When you think of longevity - do you first think time between first/last Grand Slam won, time between being #1, time between year end #1?

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
When you think of longevity - do you first think time between first/last Grand Slam won, time between being #1, time between year end #1?

For example: at the moment, Federer's first Grand Slam was 2003 Wimbledon and his last was 2018 Australian Open. Nadal's first was 2005 French Open and his last was 2019 French Open. Federer has more longevity there by two Grand Slams.

Federer first got to #1 in February 2004. He was last #1 in June 2018. 14 Years and 4 months.
Nadal first got to #1 in August 2008. He was last #1 in October 2018. 10 years and 2 months.

Federer was first year end #1 in 2004 and last in 2009.
Nadal was first year end #1 in 2008 and last in 2017.

If Nadal wins another Grand Slam after this year's US Open and Federer never does, will you think of Nadal has having more longevity in his career than Federer?
 

Jonas78

Legend
Depends on which players we are talking about.

For top players, longevity for me is for how long you are slam contender.

But i would also say Karlovic has great longevity, although he never was a slam contender.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Neither. I just think about being relevant. We talked a million times about Federer's longevity back in 14-16 when he had no slam titles or #1 ranking to his name.

Someone like David Ferrer or Dr.Ivo comes to mind just as quickly as the Big 3 when I hear the word longevity.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
If Nadal wins another Grand Slam after this year's US Open and Federer never does, will you think of Nadal has having more longevity in his career than Federer?
"More longevity" is not a meaningful concept. You've already shown in your OP, quite satisfactorily, that both Nadal and Federer have enjoyed extremely long periods of tennis success, and that there are different ways of measuring those periods. There is no god-given hierarchy of metrics. Individual records can be discussed individually.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Order for me :

How long you are a genuine contender at majors

How long you have had deep runs at majors

How long of a span you have won big titles
 

Goof

Semi-Pro
When you think of longevity - do you first think time between first/last Grand Slam won, time between being #1, time between year end #1?

For example: at the moment, Federer's first Grand Slam was 2003 Wimbledon and his last was 2018 Australian Open. Nadal's first was 2005 French Open and his last was 2019 French Open. Federer has more longevity there by two Grand Slams.

Federer first got to #1 in February 2004. He was last #1 in June 2018. 14 Years and 4 months.
Nadal first got to #1 in August 2008. He was last #1 in October 2018. 10 years and 2 months.

Federer was first year end #1 in 2004 and last in 2009.
Nadal was first year end #1 in 2008 and last in 2017.

If Nadal wins another Grand Slam after this year's US Open and Federer never does, will you think of Nadal has having more longevity in his career than Federer?
If???? LOL.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Some combination therein. Nadal has very impressive longevity. Also worth adding winning a slam every year for 10 years straight.

Not sure it's just about slams won though. Or the number 1 ranking. If Federer is world number 2 at age 45 and is still making slam finals, he will have the most impressive longevity ever, slamless as his latter years on the tour may be.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
When I think of longevity I first think of length of time. Novel a concept though that may be. Everything else is contextualized within that.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
When you think of longevity - do you first think time between first/last Grand Slam won, time between being #1, time between year end #1?

For example: at the moment, Federer's first Grand Slam was 2003 Wimbledon and his last was 2018 Australian Open. Nadal's first was 2005 French Open and his last was 2019 French Open. Federer has more longevity there by two Grand Slams.

Federer first got to #1 in February 2004. He was last #1 in June 2018. 14 Years and 4 months.
Nadal first got to #1 in August 2008. He was last #1 in October 2018. 10 years and 2 months.

Federer was first year end #1 in 2004 and last in 2009.
Nadal was first year end #1 in 2008 and last in 2017.

If Nadal wins another Grand Slam after this year's US Open and Federer never does, will you think of Nadal has having more longevity in his career than Federer?
I wouldn't go with either of those. I think those are too simple.
For example, if Del Potro comes back from knee surgery to win another slam, would we say he had better longevity than Andy Murray? Slams can be erratic. Time between first and last can be the product of an outlier instead of sustained excellence.

And if you stay at #2 for years that is extraordinary longevity without reaching #1. You don't have to reach #1 to get credit for sustained excellence.

I would say a more subjective, more lenient measure, or a combination, like years ranked in the top 5 / top 10 and years with multiple titles (not just majors).
 
Top