Slams finals won beating a 3+ slam winners (at time of match)

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Edited for clarity:

It has been suggested that the future performance of players should have no bearing on the measurement of their current status. Thus, many people are claiming this is a weak era because Djokovic is defeating players who haven't got a slam winning record. It doesn't matter if they go on to win multiple slams, we are told, it is their tally at the time of the match that counts.
With that in mind, these are the Open Era slam victories won against players who had won 3+ slams at the time of the match:

* any errors let me know and I'll revise

11 NADAL (55% of total wins)
RG 2006, RG 2007, RG 2008,
W 2008, AO 2009, RG 2011,
RG 2012, US 2013, RG 2014,
RG 2017, RG 2020

8 DJOKOVIC (40% of total wins)
W 2011, US 2011, AO 2012,
W 2014, W 2015, US 2015,
AO 2019, W 2019

5 CONNORS (62.5% of total wins)
W 1974, US 1974, US 1976,
US 1978, W 1982

5 LENDL (62.5 % of total wins)
RG 1984, US 1985, RG 1987,
US 1987, AO 1990

5 SAMPRAS (36% of total wins)
W 1993, W 1995, US 1995,
W 1999, US 2002

4 McENROE (57% of total wins)
US 1980, W 1981, US 1981,
W 1984

4 BECKER (67% of total wins)
W 1986, W 1989, US 1989,
AO 1991

3 BORG (27% of total wins)
W 1977, RG 1978, W 1978

3 FEDERER (15% of total wins)
US 2005, W 2007, AO 2017

3 WAWRINKA (100% of total wins)
AO 2014, RG 2015, US 2016
 
Last edited:

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
As per a request on another thread, these are the Open Era slam victories won against players who had won 3+ slams at the time of the match:

* any errors let me know and I'll revise

9 NADAL
RG 2006, RG 2007, RG 2008, AO 2009
RG 2011, US 2013, RG 2014, RG 2017
RG 2020

7 DJOKOVIC
US 2011, AO 2012, W 2014, W 2015
US 2015, AO 2019, W 2019

5 CONNORS
W 1974, US 1974, US 1976, US 1978, W 1982

5 LENDL
RG 1984, US 1985, RG 1987, US 1987, AO 1990

5 SAMPRAS
W 1993, W 1995, US 1995, W 1999, US 2002

4 McENROE
US 1980, W 1981, US 1981, W 1984

4 BECKER
W 1986, W 1989, US 1989, AO 1991

3 BORG
W 1977, RG 1978, W 1978

3 FEDERER
W 2005, W 2007, AO 2017

3 WAWRINKA
AO 2014, RG 2015, US
Who did Federer beat that had 3 slams in Wimbledon 2005?
 
Spencer Gore... sometimes I wonder what precise moment made you hate Federer? It’s obviously not only about the player but the person. Something that made your anger boil deep inside of you and it never stops boiling, no matter how many threads you create...

So what was it? The MTO before fifth set in AO17 final? Federer’s remarks on Djokovic retirements early on? The finger wag? Wimbledon 2009 clothing? His nose? What made you who you are today Spence? Please, all of us are dying to know.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Spencer Gore... sometimes I wonder what precise moment made you hate Federer? It’s obviously not only about the player but the person. Something that made your anger boil deep inside of you and it never stops boiling, no matter how many threads you create...

So what was it? The MTO before fifth set in AO17 final? Federer’s remarks on Djokovic retirements early on? The finger wag? Wimbledon 2009 clothing? His nose? What made you who you are today Spence? Please, all of us are dying to know.
Why are you obsessed with Federer? Please don't post off-topic
 
As per a request on another thread, these are the Open Era slam victories won against players who had won 3+ slams at the time of the match:

* any errors let me know and I'll revise

9 NADAL
RG 2006, RG 2007, RG 2008, AO 2009
RG 2011, US 2013, RG 2014, RG 2017
RG 2020

7 DJOKOVIC
US 2011, AO 2012, W 2014, W 2015
US 2015, AO 2019, W 2019

5 CONNORS
W 1974, US 1974, US 1976, US 1978, W 1982

5 LENDL
RG 1984, US 1985, RG 1987, US 1987, AO 1990

5 SAMPRAS
W 1993, W 1995, US 1995, W 1999, US 2002

4 McENROE
US 1980, W 1981, US 1981, W 1984

4 BECKER
W 1986, W 1989, US 1989, AO 1991

3 BORG
W 1977, RG 1978, W 1978

3 FEDERER
US 2005, W 2007, AO 2017

3 WAWRINKA
AO 2014, RG 2015, US
lol, YOUR OWN REQUEST.
 
What are you talking about? I'm interested in the history and stats of tennis. If you aren't there are plenty of threads where you can discuss Federer. Please go there.
No, you’re not. You’re merely interested in presenting any statistics you can find to put Federer down in any shape or form. You think you are doing it cleverly but people here read you like an open book.
 

N01E

Hall of Fame
Are we including finals only? I don't think it makes sense to ignore previous rounds, so ANOTHER list including those would be helpful (from the top of my head):
USO 1990, RG 2005, AO 2008, Wimbledon 2008 (should be there either way), AO 2011, RG 2012 (same as W08), Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2018, RG 2019, AO 2020, RG 2020, RG 2021
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Are we including finals only? I don't think it makes sense to ignore previous rounds, so ANOTHER list including those would be helpful (from the top of my head):
USO 1990, RG 2005, AO 2008, Wimbledon 2008 (should be there either way), AO 2011, RG 2012 (same as W08), Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2018, RG 2019, AO 2020, RG 2020, RG 2021
I included finals only because that excluded meetings between younger champions and older in early rounds. A final means both players were in potential slam winning form.
 

