Slam distribution objectively doesn't matter

JMR

Professional
#53
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round.
I generally agree with those statements, making it all the more unfortunate that your thread title is a non sequitur. How do you get from two opposing subjective arguments to one "objectively" correct position?
 
#54
It is more impressive to dominate one thing way more than anyone else has before in the history of the sport, than to perform reasonably well everywhere but exceptional nowhere.

:cool:
You should strike a balance like Fed and also be ATG on multiple slams and surfaces

8 majors at Wimbledon which is more than anyone achieved anywhere bar Rafa and still 11 HC (6+5)
 
#55
Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than both Federer and Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>>>>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.
A factual note - In the thread is addressed the tournaments distribution, not the surfaces distribution.
 
#56
As a Federer fan I still agree with you.

For example, imagine two players with 20 Slams both:
A) 3-3-3-11
B) 5-5-5-5

Why should player B be better? Only because he "dominates" the other one on 3 of the 4 Slams? No, that wouldn’t value that the dominance of player A on the fourth Slam is way bigger. And that HAS to count for something. That’s why the total number is the best factor already. It evens everything out.
B player is better in having a 5-fold completed career GS while A player 3 times. Player A has more dominance in one tournament. Everyone has their advantage.
 
#58
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's like praising mediocrity lmao. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
Nadal has dominated two Majors, as he has 3 US Opens which is ATG defining on it's own. Kuerten has 3 FOs and look at his status, Hewitt his whole career got 2 Majors for example. To say Nadal is 'mediocre' at the US Open is laughable really. 3 Us opens and his 2 Wimbledons and AO are the careers of Becker and Edberg and not far off Mcenroe and Lendl. when his FO record is added to his resume it is why so many consider him the greatest athlete of all time let alone tennis player.

The measure of greatness is titles won and against whom they were won.
 
#60
Nadal has dominated two Majors, as he has 3 US Opens which is ATG defining on it's own. Kuerten has 3 FOs and look at his status, Hewitt his whole career got 2 Majors for example. To say Nadal is 'mediocre' at the US Open is laughable really. 3 Us opens and his 2 Wimbledons and AO are the careers of Becker and Edberg and not far off Mcenroe and Lendl. when his FO record is added to his resume it is why so many consider him the greatest athlete of all time let alone tennis player.

The measure of greatness is titles won and against whom they were won.
Nadal never dominated US Open LMAO! 3 victories out of 4 finals from 15 years old career isn't by any means a domination! Otherwise i would have to say the same about Djokovic, because unlike Nadal he reached 8 finals (4 of those in a row from 2010 till 2013 and that is all from having shorter career and peaking later!), when you have 3 ATGs, who have won EACH at least 3 times, with one winning the event 5 times consecutively you can't call the one, who won it 3 times in 4 attempts dominating one in the history of the tournament! LOL
 
#65
If you wish to make an extreme hypothetical example, of course slam distribution matters. Which player's legacy would be looked upon more favorably by tennis historians? ---

Player A: Wins 12 majors which consists of three CYGS's.

Player B: Wins the AO 12 times with no other majors.

And obviously it matters to all those guys who won 3/4 majors, but couldn't bag the elusive one: Boris, Pete and Stefan with the FO, Lendl with Wimbledon, etc.
 
#66
Being first or second in the Open Era, all-time at three slams is objectively better than being first at a single slam as a tennis player. You can be the greatest on a surface, all-time, you can be the greatest across the surfaces all-time.
 
#67
Clay is a specialist surface with less competition than Hard courts.

Winning mostly on clay only makes you the king of clay not the GOAT.
Yep, Clay is a specialist surface, its just feels like a different game.

Hard courts at the AO and USO are the bread and butter of tennis its what most people play on day in day out.

Wimbledon is the pinnacle, its faster, your reaction times are reduced, the bounce is less predictable, your technique gets found out. The whose who of great Tennis players, Jean King, Navratilova, Graf, Williams, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Djokovic, conquer Wimbledon. The best of the best tend to win Wimbledon and make it their home.
 
#69
Does this mean that Maria Sharapova, would be considered as being a better player than Venus Williams, as she has one each slam once and also has an additional French open title? Compared to Venus who only dominated on grass (5 titles) and the US Open (2 titles)?
 
#70
Does this mean that Maria Sharapova, would be considered as being a better player than Venus Williams, as she has one each slam once and also has an additional French open title? Compared to Venus who only dominated on grass (5 titles) and the US Open (2 titles)?
Probably.

Managing winning all 4 slams is quite an achievement.
 
