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

Spencer Gore said:
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

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

8 DJOKOVIC
W 2011, 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
Click to expand...

Incredible Wawrinka's performances during those slams. So underrated, and people think he's worse than Murray, lol.
 
Third Serve said:
You’re the one who brought Nadal into the conversation. You go find that out for yourself. My critique of the thread’s methodology has nothing to do with who’s at the top or bottom.
Click to expand...
Well, your critique has no validity then as a universal criticism. If the problem with this list is that it unfairly rewards people in some way you would expect that unfairness to be reflected in players at the top and the bottom.
 
Sad to see my hero Borg so low on this list, but he suffered of course from never playing multi-slam winning Connors or McEnroe at RG.
 
Since '09, Federer played in 10 Slam finals: 5-1 against everyone else, 0-4 against Djokovic. He's 1-1 against Nadal.
 
vive le beau jeu ! said:
81uz6kUFVNL._SL1500_.jpg
Click to expand...
No cherries? Ah yes, all picked I see.
 
Sunny014 said:
U started watching tennis in 08, wimbledon 2008 final was your first match.
How can Borg be your hero?
Click to expand...
If it makes you happy to tell lies about other posters, that's up to you. As a believer in karma I would advise against it.

I saw Borg play live at Wimbledon. That's when he became my hero. He had an aura that no player before or since has had. It's a rare quality. I met Muhammad Ali once and he had the same thing.
 
Spencer Gore said:
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

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

8 DJOKOVIC
W 2011, 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
Click to expand...

Where is Murray?

US 2012 and W 2013 were both against a 3+ times Slam winner. Also Wawrinka US 2016.
 
Spencer Gore said:
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.
Click to expand...

So with respect to Federer and Djokovic you agree it is strongly biased towards Djokovic since many more matches were played between them when Djokovic was in his prime years.
 
PilotPete said:
So with respect to Federer and Djokovic you agree it is strongly biased towards Djokovic since many more matches were played between them when Djokovic was in his prime years.
Click to expand...

The whole point of this exercise, if it weren't apparent already, is that Fed fans say that Djokovic has benefitted tremendously from weak competition including Next Gen like Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, all of whom will likely to go on to win majors. The argument goes that any future majors shouldn't cause re-evaluation of Djokovic's competition, that Next Gen are mugs regardless. Well, the stats here that Spencer Gore presents show a much higher level of competition for Djokovic and Nadal than Federer had in slam finals nevertheless. That they beat Fed in many of these finals accentuates how strong the competition was rather diminish it. Regardless of Federer's age, he was good enough to win 6 matches straight and reach the final, and thus, was a tough opponent.
 
Third Serve said:
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.
Click to expand...
They won the matches fair and square.

Federer would be higher up the list if he didn’t go 0-4 in slam finals to Djokovic since 2014, or 0-4 to Nadal between 2008-2011.
 
NoleIsBoat said:
They won the matches fair and square.

Federer would be higher up the list if he didn’t go 0-4 in slam finals to Djokovic since 2014, or 0-4 to Nadal between 2008-2011.
Click to expand...
Correct. Somehow Nadal and Djokovic have to be downgraded because Federer wasn't good enough to beat them at the majors. It's lunacy.
 
Too defend Federer here it’s hard to beat a 3 time slam winner when you don’t let players win slams to get too 3.
Fed’s record against Djokodal at slams can’t be denied but in his prime nobody had 3 slams due to him winning them all
 
DjokoLand said:
Too defend Federer here it’s hard to beat a 3 time slam winner when you don’t let players win slams to get too 3.
Fed’s record against Djokodal at slams can’t be denied but in his prime nobody had 3 slams due to him winning them all
Click to expand...

Hence people saying that Federer won in a weak era. I personally don't think 2003-2007 was that weak. 1998-2002 was weaker. But 2003-2007 looks weak when compared to 2008-2015, which was very strong.
 
zvelf said:
The whole point of this exercise, if it weren't apparent already, is that Fed fans say that Djokovic has benefitted tremendously from weak competition including Next Gen like Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, all of whom will likely to go on to win majors. The argument goes that any future majors shouldn't cause re-evaluation of Djokovic's competition, that Next Gen are mugs regardless. Well, the stats here that Spencer Gore presents show a much higher level of competition for Djokovic and Nadal than Federer had in slam finals nevertheless. That they beat Fed in many of these finals accentuates how strong the competition was rather diminish it. Regardless of Federer's age, he was good enough to win 6 matches straight and reach the final, and thus, was a tough opponent.
Click to expand...

