The most dominant HTH records vs a player that won a slam title.

[Pheasant]

I think that Borg takes the cake with his 17-0 record vs Gerulaitis, a guy that won a slam title. I find this record amazing. Borg also went 17-5 vs Guillermo Vilas. Borg is quite amazing in this capacity. The more that I look at Borg, the more that I believe that he's a top-5 player in history and potentially a GOAT-contender for peak. This guy was really something special when I was growing up.

What are some other impressive HTH records against opponents that have at least 1 slam title?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Good thread.

About how Fed-Roddick 21-3?

 

[NatF]

I think that Borg takes the cake with his 17-0 record vs Gerulaitis, a guy that won a slam title. I find this record amazing. Borg also went 17-5 vs Guillermo Vilas. Borg is quite amazing in this capacity. The more that I look at Borg, the more that I believe that he's a top-5 player in history and potentially a GOAT-contender for peak. This guy was really something special when I was growing up.

What are some other impressive HTH records against opponents that have at least 1 slam title?

Federer vs Roddick is the first one I thought of...21-3.

As for Borg he was incredibly dominant at his peak, statistically it's only behind Federer's 2004-2007 in the OE and who knows what it would look like if he played the AO. Arguably the best player of all time relative to his era.

 

[Red Rick]

Good thread.

About how Fed-Roddick 21-3?

Fed Wawrinka also 21-3

 

[Deleted member 743545]

Federer vs Moya 7-0

 

[Hamnavoe]

Lendl led Johan Kriek 10-0

 

[Mainad]

Murray vs Cilic 12-3

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Three examples of Federer...Insane.

 

[True Fanerer]

Djokovic vs Cilic 17-2

 

[Red Rick]

Murray vs Cilic 12-3

Oh **** we're at Cilic.

17-2 ladies and gentle people

 

[Red Rick]

Nadal Wawrinka is 17-3.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Edberg being 10-0 vs Muster (including four (!!!) matches on clay) is also mighty impressive.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Then we have 9-3

Nadals domination over Fed in slams.

And yet, the same Nadal was unable to dominate Gaudio (3-3, with all 6 matches on clay) while Federer is 5-0 vs Gaudio (including a 6/0, 6/0 demolition on their very last match). Unbeliboble, no?

 

[tennis_pro]

Oh **** we're at Cilic.

17-2 ladies and gentle people

Cilic 3-3000 against anyone who matters.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Two all time greats (many think 1 and 2) h2h in grand slam matches matters more than that. False Equivalency. Come on man

What false equivalency? She's the one who tried to hijack the thread by twisting the question. I haven't checked the Fed-Rafa H2H, but I'd be very surprised if it was 9-3. I'm pretty sure they played more than 12 matches over the years. But then, what do I know?

 

[pat200]

^ it is h2h in all matches and not just grand slam matches.

 

[tennis_pro]

Then we have 9-3

Nadals domination over Fed in slams.

11 of those matches on clay tho

 

[Phoenix1983]

Laver 13-2 Ashe.

 

[Sum Buddy Ells]

Definitely Federer-Sampras – one has 100% of the wins and the other has 0%

 

[mike danny]

Fed Wawrinka also 21-3

This one is more crushing, considering that they played most of their matches after Fed's prime, while Roddick was thrown right into Fed's peak and prime.

 

[mike danny]

Then we have 9-3

Nadals domination over Fed in slams.

It helps when he mostly playing Fed on clay and not showing up on several other occasions outside of it

 

[tennisaddict]

The only h2h that matters is 20 majors.

 

[tennisaddict]

I would take 3-9 h2h to Rafa any day over losing 2 major finals to Stan and 2 more to Murray. LMAO

 

[Red Rick]

This on is more crushing, considering that they played most of their matches after Fed's prime, while Roddick was thrown right into Fed's peak and prime.

Also all Wawrinka's wins were on clay.

0-16 on HC. (ROFLMAO)
0-1 on grass
3-4 on clay.

 

[Pheasant]

Murray vs Cilic 12-3

Wow, nice catch! I never would have guessed this one.

 

[TripleATeam]

I think the 21-3 between Fed and Wawrinka is the most impressive, considering Wawrinka has 3 slams.

 

[tennisaddict]

Also all Wawrinka's wins were on clay.

0-16 on HC. (ROFLMAO)
0-1 on grass
3-4 on clay.

True laughable stat. In the peak era of 2008-12, he was a fringe player. The weak era and the match up advantage has made Stan a big name.

 

[Red Rick]

True laughable stat. In the peak era of 2008-12, he was a fringe player. The weak era and the match up advantage has made Stan a big name.

His HC winning% is the same as Roddick's on clay.

 

[Pheasant]

Sampras' 16-4 mark against Courier is quite impressive to me.

 

[tennisaddict]

His HC winning% is the same as Roddick's on clay.

That is truly astonishing . And Roddick gets so much grief here for clay..

 

[mike danny]

His HC winning% is the same as Roddick's on clay.