#72
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's like praising mediocrity lmao. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
I believe that leading three of the four slams is objectively better than leading one slam by a larger margin. Nadal is only considered an all time great at one slam. Federer is considered to be an all time great at three slams. Therefore slam distribution does matter when considering the greatness of a player.

In a a similar fashion many argue that all the slams deserve equal weighting but that is clearly not true. Nearly every tennis player and fan throughout the history of the sport has valued Wimbledon above the other slams. I believe Nadal would be considered a greater player had he achieved what he achieved Roland Garros at Wimbledon instead.
 
Last edited:

Rosstour

Professional
#74
Probably.

Managing winning all 4 slams is quite an achievement.
Not when she never won more than 1 Slam in a season and Venus won 2 twice. Venus dominated the field in 2000 and Sharapova never has, plus two Slams is not a small difference when we are only talking about 7 versus 5.
One can definitely say Sharapova is the more well-rounded player. Particularly because she was never totally comfortable on clay and still managed to get one FO.

Everyone will remember Venus as the better player because of her cultural significance, style, grace, and power. IMO she is/was much more fun to watch than Serena.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#75
Well, the one with great slam distribution actually performed exceptionally somewhere.

:cool:
The word exceptional doesn't encapsulate well what I'm trying to say. How about 'otherworldly.' Federer performed otherworldy nowhere. And Federer has 20 slams so it's not an even comparison to Nadal. If he had 17 he would be even in terms of slam greatness with Nadal imo.

I generally agree with those statements, making it all the more unfortunate that your thread title is a non sequitur. How do you get from two opposing subjective arguments to one "objectively" correct position?
We know that both being correct is impossible, yet both have equal footing on a subjective basis. What other conclusion would you come to?

I believe that leading three of the four slams is objectively better than leading one slam by a larger margin. Nadal is only considered an all time great at one slam. Federer is considered to be an all time great at three slams. Therefore slam distribution does matter when considering the greatness of a player.
Is the fact you consider Federer an ATG at 3 slams because you are bagging 5+ slams all into the same category? That is just an attempt to put 7/8 and 11 into the same category when they are not. 11 is in a category of it's own, so whatever category 11 is in, Federer is not considered that in any of the slams. But Federer has 3 slams more than Nadal so that doesn't matter anyway. If they had the same number, they would both be equally great at the slams imo if you consider all the slams to be of equal value. Federer leads right now in 2 slams not 3. If 2 other players A and B came along and won 11 W and 11UO respectively, Federer is leading nowhere. Would that diminish his legacy? Course not, which is why it doesn't matter if you are leading in the slams or not because it depends on only 50 years or so of history.
 
#76
One can definitely say Sharapova is the more well-rounded player. Particularly because she was never totally comfortable on clay and still managed to get one FO.

Everyone will remember Venus as the better player because of her cultural significance, style, grace, and power. IMO she is/was much more fun to watch than Serena.
I guess you could argue that Sharapova is more well rounded when you compare their careers on clay but Sharapova like Serena benefited from no great clay champ like Henin being around anymore. Sharapova never beat her on clay when Venus can at least say she did once but there's no denying that Venus underperformed on clay in her career. Clay has to go to Sharapova in this comparison.

The knock against Sharapova in trying to compare her to Venus is that she never dominated at any point in her career. She only made more than one Slam final in a year once back in 2012 when Venus did it 5 times and made 4 in a row and 5/6 from 2002-2003. Venus also has the longest winning streak in the last 20 years at 35 matches, where she reeled off 6 titles in a row including Wimbledon, USO and Olympic gold. I think Venus does have more significance in the game overall but this is why she really will always outrank Sharapova.
 

Rosstour

Professional
#77
I guess you could argue that Sharapova is more well rounded when you compare their careers on clay but Sharapova like Serena benefited from no great clay champ like Henin being around anymore. Sharapova never beat her on clay when Venus can at least say she did once but there's no denying that Venus underperformed on clay in her career. Clay has to go to Sharapova in this comparison.

The knock against Sharapova in trying to compare her to Venus is that she never dominated at any point in her career. She only made more than one Slam final in a year once back in 2012 when Venus did it 5 times and made 4 in a row and 5/6 from 2002-2003. Venus also has the longest winning streak in the last 20 years at 35 matches, where he reeled off 6 titles in a row including Wimbledon, USO and Olympic gold. I think Venus does have more significance in the game overall but this is why she really will always outrank Sharapova.
I agree with all of this. I struggle to really like Masha, and I love Venus' game and find it easy to root for her.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#78
The word exceptional doesn't encapsulate well what I'm trying to say. How about 'otherworldly.' Federer performed otherworldy nowhere. And Federer has 20 slams so it's not an even comparison to Nadal. If he had 17 he would be even in terms of slam greatness with Nadal imo.