How can Fed be considered strong competition if many of these same pundits are saying he would have zero slams had been the same age or younger than Djokodal? Can't have it both ways.
 
PilotPete said:
How can Fed be considered strong competition if many of these same pundits are saying he would have zero slams had been the same age or younger than Djokodal? Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Don’t be silly. If Fed was the same age he would obviously have less slams they all would.
 
PilotPete said:
How can Fed be considered strong competition if many of these same pundits are saying he would have zero slams had been the same age or younger than Djokodal? Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Did anyone actually say he would have zero? I still think he’s good for 8-10 but it’s interesting to consider how the lack of weak era to build up the aura would affect his career trajectory.
 
zvelf said:
The whole point of this exercise, if it weren't apparent already, is that Fed fans say that Djokovic has benefitted tremendously from weak competition including Next Gen like Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, all of whom will likely to go on to win majors. The argument goes that any future majors shouldn't cause re-evaluation of Djokovic's competition, that Next Gen are mugs regardless. Well, the stats here that Spencer Gore presents show a much higher level of competition for Djokovic and Nadal than Federer had in slam finals nevertheless. That they beat Fed in many of these finals accentuates how strong the competition was rather diminish it. Regardless of Federer's age, he was good enough to win 6 matches straight and reach the final, and thus, was a tough opponent.
Click to expand...
So every finalist is a tough opponent. Kinda redundant, no?
 
DjokoLand said:
Too defend Federer here it’s hard to beat a 3 time slam winner when you don’t let players win slams to get too 3.
Fed’s record against Djokodal at slams can’t be denied but in his prime nobody had 3 slams due to him winning them all
Click to expand...
Nadal had 3 slams by 2007.
 
Federer is a greater player than Nadal. Given their comparative record on grass, the classic surface par excellence, it's not even close.
 
zvelf said:
The whole point of this exercise, if it weren't apparent already, is that Fed fans say that Djokovic has benefitted tremendously from weak competition including Next Gen like Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, all of whom will likely to go on to win majors. The argument goes that any future majors shouldn't cause re-evaluation of Djokovic's competition, that Next Gen are mugs regardless. Well, the stats here that Spencer Gore presents show a much higher level of competition for Djokovic and Nadal than Federer had in slam finals nevertheless. That they beat Fed in many of these finals accentuates how strong the competition was rather diminish it. Regardless of Federer's age, he was good enough to win 6 matches straight and reach the final, and thus, was a tough opponent.
Click to expand...

This is not the right way to say that playing guys with multiple slams is strong competition.

Hurkacz bageled a 20 times slams winner while Roddick lost many times to that same guy who had like 0 slams, 2 slams type numbers on his resume instead of 20.

Now am I supposed to consider Hurkacz playing the better version of Federer ???

Rubbish, this 3 slams logic or 10 slams logic are all ridiculous
 
TearTheRoofOff said:
So every finalist is a tough opponent. Kinda redundant, no?
Click to expand...

That's not actually what I am saying but rather that playing into the final means that you have been playing well. Whether you bring that strong game in the actual final, sometimes a player does and sometimes a player doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that the finalist had to play well to get to that position and if you've already proven yourself by winning 3 or more slams, what age the player achieved the final isn't what's relevant. It's that the player reached the final at all. Hence, achieving a win over such a finalist can't be fairly dismissed as merely taking advantage of the decrepit.

Sunny014 said:
This is not the right way to say that playing guys with multiple slams is strong competition.

Hurkacz bageled a 20 times slams winner while Roddick lost many times to that same guy who had like 0 slams, 2 slams type numbers on his resume instead of 20.

Now am I supposed to consider Hurkacz playing the better version of Federer ???
Click to expand...

But you're not evaluating this according to the terms that Spencer Gore set out. Hurkacz didn't play Federer in the Wimbledon final. If Federer had gotten there, he would have had to have been playing far better than he was.

