres Gimeno 1972 34y 10m 1d
5 Ken Rosewall 1968 33y 7m 7d
6 Andre Agassi 2003 32y 8m 28d
7 Arthur Ashe 1975 31y 11m 25d
8 Rod Laver 1969 31y 1m 0d
9 Pete Sampras 2002 31y 0m 27d
10 Jimmy Connors 1983 31y 0m 9d
2 Ken Rosewall 1971 36y 2m 12d
3 Ken Rosewall 1970 35y 10m 11d
4 Andres Gimeno 1972 34y 10m 1d
5 Ken Rosewall 1968 33y 7m 7d
6 Andre Agassi 2003 32y 8m 28d
7 Arthur Ashe 1975 31y 11m 25d
8 Rod Laver 1969 31y 1m 0d
9 Pete Sampras 2002 31y 0m 27d
10 Jimmy Connors 1983 31y 0m 9d
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Ken Rosewall won the 1972 Australian Open at 37 years old.
Feather
Legend
Thanks
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
So, Fed becomes NO 4 on the list ? cool
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
Kind of, yeah. But real Open Level professional tennis didn't really exist until two things happened:
1) Pro Tennis opened the tournaments (especially the grand slams) to all comers, and...
2) A generation of young athletes had the chance to know this, watch the tennis boom hit, practice, come of age, and compete in a suddenly viable professional sport that rewarded competition more than just glorified exhibition play.
The old guys winning "Slams" before the mid 70's were just the well-practiced ex-pros who had no young talent to compete against before, since there wasn't a real professional living to be made or prestige to be gained, previously. Yeah, the top couple guys could earn, but that's no way to stock a supposed "Open athletic event" with honest athletic talent. The "pro tour" of the 50's and 60's was comprised of a few dozen mediocre athletes playing each other for spectacle. It had more in common with modern day pro wrestling than modern day tennis. By the time the first legitimate, modern, pro-level players were on the scene (Connors, Borg, Vilas), that kind of grandfathering in was no longer possible.
All of which is to say that Rosewall, Laver, etc. weren't nearly the players they're made out to be by historians desperate to cling to nostalgia. They were compilers competing against mostly fellow Australian 5'6" midgets.
Agassi is the *most accurate* answer to this question, as the oldest slam winner of the legitimately athletic pro era. But of course he got there by teaming with Gil Reyes of the notoriously "well developed" UNLV sports teams of the 80's and early 90's.
Pete is the *best* answer to this question, since there was no question of either his level of competition, or of his training/transformation.
Roger would be by far the oldest man to win a *legitimate* grand slam level event, ever.
1) Pro Tennis opened the tournaments (especially the grand slams) to all comers, and...
2) A generation of young athletes had the chance to know this, watch the tennis boom hit, practice, come of age, and compete in a suddenly viable professional sport that rewarded competition more than just glorified exhibition play.
The old guys winning "Slams" before the mid 70's were just the well-practiced ex-pros who had no young talent to compete against before, since there wasn't a real professional living to be made or prestige to be gained, previously. Yeah, the top couple guys could earn, but that's no way to stock a supposed "Open athletic event" with honest athletic talent. The "pro tour" of the 50's and 60's was comprised of a few dozen mediocre athletes playing each other for spectacle. It had more in common with modern day pro wrestling than modern day tennis. By the time the first legitimate, modern, pro-level players were on the scene (Connors, Borg, Vilas), that kind of grandfathering in was no longer possible.
All of which is to say that Rosewall, Laver, etc. weren't nearly the players they're made out to be by historians desperate to cling to nostalgia. They were compilers competing against mostly fellow Australian 5'6" midgets.
Agassi is the *most accurate* answer to this question, as the oldest slam winner of the legitimately athletic pro era. But of course he got there by teaming with Gil Reyes of the notoriously "well developed" UNLV sports teams of the 80's and early 90's.
Pete is the *best* answer to this question, since there was no question of either his level of competition, or of his training/transformation.
Roger would be by far the oldest man to win a *legitimate* grand slam level event, ever.
Similar threads