BGod

Legend
This is cherry picking (3) and relying on said player going deep in order for those in OP to meet.

In the Big 3 era there have only been 5 men with 3+ Slams as of 2016 and counting one of them means you're left relying on the other 4. And of course in Fed's case only having 2 active players with 3+ between 2003-2006 being aging largely absent opponents Agassi & Kuerten.....

If we look at 2 time champions you add the following Slams for Fed:

2004 AO (Safin)
2004 WMB (Hewitt)
2004 USO (Hewitt)
2005 WMB (Hewitt)
2010 AO (Hewitt)



OP also forgot 2012 Wimbledon (Novak)
 

Sunny014

Legend
It means Connors won more slam finals against three times champions than Borg or Federer. Not really surprising in Borg's case as Connors had much greater longevity.
Problem with these sort of stats is that if Connors has more slams of these types than Borg then you cannot argue for Connors>Borg with this stat, because if you do then the question is why didn't connors gain more slams than Borg? If you can get more tough slams in your kitty then the easy ones should also be easier to get.

It is like Cricket stats on which batsman scored runs against the toughest of bowlers, the person who averaged the most against good teams would avg more against minnows too, Sir Don Bradman avged close to 90 vs England which was the best team in his time, now vs Minnows (like say India) he avged 178 as well, so that is in synch with his repo of avging twice the normal batsman in general.

So if Connors has more of these slams than Borg then he should have the so called easy slams as well .... he should have more than 11 in total slams :p
 

Nole_King

Professional
If I read this stat correctly it takes Federer to make Djokovic and Nadal have these great numbers because remove Federer (according to OP he is a nobody compared to ATGs owing to his weak-era cheap slams wins) and Nadal has 4 while Djokovic has only 3 such wins.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Federer owns Nadal and Novak completely, without him these guys don't play into their 30s chasing his record, without him they dont have a lot of ATG wins, wow ..... Fed is the ultimate icon after all ....
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
If I read this stat correctly it takes Federer to make Djokovic and Nadal have these great numbers because remove Federer (according to OP he is a nobody compared to ATGs owing to his weak-era cheap slams wins) and Nadal has 4 while Djokovic has only 3 such wins.
Remove Federer from Nadal's list and vice versa and the list reads:

4 NADAL
1 FEDERER

Not sure what the point of that would be?
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Problem with these sort of stats is that if Connors has more slams of these types than Borg then you cannot argue for Connors>Borg with this stat, because if you do then the question is why didn't connors gain more slams than Borg? If you can get more tough slams in your kitty then the easy ones should also be easier to get.
That doesn't immediately follow at all. Some people thrive when they face the toughest opposition but don't raise their game against theoretically easier opposition. Some find it easy to win against first time finalists and single slam winners but struggle against fellow ATGs. Every player is different.
 

Sunny014

Legend
That doesn't immediately follow at all. Some people thrive when they face the toughest opposition but don't raise their game against theoretically easier opposition. Some find it easy to win against first time finalists and single slam winners but struggle against fellow ATGs. Every player is different.
Connors struggled horribly at wimbledon vs Borg.
Did he like to lose ?
Or was facing Borg not motivating enough?
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
A slam win is slam win, this stats is just like number of consecutive quater final or semi in slam or Djokovic averaging 80percent win on every surface, which doesn't mean much no matter how good they look
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
How many of those finalists beaten were 5 or more years younger?
That surely could be read two ways. It's easier to beat a player who is five years younger if you are at prime playing age. Harder if you are older and the other player is entering their prime. Feel free to create that list if it is of interest to you.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Federer is why Nole's number is so high. But of course, Federer had only won one slam during Nole's era (Wimbledon 2012) when Nole beat him in the 2014 WB final; and when Nole beat him in the 2015 WB final; and when Nole beat him in the 2015 USO final. Nole should only get credit for beating a 3+ slam Federer at 2019 WB (by which time Federer had won 2012 WB, 2017 AO and WB, and 2018 AO during Nole's era).
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
This type of list rewards players who grab wins over post-prime opponents while punishing those who win over pre-prime opponents.
Hmmm...seems to be a contradiction...
what Stef and Medvedev will do 5-6 years from now says zilch about the levels of their matches NOW. I don’t care if they go on to win 20 Slams or never even reach a Slam QF from now on, the AO 2021 final and the RG 2021 final should be judged on their own merits.
Why not just retroactively label Fed’s wins over Djokovic at the AO and US Open GOAT-tier victories?
 
Last edited:

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
You said a list like this rewards players who won against post prime opponents. Nadal is at the top of the list, how has he been "rewarded"?
It rewards them by giving them “wins” that you tally up in the list. The players who win against pre-prime opponents do not receive such rewards because those wins aren’t added to the tally: thus, they are punished by being held to a different standard. Very simple stuff, Gore.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
It rewards them by giving them “wins” that you tally up in the list. The players who win against pre-prime opponents do not receive such rewards because those wins aren’t added to the tally: thus, they are punished by being held to a different standard. Very simple stuff, Gore.
Which post-prime wins does Nadal have?
 
Top