In any case, the point of this is that it reveals the catch-22 that Djokovic is in based on TTW haters' reasoning. If he beats proven slam winners in slam finals, it doesn't count and if he beats non-slam winners, it doesn't count because he's just feasting on weak opponents. In truth, Djokovic had to face overall harder opposition than Federer to win his slams. Who were Federer's weakest slam final opponents? An unseeded Philippoussis, an unseeded Baghdatis, #10 Gonzalez who had beaten Nadal, #23 Soderling, #7 Cilic, and #6 Cilic. Who were Djokovic's weakest slam final opponents? An unseeded Tsonga who had beaten Nadal, #8 Anderson who had beaten Federer, #4 Medvedev, #5 Tsitsipas, #7 Berrettini. Djokovic has had to win 13 slam finals against Federer, Nadal, or Murray. Federer has only had to win 7 slam finals against a fellow Big Four member.
 
zvelf said:
That's not actually what I am saying but rather that playing into the final means that you have been playing well. Whether you bring that strong game in the actual final, sometimes a player does and sometimes a player doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that the finalist had to play well to get to that position and if you've already proven yourself by winning 3 or more slams, what age the player achieved the final isn't what's relevant. It's that the player reached the final at all. Hence, achieving a win over such a finalist can't be fairly dismissed as merely taking advantage of the decrepit.



But you're not evaluating this according to the terms that Spencer Gore set out. Hurkacz didn't play Federer in the Wimbledon final. If Federer had gotten there, he would have had to have been playing far better than he was.

In any case, the point of this is that it reveals the catch-22 that Djokovic is in based on TTW haters' reasoning. If he beats proven slam winners in slam finals, it doesn't count and if he beats non-slam winners, it doesn't count because he's just feasting on weak opponents. In truth, Djokovic had to face overall harder opposition than Federer to win his slams. Who were Federer's weakest slam final opponents? An unseeded Philippoussis, an unseeded Baghdatis, #10 Gonzalez who had beaten Nadal, #23 Soderling, #7 Cilic, and #6 Cilic. Who were Djokovic's weakest slam final opponents? An unseeded Tsonga who had beaten Nadal, #8 Anderson who had beaten Federer, #4 Medvedev, #5 Tsitsipas, #7 Berrettini. Djokovic has had to win 13 slam finals against Federer, Nadal, or Murray. Federer has only had to win 7 slam finals against a fellow Big Four member.
Click to expand...

Just because someone reaches a wimbledon final or a semi final via weak draw and then is crushed by a strong champion doesn't mean the old guy who reached the final is a great rival

So that parameter is nosnense

Plus Baghthatis was better than these berretinis or others, he is a worthy slam finalist for his era.

I consider Novak's rivals the weakest ever...... nothing that you say will convince me otherwise
 
Sunny014 said:
Just because someone reaches a wimbledon final or a semi final via weak draw and then is crushed by a strong champion doesn't mean the old guy who reached the final is a great rival
Click to expand...

So how many times has Federer reached a slam final due to a weak draw and been an unworthy finalist? That's the actual important question.

Plus Baghthatis was better than these berretinis or others, he is a worthy slam finalist for his era.
Click to expand...

But apparently he's not good enough for you to know how to spell his name. Look, if your argument rests on Baghdatis - who has never been ranked higher than #8, has never finished a single year in the top 10, and only has 4 weak titles to his name - is a better player than Tsonga, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Berrettini, all of whom have way out-achieved Baghdatis even though all but Tsonga are early in their careers, then your argument is a big fail.
 
zvelf said:
That's not actually what I am saying but rather that playing into the final means that you have been playing well. Whether you bring that strong game in the actual final, sometimes a player does and sometimes a player doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that the finalist had to play well to get to that position and if you've already proven yourself by winning 3 or more slams, what age the player achieved the final isn't what's relevant. It's that the player reached the final at all. Hence, achieving a win over such a finalist can't be fairly dismissed as merely taking advantage of the decrepit.
Click to expand...
Why three slams? Why is the age not relevant? How have you decided that having won 3 or more slams has such a huge influence on performance in a final that the influence of age becomes negligible, in any exhaustive sense? Is it because Fed got rekt loads when he was older and 3 slams is the cutoff that makes him seem the sh!ttest at first glance? Just spitballing here.
 
