Total slam count minus AO titles

D

dominikk1985

Legend
Since the AO have not always been rated as high like today I think it would be a fair assesment to only look at the slam Count at the other slams.

1. federer 13
1. nadal 13
3. sampras 12
4. borg 11
5. Tilden 10


this is not to say that nadal should be ranked equally with fed. they both played in the same era so when comparing them the AO should Count (they were a "full slam" by the late 90s- the last Superstars skipping them were Agassi and sampras).

however when we compare to non australians of the past I think removing the AO is a more fair assesment and it brings the Rankings much closer together.

by that Standard fed is still the GOAT but sampras and borg are both pretty Close, especially when you consider borgs early retirement.
 
RG has not always been highly regarded either, and is still considered 3-4. Slam count without RG?


All due respect, this is a stupid semantical hypothetical thing to debate.
 
Well, that would only make sense when you compare Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic with Borg for example.

It doesn't make sense to discount AO titles when we compare Sampras, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic vs each other, since AO is being played normally today by all four players.
 
Yeah this is a pretty pointless scenario, you can't compare because it's different mentalities. Today's era does include the AO; if it didn't, than who's to say players like Federer wouldn't have focused more on the other a Slams and won more there. The desire would have been higher and players would be more focused because there would only be 3 slams a year.
 
FO, W and USO have always been considered slams (open era) and AO not.

In the 70s and early 80s W, FO, USO, Rome and Davis Cup were the biggest things you could win. People didn't bother with AO because it was too far away and low prize money.
 
You cannot just deduct slams like this, it does not work that way. Typical fedal conspiracy to undermine Djokovic.

Disgusting:mad:

Unbelievable:mad:
 
OP, this is a fair thread from the POV of older players. Shows how close they are.

Perhaps Fedal are not as different as we make out to be
 
tennisaddict said:
OP, this is a fair thread from the POV of older players. Shows how close they are.

Perhaps Fedal are not as different as we make out to be
Click to expand...

It's only reasonable (remotely) when bringing older players into comparison. It is utterly pointless when comparing players who have played during a time when the AO has been well established as a major tournament on equal footing with SW19, RG and the USO.
 
dominikk1985 said:
Since the AO have not always been rated as high like today I think it would be a fair assesment to only look at the slam Count at the other slams.

1. federer 13
1. nadal 13
3. sampras 12
4. borg 11
5. Tilden 10


this is not to say that nadal should be ranked equally with fed. they both played in the same era so when comparing them the AO should Count (they were a "full slam" by the late 90s- the last Superstars skipping them were Agassi and sampras).

however when we compare to non australians of the past I think removing the AO is a more fair assesment and it brings the Rankings much closer together.

by that Standard fed is still the GOAT but sampras and borg are both pretty Close, especially when you consider borgs early retirement.
Click to expand...

But, how is it fair to the players who played when the AO truly mattered and was truly on par with the other Slams?

And, as someone else pointed out, the FO wasn't always in the realm of the other Slams, there was a period when it lagged behind. So, staying true to OP's questionable theory, shouldn't we take away all FO titles as well and just add up everyone's Wimbledon and USO titles.
 
Last edited:
Taking the three most successful slams for each player would be a more sensible way if one wanted to compare with older players, but I have a feeling this isn't meant to be sensible :)
 
Sysyphus said:
Taking the three most successful slams for each player would be a more sensible way if one wanted to compare with older players, but I have a feeling this isn't meant to be sensible :)
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that it's quite stupid to count number of slams won to see who the GOAT is when players who played in the 70s and early 80s only had 3 slams (Rome was the fourth biggest tournament).

At the same time, it's not really fair to disregard AO either because modern players do see it as a slam.
 
m2nk2 said:
I think the idea is that it's quite stupid to count number of slams won to see who the GOAT is when players who played in the 70s and early 80s only had 3 slams (Rome was the fourth biggest tournament).

At the same time, it's not really fair to disregard AO either because modern players do see it as a slam.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

Comparing contemporary players with those of olden days is not sensible.
 
French Open wasn't highly regarded, either, so if disregard that, too, and count just the two most historically important Slams:

Federer: 12
Sampras: 12
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 3
 
Sysyphus said:
You cannot just deduct slams like this, it does not work that way. Typical fedal conspiracy to undermine Djokovic.

