Which of these would be considered the greater player?

[thomasferrett]

Player A: wins 1 Slam in his career, 0 other titles, never reaches past the 3rd round of any other Slam apart from the one he won, has a peak ranking of world number 9.

Player B: plays in the same era as player A, reaches 60 consecutive Slam finals (but loses them all), wins 135 consecutive Master's titles, wins 15 ATP world finals, ends the year number 1 for 15 consecutive years.

Would that solitary Slam win of player A overpower all of player B's achievements?

 

[ADuck]

Lol

 

[daddy]

Is this the prank where I am to fall thru the floor when I hit reply ?

 

[RaulRamirez]

Player A: wins 1 Slam in his career, 0 other titles, never reaches past the 3rd round of any other Slam apart from the one he won, has a peak ranking of world number 9.

Player B: plays in the same era as player A, reaches 60 consecutive Slam finals (but loses them all), wins 135 consecutive Master's titles, wins 15 ATP world finals, ends the year number 1 for 15 consecutive years.

Would that solitary Slam win of player A overpower all of player B's achievements?

Exaggerating to make a point? Even without that extreme example, I get your point: # of majors (slams) won is not everything.

 

[Atennisone]

Player A

 

[Lew II]

Player B: plays in the same era as player A, reaches 60 consecutive Slam finals (but loses them all), wins 135 consecutive Master's titles, wins 15 ATP world finals, ends the year number 1 for 15 consecutive years.

Zverev, is that you?

 

[sanak]

Better player: B
Greater player: A

Nice attempt to diminish Majors

 

[Atennisone]

Zverev, is that you?

He can't reach finals

 

[Sport]

Player A, of course. 1>>>> 0.

Player B is a pathetic loser in the big stage. Also, your scenario is ridiculous even if hypothetical. Hypothetical scenarios must be plausible as well. No player is going to reach 60 Grand Slam finals ever, let alone losing all of them.

The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams.

1 >>> 0.

 

[tennis_pro]

Gaudio > Nalbandian/Davydenko/Ferrer OBVIOUSLY

 

[HashDump]

Where is option player Federer?

 

[TahoeTennis]

what do you think

 

[Sport]

Who is greater?:

Player A: 10 Grand Slams, 2 Masters 1000 (22000 ATP points).

Player B: 1 Grand Slam, 21 Masters 1000 (23000 ATP points).


Who is greater? Player A of course, since 10 >>> 1.

The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are tie-breakers, if and only if, two players are tied in Grand Slams.

 

[duaneeo]

If Player B hadn't reached all of those slam finals, many here would say Player A.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Player A, of course. 1>>>> 0.

Player B is a pathetic loser in the big stage. Also, your scenario is ridiculous even if hypothetical. Hypothetical scenarios must be plausible as well. No player is going to reach 60 Grand Slam finals ever, let alone losing all of them.

The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Grand Slams.

1 >>> 0.

I respect your opinion, but I also think it is a little extreme, and rigid.
Yes, number of "slams" is the single greatest factor, but I don't regard everything else (1000s, WTFs, other tourney wins, win percentage at majors and other big tourneys, etc. as simply tiebreakers. So, there are definitely cases where I would rank players with a lesser amount of slams as greater than others ahead in the list. For example, I'm not the biggest Andy Murray fan on this forum, but I would rank his career (3 slams) ahead of Courier and Vilas (4) and probably Newcombe (5) - and would think about Wilander (7), though probably go with Mats.

I don't think we'll solve this, though - just different ways at looking at it.

 

[Rabe87]

Player A: wins 1 Slam in his career, 0 other titles, never reaches past the 3rd round of any other Slam apart from the one he won, has a peak ranking of world number 9.

Player B: plays in the same era as player A, reaches 60 consecutive Slam finals (but loses them all), wins 135 consecutive Master's titles, wins 15 ATP world finals, ends the year number 1 for 15 consecutive years.

Would that solitary Slam win of player A overpower all of player B's achievements?

Player B