We know that both being correct is impossible, yet both have equal footing on a subjective basis. What other conclusion would you come to?

Is the fact you consider Federer an ATG at 3 slams because you are bagging 5+ slams all into the same category? That is just an attempt to put 7/8 and 11 into the same category when they are not. 11 is in a category of it's own, so whatever category 11 is in, Federer is not considered that in any of the slams. But Federer has 3 slams more than Nadal so that doesn't matter anyway. If they had the same number, they would both be equally great at the slams imo if you consider all the slams to be of equal value. Federer leads right now in 2 slams not 3. If 2 other players A and B came along and won 11 W and 11UO respectively, Federer is leading nowhere. Would that diminish his legacy? Course not, which is why it doesn't matter if you are leading in the slams or not because it depends on only 50 years or so of history.
Interesting that when Nadal's results on HC are discussed they are either grouped together, when his HC results are discussed, and separate, when his versatility is discussed, but Federer doesn't seem to enjoy the same.

Some people should make up their mind.

:cool:
 
#79
I agree with all of this. I struggle to really like Masha, and I love Venus' game and find it easy to root for her.
Venus at her peak on grass was when her game was at its highest level imo. She also made 8/10 Wimbledon finals from 2000-2009 which is a crazy stat.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#80
Interesting that when Nadal's results on HC are discussed they are either grouped together, when his HC results are discussed, and separate, when his versatility is discussed, but Federer doesn't seem to enjoy the same.

Some people should make up their mind.

:cool:
Then point it out the next time you argue someone who is doing that. Slam distribution is a slightly different argument from surface distribution though. There are 2 HC slams per year as opposed to 1 Grass and 1 Clay. Nadal has an average of 2 slams per HC slam event.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#81
Then point it out the next time you argue someone who is doing that. Slam distribution is a slightly different argument from surface distribution though. There are 2 HC slams per year as opposed to 1 Grass and 1 Clay. Nadal has an average of 2 slams per HC slam event.
I point it out: just usually my opponent doesn't respond, as is the case right now on a certain matter with a certain "statistical analyst".

I see that you are already ready to do the same with the "average" BS.

:cool:
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#84
I point it out: just usually my opponent doesn't respond, as is the case right now on a certain matter with a certain "statistical analyst".

I see that you are already ready to do the same with the "average" BS.

:cool:
I honestly got no idea what this argument is about so I can't comment, but I concur that if someone is not logically consistent it should be pointed out. If you cannot find a flaw in their argument, then it is simply a matter of difference of opinion.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#88
I honestly got no idea what this argument is about so I can't comment, but I concur that if someone is not logically consistent it should be pointed out. If you cannot find a flaw in their argument, then it is simply a matter of difference of opinion.
I find the "averaging" of Majors to illustrate versatility to be a very prominent lack of logic, and, in fact, also a complete BS, so I am pointing it out to you now.

:cool:
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#93
I find the "averaging" of Majors to illustrate versatility to be a very prominent lack of logic, and, in fact, also a complete BS, so I am pointing it out to you now.

:cool:
Depends what kind of versatility you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, why are you trying to start an argument I have no interest in at the moment?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#98
Depends what kind of versatility you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, why are you trying to start an argument I have no interest in at the moment?
I found it interesting that you defend the point that Nadal's achievement on clay cannot be compared with anything else, and at the same time run the gamut of explanations, how Federer's HC achievements cannot be grouped together WHILE claiming "averages" about Nadal's HC numbers, WHILE also simultaneously stating that in fact "slam distribution doesn't matter".

I see a quadruple contradiction in every phase of that logical sequence, but I am no specialist in duck logic.





:cool:
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#99
So you're arguing that Djokovic winning 7 Australian Opens and Federer winning 8 Wimbledons is....not exceptional?

Let me know if you run out of straws to grasp at.
What an ironic comment. Replace the word 'exceptional' with 'otherworldly' and the point remains the same. In fact I'll do so, so people can stop doing what you accused me of doing.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
I found it interesting that you defend the point that Nadal's achievement on clay cannot be compared with anything else, and at the same time run the gamut of explanations, how Federer's HC achievements cannot be grouped together WHILE claiming "averages" about Nadal's HC numbers, WHILE also simultaneously stating that in fact "slam distribution doesn't matter".

I see a quadruple contradiction in every phase of that logical sequence, but I am no specialist in duck logic.

:cool:
I see no contradiction with what I've said in this thread, so if you can't point it out then you are wasting my time here. You spend so much time analysing everything to the 10th degree trying to look for a flaw that ultimately means nothing.
 
Top