The other way makes Federer's resume much more impressive because he beat Djokovic four times at Slams before '11. That's 4 entries taken off his resume right there. So much for Fedfans complaining at anything unfavorable!
 
zvelf said:
The whole point of this exercise, if it weren't apparent already, is that Fed fans say that Djokovic has benefitted tremendously from weak competition including Next Gen like Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, all of whom will likely to go on to win majors. The argument goes that any future majors shouldn't cause re-evaluation of Djokovic's competition, that Next Gen are mugs regardless. Well, the stats here that Spencer Gore presents show a much higher level of competition for Djokovic and Nadal than Federer had in slam finals nevertheless. That they beat Fed in many of these finals accentuates how strong the competition was rather diminish it. Regardless of Federer's age, he was good enough to win 6 matches straight and reach the final, and thus, was a tough opponent.
Click to expand...
It's a stupidly cherry picked stat. Don't defend him.
 
zvelf said:
Hence people saying that Federer won in a weak era. I personally don't think 2003-2007 was that weak. 1998-2002 was weaker. But 2003-2007 looks weak when compared to 2008-2015, which was very strong.
Click to expand...
LMAO :-D

Including 2010, 2014 and 2015 in the strong category.
 
Spencer, you undercount Djokovic's count by quite a lot. For example, his 1st 2 Slams ('08 and '11 AO, where he beat Federer) are not on your list. One way to count Djokovic is this. He beat Federer and Nadal 18 times (11 and 7). Take away 2 times he didn't go on to win ('10 USO and '15 RG), and one time where he beat both ('11 USO). That leaves 15.

But add one where he beat only Murray ('16 AO). That's 16 times Djokovic beat a player who's won 3+ majors.
 
SonnyT said:
Spencer, you undercount Djokovic's count by quite a lot. For example, his 1st 2 Slams ('08 and '11 AO, where he beat Federer) are not on your list. One way to count Djokovic is this. He beat Federer and Nadal 18 times (11 and 7). Take away 2 times he didn't go on to win ('10 USO and '15 RG), and one time where he beat both ('11 USO). That leaves 15.

But add one where he beat only Murray ('16 AO). That's 16 times Djokovic beat a player who's won 3+ majors.
Click to expand...
The list is finals only. But I'd certainly be interested to see the list including SF. Any earlier meetings with a 3X winner would suggest they were already on the way down.

I still think restricting the list to finals may be best. A 3 times slam winner who has reached a final is obviously a potential slam winner at that tournament. A 3 times slam winner defeated in the early rounds, isn't.
 
Sorry, I misread. Thanks!

Counting both SF and F makes more sense. For example, Nadal and Djokovic met 3 times in SF ('13 and 21 RG, '18 Wim), and the winner went on to beat slam-less players in the finals.
 
zvelf said:
So how many times has Federer reached a slam final due to a weak draw and been an unworthy finalist? That's the actual important question.



But apparently he's not good enough for you to know how to spell his name. Look, if your argument rests on Baghdatis - who has never been ranked higher than #8, has never finished a single year in the top 10, and only has 4 weak titles to his name - is a better player than Tsonga, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Berrettini, all of whom have way out-achieved Baghdatis even though all but Tsonga are early in their careers, then your argument is a big fail.
Click to expand...

Who is this Baghthathis and why is he discussed here???

Fed faced this beggar only once in a slam final and you speak as if he was a regular there

If Baggy was so weak then didn't NAdal who already had won a slam make the final ???

Nd stop glorifying losers like medvedev or berretiniii types, these are nothing compare to the heavyweights of the 2000s like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Nadal etc etc
 
TearTheRoofOff said:
lol, YOUR OWN REQUEST.
Click to expand...
Another thread denigrating Federer, lol.

Spencer Bore, you and your fellow clowns might as well create a thread claiming that Federer would had have a better livelihood from milking cows and be done with it since it would allow you to move on to more important things in life.

Just my two cents.
 