Disgusting:mad:

Unbelievable:mad:
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Sysyphus said:
Taking the three most successful slams for each player would be a more sensible way if one wanted to compare with older players, but I have a feeling this isn't meant to be sensible :)
Click to expand...

C'mon , don't be a spoilsport.

Don't we all need some dose of fun daily ?
 
Russeljones said:
It's only reasonable (remotely) when bringing older players into comparison. It is utterly pointless when comparing players who have played during a time when the AO has been well established as a major tournament on equal footing with SW19, RG and the USO.
Click to expand...

Agree for the most part.

This is meaningless when comparing current players.

However I also feel Fed and Sampras give more effort for Wimbledon and Rafa for FO. So, I see some rationale in taking out AO when comparing Fedal with older players.
 
Michael88 said:
French Open wasn't highly regarded, either, so if disregard that, too, and count just the two most historically important Slams:

Federer: 12
Sampras: 12
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 3
Click to expand...

FO was as highly regarded as it is now... Where do you come up with this stuff?
 
I think a fair comparison would be to take the 4-5 most important tournaments of each "generation" and to sum up the titles. So to include AO now and exlude it before 1990 for something more important?
 
If we wanted to account for the fact that the AO wasn't typically played by top players in the 70s and 80s, that doesn't mean we should discount players who won the AO today. That drops Djokovic out of the comparison. Rather, we should scale back results by 3/4 or 0.75

Federer: 17 x 0.75 = 12.75
Nadal, Sampras: 14 x 0.75 = 10.5
Djokovic: 8 x 0.75 = 6
 
Michael88 said:
French Open wasn't highly regarded, either, so if disregard that, too, and count just the two most historically important Slams:

Federer: 12
Sampras: 12
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 3
Click to expand...

Fo always been important ever heard of borg winning 6RG but skipping AO ? Rg always been up there with wimbledon and USO was less important... only for americans maybe back then clay wasnt first priority... even most successful american players arent really american...

Agassi... iranian-armenian
Sampras.. greek
Chang... chinese...
 
The_Mental_Giant said:
Fo always been important ever heard of borg winning 6RG but skipping AO ? Rg always been up there with wimbledon and USO was less important... only for americans maybe back then clay wasnt first priority... even most successful american players arent really american...

Agassi... iranian-armenian
Sampras.. greek
Chang... chinese...
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "real American" (except for Native Americans)...
 
The_Mental_Giant said:
Fo always been important ever heard of borg winning 6RG but skipping AO ? Rg always been up there with wimbledon and USO was less important... only for americans maybe back then clay wasnt first priority... even most successful american players arent really american...

Agassi... iranian-armenian
Sampras.. greek
Chang... chinese...
Click to expand...

Woe, I guess Ireland will be only too happy to claim Connors and McEnroe! :)

But what about Arthur Ashe and the Williams sisters? :wink:
 
The_Mental_Giant said:
Fo always been important ever heard of borg winning 6RG but skipping AO ? Rg always been up there with wimbledon and USO was less important... only for americans maybe back then clay wasnt first priority... even most successful american players arent really american...

Agassi... iranian-armenian
Sampras.. greek
Chang... chinese...
Click to expand...

They're all born in US...

Also, Chang is born in US and his parents are from Taiwan. I'm not sure how that makes him Chinese.
 
Last edited:
dominikk1985 said:
Since the AO have not always been rated as high like today I think it would be a fair assesment to only look at the slam Count at the other slams.

1. federer 13
1. nadal 13
3. sampras 12
4. borg 11
5. Tilden 10


this is not to say that nadal should be ranked equally with fed. they both played in the same era so when comparing them the AO should Count (they were a "full slam" by the late 90s- the last Superstars skipping them were Agassi and sampras).

however when we compare to non australians of the past I think removing the AO is a more fair assesment and it brings the Rankings much closer together.

by that Standard fed is still the GOAT but sampras and borg are both pretty Close, especially when you consider borgs early retirement.
Click to expand...

