Which Of The Absolutely Incredible Slam Records Is The Most Likely To Be Broken In Our Lifetime?

[Neptune]

Appreciate the absolutely incredible achievements, then cast your vote. Thank you.
(By the way, if you notice any other slam records of similar magnitude, please suggest and I may add.)

Borg: 5+5 channel slams before 25th birthday
Closest next?
(Rafa 5+2)?
If we consider any two-venue combination (Pete 3WI+3UO, Fed 4WI+2AO/UO)?

Rafa: 14 RG titles (ongoing, with potential to extend)
Closest next?
(Nole 10 AO? Borg 6 RG at age 25)?

Nole: 12 slams DCGS after 31st birthday (ongoing, with potential to extend)
Closest next?
(Rafa 8 slams, 0 CGS)

Fed: 16 slams in his 20s with double-5-peat
Closest next?

 

[alexio]

Nole 12 slams

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Nadal at RG.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Borg's record probably can't ever be broken if you put age limit. Age for winning slams is going to keep increasing.

Rafa's is second most likely to stand the test of time.

Both these records are virtually unbeatable. I dare someone fool enough to challenge these records.

 

[nolefam_2024]

@Neptune should have opened the poll so we see who voted what.

 

[Neptune]

@Neptune should have opened the poll so we see who voted what.

Look like default is not open and can not edit that now?

 

[Mainad]

Nobody's breaking Nadal's 14 RGs in either our lifetimes or our grandchildren's (hypothetical in my case as I don't have any).

 

[nolefam_2024]

Look like default is not open and can not edit that now?

Yes can't edit sadly.

 

[Shaolin]

Nobody's breaking Nadal's 14 RGs in either our lifetimes or our grandchildren's (hypothetical in my case as I don't have any).

That record will stand until the sun burns out.

 

[Mainad]

That record will stand until the sun burns out.

And even afterwards.

 

[alexio]

Holger said once..i can beat it..though

 

[nolefam_2024]

Holger said once..i can beat it..though

So we found the fool already wow :O

 

[tennis3]

Sinner will beat them all. (Wait, he lost yesterday?).

I mean, Alcaraz will beat them all.

 

[Razer]

Wikipedia/UTS Warrior OP

Borg only has 3 channel slams, not 5 .... To be called a channel slam the W & FO have to be in the same year

 

[jimmy0slams]

All of them.
Alcaraz will beat 14 FO's.
He'll win more than 10 Australians...
He'll beat 24 Slams.
Id say he'll win a minimum of 30 slams - more likely 40.

 

[Sport]

Nadal at RG.

Wishful thinking.

 

[Sport]

In order of likeliness:
1. Borg.
2. Djokovic.
3. Nadal.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sinner will beat them all. (Wait, he lost yesterday?).

I mean, Alcaraz will beat them all.

How will even alcaraz beat the Borg one? He would be 21 before next rg. Impossible unless RG 2028 gets pushed to march.

 

[nolefam_2024]

In order of likeliness:
1. Borg.
2. Djokovic.
3. Nadal.

Brother how in the hell is Borg's record even breakable. There is age limit.

 

[Pheasant]

Of these three, the toughest ones are:
1. 5 FO and 5 Wimbledon titles before one's 25th birthday. That is simply so absurd for ANY era. Nobody is close in the Open Era. 5+5 FO/Wimby combo is pretty darn good for a career; even in this era of players lasting forever. 5+5 before turning 25 is truly unbreakable.

2. 14 slam titles at a single slam event is remarkable. I could see in a perfect world where this gets broken. For example, somebody like Federer at Wimbledon that peaks earlier, lasts forever, somehow has nerves of steel, but doesn't have two monsters named Nadal and Djoker in the way. This is still a longshot big time.

3. 12 slam titles after 31st birthday is still a record for the ages. This still likely won't be broken. But I have a feeling that as medicine continues to get better, we'll see guys with a 10-12 year peak at sometime. My personal trainer has filled me in on a few of the supplements he's taking that are mind-blowing. I've already seen how much weight he cut while bulking up during the 5 months that we've hired him. I can only imagine what rich athletes have access to.

Don't get me wrong. I don't expect any of these records to be broken in my lifetime. I'm simply listing in order what I believe are the most unbreakable ones.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Borg's record probably can't ever be broken if you put age limit. Age for winning slams is going to keep increasing.

Rafa's is second most likely to stand the test of time.

Both these records are virtually unbeatable. I dare someone fool enough to challenge these records.

Nadal's is the one that nobody will break.

Brog it depends on the age factor yeah, I don't see anyone doing it at that age, but overall it might be possible with the homogenization of surfaces.

Djokovic would have done it without Nadal around and Federer maybe too.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Of these three, the toughest ones are:
1. 5 FO and 5 Wimbledon titles before one's 25th birthday. That is simply so absurd for ANY era. Nobody is close in the Open Era. 5+5 FO/Wimby combo is pretty darn good for a career; even in this era of players lasting forever. 5+5 before turning 25 is truly unbreakable.

2. 14 slam titles at a single slam event is remarkable. I could see in a perfect world where this gets broken. For example, somebody like Federer at Wimbledon that peaks earlier, lasts forever, somehow has nerves of steel, but doesn't have two monsters named Nadal and Djoker in the way. This is still a longshot big time.

3. 12 slam titles after 31st birthday is still a record for the ages. This still likely won't be broken. But I have a feeling that as medicine continues to get better, we'll see guys with a 10-12 year peak at sometime. My personal trainer has filled me in on a few of the supplements he's taking that are mind-blowing. I've already seen how much weight he cut while bulking up during the 5 months that we've hired him. I can only imagine what rich athletes have access to.