Huh? But he won 2 HC majors.

 

[mike danny]

No one else is saying anything about surfaces in the other H2Hs mentioned
Anyway it doesn’t matter. 9-3 is dominance however you put it.

Most of it is clay, Fed's weakest surface, no matter how you put it

 

[tennisaddict]

Promise you Roger would take 9 to 3 over Nadal with 2 losses to Stan and 2 to Murray in its place

At least he didnt end up with 5-9 h2h to Nadal coupled with 2 losses each to Stan and 2 to Murray.

Losing to Nadal is the last thing that hurts out of all Fed losses in majors

 

[Pheasant]

Lendl's 4-0 mark vs Courier lacks sample size, but is impressive nonetheless.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

This on is more crushing, considering that they played most of their matches after Fed's prime, while Roddick was thrown right into Fed's peak and prime.

Also all Wawrinka's wins were on clay.

0-16 on HC. (ROFLMAO)
0-1 on grass
3-4 on clay.

Simply bcz wawa hates variety

 

[Phoenix1983]

Agassi 6-0 Stich

 

[BeatlesFan]

I would take 3-9 h2h to Rafa any day

And the entire world would take 20 slams over 17. Too bad an excellent and thought provoking thread has to be derailed (for the trillioneth time) by gratuitous Fedal wars.

 

[tennisaddict]

No its not thats unrealistic he even said he was so glad he beat Nadal at AO since he got so many times before. Do you think he would feel that way if he beat Murray or Stan? LOL come on be real...

The question to be asked is whether he is willing to take 4 losses to Rafa or 2 each to Stan and Murray. The answer is obvious

 

[merlinpinpin]

Actually the question in OP asked this verbatim:

"What are some other impressive HTH records against opponents that have at least 1 slam title? "

H2H in slams is not a form of a H2H record?

It was a perfect valid answer

Nope. It's just cherry-picking, Lew-style. It's like saying Fed is 5-1 vs Nadal indoor (with his only loss coming the year he played injured). In your opinion, this is valid. I do think it's just cherry-picking by playing to Fed's strengths and Nadal's weaknesses. Selecting only part of the H2H is, by definition, cherry-picking. And it isn't the point of this thread.

 

[Pheasant]

Another one that's a bit a of a shocker to me is Agassi's 10-4 record vs Becker. If I remember correctly, Agassi figured out where Becker was serving, due to when he stuck his tongue out. I remember seeing Becker talk about how dumb-founded he was when Agassi was crushing his serves.

Becker started out 3-0 vs Agassi, then lost 10 out of the next 11 matches.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Agassi 6-0 Stich

Agassi-Korda 8-1.

 

[Red Rick]

And the entire world would take 20 slams over 17. Too bad an excellent and thought provoking thread has to be derailed (for the trillioneth time) by gratuitous Fedal wars.

I think that if they ever play each other at a Slam again, the should ditch one of the benches and force them to sit next to each other.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fed-Gonzo 13-1.

 

[MisterP]

Not really “dominant” but Goffin is 3-1 against Delpo.

 

[tennisaddict]

of the matches that already occurred, definitely he would rather it was 2 each to stan and murray. Then his h2h with rafa wud be basically even and it would be a non issue. Im 100 percent sure he would prefer that

LOL..It does not work that way..What happens if Fed had losing h2h with all 3 players or had not played other matches against Stan/Murray previously ?

Common sense dictates it is more honorable to lose to a better opponent.

 

[Deleted member 743545]

Fed-Gonzo 13-1.

Gonzo is not a GS champion mate

 

[merlinpinpin]

No youre just being reactive. Slam h2h is a known thing that is often used. I accept Nadal leads Novak 9 to 5 in slams. The "clay skew" is something that can and should be debated but we cant deny the overall numbers either.

I'm not (and I totally accept the H2H's such as they are, btw--notice I didn't mention any clay skew). I just think this is not the point of this thread. Otherwise, most of the impressive H2H's listed on the previous pages boil down to a couple of matches only (and 2-0 or 3-0 is definitely less impressive than, for example, 12-1 or 17-2).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

LOL..It does not work that way..What happens if Fed had losing h2h with all 3 players or had not played other matches against Stan/Murray previously ?

Common sense dictates it is more honorable to lose to a better opponent.

But he HAS. Why is thsi hard to grasp? You gave a hypothetical , I went with it exactly as you stated

 

[tennisaddict]

But he HAS. Why is thsi hard to grasp? You gave a hypothetical , I went with it exactly as you stated

Also @tennisaddict that is a ridiculous way of getting out of the whole h2h conundrum just being honest its an evasive tactic to try to invalidate the whole thing.

Where did i get out of the h2h ? I said it is honorable to lose to Nadal than against Stan/Murray. It does not matter to me what their prior h2h is . I look at each match individually.

 

[Lew II]

Sampras leading Courier 16-4 with 16 matches in 1991-95 is impressive.

EDIT: Pheasant already mentioned it.