When you compare between Federer, Nadal and Sampras you can't remove the AO because these 3 players have competed there. However if you compare any of these 3 players to Borg than yes, you can remove the AO because Borg didn't compete there.
 
TMF said:
When you compare between Federer, Nadal and Sampras you can't remove the AO because these 3 players have competed there. However if you compare any of these 3 players to Borg than yes, you can remove the AO because Borg didn't compete there.
Click to expand...

He did once, but AO wasn't a very big tournament back in the 70s and early 80s so the top players rarely played there.
 
Tennisknowledge99 said:
70s - 80s scenario: Yes, and you should add the WTF titles, it was considered one of the majors in old era

Current era: No.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, especially for Wimbledon champions who weren't competing at the Aussie. Connors and McEnroe have minimum 2-4 more in Australia.
 
m2nk2 said:
They're all born in US...

Also, Chang is born in US and his parents are from Taiwan. I'm not sure how that makes him Chinese.
Click to expand...

Taiwan is the Republic of China, the island where the anti-communists fled in the 1940s. So ethnically that's Chinese. However America is a nation of immigrants after 90% of the native population died due to an epidemic sometime in the 1500s.

American is American born. Like here in Canada.
 
jg153040 said:
Well, that would only make sense when you compare Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic with Borg for example.

It doesn't make sense to discount AO titles when we compare Sampras, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic vs each other, since AO is being played normally today by all four players.
Click to expand...

I adressed that in my post. I agree about novak, nadal and fed, however not so sure I agree about sampras.

sampras has skipped the AO 3 times and probably did not take it as seriously as today's players do. and 4 time winner andre agassi even completely skipped the tournament every year until 95.

since the late 90s you are right but sampras and agassi might have 1-2 more AO titles had they played there more earlier.
 
Tiger8 said:
Yeah this is a pretty pointless scenario, you can't compare because it's different mentalities. Today's era does include the AO; if it didn't, than who's to say players like Federer wouldn't have focused more on the other a Slams and won more there. The desire would have been higher and players would be more focused because there would only be 3 slams a year.
Click to expand...

that is true, however that could be also said about the players of the past. those guys played way more tournaments and matches, they probably would have won more slams and have longer careers if they had "easy schedules" like today's pros (who are whining all the time about the big load despite playing maybe 50% of the matches of guys like connors or mac- including doubles and show matches).
 
dominikk1985 said:
Since the AO have not always been rated as high like today I think it would be a fair assesment to only look at the slam Count at the other slams.

1. federer 13
1. nadal 13
3. sampras 12
4. borg 11
5. Tilden 10


this is not to say that nadal should be ranked equally with fed. they both played in the same era so when comparing them the AO should Count (they were a "full slam" by the late 90s- the last Superstars skipping them were Agassi and sampras).

however when we compare to non australians of the past I think removing the AO is a more fair assesment and it brings the Rankings much closer together.

by that Standard fed is still the GOAT but sampras and borg are both pretty Close, especially when you consider borgs early retirement.
Click to expand...

See my tagline...meaningless thread.
 
Michael88 said:
French Open wasn't highly regarded, either, so if disregard that, too, and count just the two most historically important Slams:

Federer: 12
Sampras: 12
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 3
Click to expand...

I think that is a myth, borg was probably more famous for his RG titles than for his wimbledon titles. but if you want you can do that of course, your way still shows that it is much closer than it looks now.
 
In the last 20 years, all slams have equal value. Therefore subtracting one slam makes no sense. It would have worked before the 1990s.
 
Three most successful slams + Cincy and Halle

Federer: 29

Nadal: 14

Djokovic: 8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

travlerajm
Let’s face it…
Replies
31
Views
2K
RS
RS
L
GOATS not including AO
Replies
11
Views
2K
Kim
K
terribleIVAN
Since fixed draws at Slams is a fact, does the Slam race still count in GOAT discussions ?
Replies
6
Views
605
UnderratedSlam
UnderratedSlam
BGod
The Big 3 holding the Slam Count at their best Slam?
Replies
3
Views
509
DSH
DSH
T
  • Locked
Slam Count: Federer overtake Sampras vs. Djokodal overtake Federer
Replies
5
Views
969
Vanilla Slice
Vanilla Slice
Back
Top