Don't get me wrong. I don't expect any of these records to be broken in my lifetime. I'm simply listing in order what I believe are the most unbreakable ones.

You are 100% right.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal's is the one that nobody will break.

Brog it depends on the age factor yeah, I don't see anyone doing it at that age, but overall it might be possible with the homogenization of surfaces.

Djokovic would have done it without Nadal around and Federer maybe too.

Yes if you remove the age criteria, then Borg's might be the easiest of the 3.

 

[junior74]

* Beating ATP world #1 in your first three slam finals (Stanley Waronka)

 

[NoleFam]

Probably none tbh. No one will ever do what Nadal has done. It's just a very rare occurence and won't happen again. So if I had to pick it would be between Borg's and Djokovic's.

As for amount of Slams before 25, Nadal had what...9, almost (short by 2 days) 10 Slams before 25? Just seeing someone winning 5 of each at RG and Wimbledon before 25 is absurd. On the women's side, Graf had 6+7 but that was for her entire career. She had 3+5 before 25. No man came as close as her.

As for Djokovic winning 12 Slams and a double career Slam after 31, again no man is close. Serena got the double career Slam after 31 but only 8 Slams. So maybe a toss up between Borg and Djokovic's, or maybe lean Djokovic's as the most possible with no possibility of Nadal's happening.

 

[Neptune]

Wikipedia/UTS Warrior OP

Borg only has 3 channel slams, not 5 .... To be called a channel slam the W & FO have to be in the same year

Is the truth hurting your propaganda?

 

[FlyingSaucer]

When Alcaraz becomes the youngest to achieve the CGS you can add it here.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Also, if you're using age achievements, you can also have Federer here -- 16 slams in his 20s with four W+USO doubles and 10 consecutive slam finals.

 

[RaulRamirez]

All are quite impressive, of course.
If you count pre-Open Era as well, it's hard to imagine anyone breaking Laver's two (calendar year) Grand Slams. Even breaking one, and achieving two will be quite difficult.

I still think Rafa's 14...and counting?...RG titles is hardest to break otherwise, but the age requirement puts Borg's and Novak's close to unbreakable. As players appear to be peaking a little later now, Novak's may be the most breakable of the three. (Shapovalov's Amazing Act II? Joking.)

 

[Neptune]

Also, if you're using age achievements, you can also have Federer here -- 16 slams in his 20s with four W+USO doubles and 10 consecutive slam finals.

Good call, how about I add:
Fed: 16 slams in his 20s with double-5-peat

 

[mental midget]

Nobody's breaking Nadal's 14 RGs in either our lifetimes or our grandchildren's (hypothetical in my case as I don't have any).

that's my vote, and by a substantial margin. i could see a phenom storm onto the tour and match borg's feat, and if they stay healthy and the stars align, challenge that novak number...but 14RG is absolutely bonkers, bonkers i say. i have zero expectation of anyone ever getting past that.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If you include age factor for Borg, then it will not be broken, especially not if we specify FO/Wimbledon (Fed had 5/5 at W/USO but he was already 27 and those surfaces play way more similar). Even if it was broken, homogenisation of surfaces will make it less impressive. Nadal's 14 will also not be broken in our lifetimes, but at least Novak could have come in (distant) striking distance at the AO. Novak's 12 after age 30 is of course insane, but I think due to age shift, players winning slams after 30 will become more commun than in their early 20s going forward so gun at my head, this will be broken earlier than Borg.

 

[Neptune]

Each of the next closest options is quite far away, don't you agree?

 

[BeatlesFan]

All of them.
Alcaraz will beat 14 FO's.
He'll win more than 10 Australians...
He'll beat 24 Slams.
Id say he'll win a minimum of 30 slams - more likely 40.

 

[Thundergod]

A lot of these are too specific, but if you take out the other conditions, then 16 slams in your 20s is probably most likely followed by 12 after age 31.

 

[jimmy0slams]

!!

 

[TripleATeam]

Two of these are much harder than the others. Borg's and Nadal's.

With the age stipulation of before 25 winning 5 RG and 5 WIM, the chances are slim for anyone to match it, let alone exceed.

Assuming first chance at a title (however slim) is 17, last chance is 24. That gives 8 chances total to win 6, and let's mention that these days winning at 17 seems impossible in the ATP, so we're more realistically looking at 6/7 or 6/6. Nadal didn't win his first RG until 19, and he was a teenage phenom. These days the game is moving upward in age. I wouldn't put it past a particularly well developed teenager, but then they don't just need 6/7 RG titles. They also need the same at Wimbledon. The chances a man that young takes 12/14 chances at those specific slams is very low.

As for Nadal's record of 14 at one slam, it's also seemingly unbreakable, especially now. It would take a career longer than 15 years and winning almost every single edition of a slam. That's ages 19-33 of winning every edition, or 18-37 winning 80% of them. However, this doesn't say 14 slams by age 37, which I would easily say is the hardest. It says 14 in a slam total.

20 years ago we couldn't predict athletes would be pushing 40 and still be competitive at the top level. 30 was already old, and 35 was ancient. Who's to say a similar thing can't happen with 45? Or 50? If we continue to push how long these careers last, we may see someone of exceptional talent win more than 14 at one slam, but I don't expect it in my lifetime, nor will it be as impressive as having a 95%+ winrate at a slam.