TearTheRoofOff said:
Why three slams? Why is the age not relevant? How have you decided that having won 3 or more slams has such a huge influence on performance in a final that the influence of age becomes negligible, in any exhaustive sense? Is it because Fed got rekt loads when he was older and 3 slams is the cutoff that makes him seem the sh!ttest at first glance? Just spitballing here.
Click to expand...

Three slams is a somewhat arbitrary number and it's not one I picked, but virtually every player who has won 3 slams in the Open Era is indisputably a great player and future hall-of-famer.

As for age, again, the more pertinent question is how many times has Federer reached a slam final due to a weak draw and been an unworthy finalist? And if age does matter, then how do Fed fans account for his winning 3 majors in 2017-2018 or was he an unworthy finalist too in those majors in which he won at age 35-36?
 
Also, I’m not trying to denigrate Federer. He is in contention for GOAT without a doubt. But Fed fans who want to tear down Djokovic for having weak competition are hypocritical when their own standard of weak competition is applied to Federer. My own stance is that Federer did face weakER competition before Nadal became good on all surfaces and before Djokovic reached his peak and Djokovic has had a year here and there with weaker competition, but I don’t think that means they have vultured slams. The only arguable cases to me would be 2017 Wimbledon, 2018 Australian Open, and 2021 Wimbledon.
 
Bartelby said:
Nope. it is arbitrary. These discussions are all matters of opinion. People cite evidence and statistics that favour their opinion, and you're no different.
Click to expand...
The stats reflect the FACTS of which players defeated three times slam finalists to win their titles. No more, no less. Opinion only comes into play when interpreting those statistics.

The FACT that my all-time hero, Borg, is so far down this list is proof enough that I am presenting it without bias. It is an interesting topic of conversation among tennis fans, as proved by the healthy debate it has provoked.
 
zvelf said:
Three slams is a somewhat arbitrary number and it's not one I picked, but virtually every player who has won 3 slams in the Open Era is indisputably a great player and future hall-of-famer.

As for age, again, the more pertinent question is how many times has Federer reached a slam final due to a weak draw and been an unworthy finalist? And if age does matter, then how do Fed fans account for his winning 3 majors in 2017-2018 or was he an unworthy finalist too in those majors in which he won at age 35-36?
Click to expand...
As you say “somewhat” arbitrary, but I think winning 3 slams separates you from the one slam wonders like Roddick, Cilic types who got hot and fortunate to sneak the 1 slam in.
 
Spencer Gore said:
The stats reflect the FACTS of which players defeated three times slam finalists to win their titles. No more, no less. Opinion only comes into play when interpreting those statistics.

The FACT that my all-time hero, Borg, is so far down this list is proof enough that I am presenting it without bias. It is an interesting topic of conversation among tennis fans, as proved by the healthy debate it has provoked.
Click to expand...
Nah, that just means you want to p!ss on Rog more than you want to prop Borg.

And yeah, sure, the stats are factual, but their selection process and the pertinence of said selection is arbitrary and borne of subjectivity, which is the obvious point @Bartelby made that you whiffed on with characteristic obtuseness. You endlessly cycle back to this fundamental THE NUMBERS AM REAL schtick like a kind of immunization against any critique of the methods, relevance, pertinence etc., but it's tired as balls. It is fun, though, to juxtapose this against your bald faced assertions about Federer's state of mind and character at trophy ceremonies, for example.
 
Spencer Gore said:
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

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

8 DJOKOVIC
W 2011, 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 2016
Click to expand...

You're missing Roland Garros 2012
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hitman
The Big 3 and the different combos of consecutive slam wins as it stands
2
Replies
70
Views
5K
Fiero425
Fiero425
S'in-net
  • Poll Poll
Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic/Federer : Grand Slam Win/Loss ratios v Top 10 opponents
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
S'in-net
S'in-net
Hitman
Big 3 straight set final wins stats
Replies
14
Views
2K
Fabresque
Fabresque
Spencer Gore
Big 3 Slams Updated
Replies
7
Views
633
Spencer Gore
Spencer Gore
Spencer Gore
The Big 3 Slams -updated
Replies
45
Views
2K
Spencer Gore
Spencer Gore
Back
Top