What will the final Slam record won by 1 male professional be?

Max no of Slams won by 1 guy

  • 16-17

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • 18-19

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • 20-21

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • 22-23

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • More than 23

    Votes: 9 24.3%

  • Total voters
    37

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
The final record of Slams won by 1 male professional player

I was thinking 40 Slams sounds absurd as it would mean every Slam won for 10 consecutive years which is about an average pro players time spend on the circuit. What do you think the highest number of Slams will end at in the future?
 
Last edited:

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
How far into the future are we going? Open era has been going for 43 years, what will happen in the next 300 years, who knows. Some aspect of the game relevant to slam # may change in 40 years. Introduction of a 5th slam perhaps. Maybe in 50 years the collapse of oil economy and skyrocketing prices will bringing an end to affordable international air travel for lower ranked pros?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
^ha... this is what you drink before posting!!!!

la-meme-large-57kb.jpg
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I personally think that it's gonna be more and more difficult to dominate in the future, thus IMO if Nadal doesn't break Federer's Slam record I don't see anyone breaking it anytime soon.

Guess I had simmilar feelings when Sampras retired in 2002...
 

Joe Pike

Banned
I was thinking 40 Slams sounds absurd as it would mean every Slam won for 10 consecutive years which is about an average pro players time spend on the circuit. What do you think the highest number of Slams will end at in the future?


We will have someone with 20 or more slams one day.
Why not?
 
W

woodrow1029

Guest
I thought we had already established that Djokovic would win at least 47
 
(hypothetically) if it wasn't for nadal, it's arguable that federer would have 6 more slams than he does now. that would make 22 majors total, including 2 Grand Slams (in 2006 and 2007), which in itself is crazy impressive and probably unbeatable.

having said that, i don't see why it's impossible for someone to get 23-25 slams in a career, though it is very unlikely and i personally don't see it happening.

and i honestly don't think we've seen the last of federer. he may not be as impressive as he was before, but he's still one of the most dangerous players on the tour. i could see him winning another Wimbledon, US, or Australian.
 
Last edited:

billnepill

Hall of Fame
We don't have a clue which the real slams are, so you have to ask Sureshs about that..

The record could be 50 + by now .
 
I think in the future there will be less multi slam winners because the competition is getting tougher.

Usually extreme dominance means weak era.

for example during rafas clay dominance there were no real good clay courters. and during feds dominance there were no great fast courters (only some semi good like roddick and hewitt).

does that mean rafa and roger are not great? hell no they are likely the best players to ever walk on this planet today.

but if one guy wins the french open a gazillion times that is not a good sign for the competition.

and tennis is going to become even more professional and future players will have a harder time dominating.
 

ananda

Semi-Pro
We don't have a clue which the real slams are, so you have to ask Sureshs about that..

The record could be 50 + by now .
ROFL !

Slam count does not matter, Bill. It's all about H2H. Who will have the highest head to head against another player. Currently the record is Nadal with 15-8 or something like that.:)
 

ananda

Semi-Pro
Umm sorry, I think Davydenko is GOAT. :)
When you mention Davydenko's H2H against Nadal, THEN and only THEN are other factors taken into account. Such as they were not on clay, ND is lower ranked than Nadal, whereas Federer was higher ranked, ND has never won a slam etc etc.

However, if you dare trying refuting the 15-8 by saying that Nadal never reached many finals, or they are largely clay, see what you get:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=376718&page=2

Excuses really don't matter. The H2H speaks for itself. Facts cannot be changed.

It only matters when they played each other. Why they did not play each other is not the point.

So basically, Nadal is really the GOAT. Accept the facts. Excuses don't really matter.
 
Top