Who is the man with the most majors

[timnz]

I say majors not slams. Because as we know, every slam is a major but not every major is a slam. So who holds the record?

For sake of argument I am going to include World Pro tour victories as majors, Late 1950's Tournament of Champions (in LA and Forest hills) as majors, Wimbledon Pro (1967) as a major, World Pro Championship in Berlin (1932 and 1933) and the traditional Pro Slams as majors (Wembley, French Pro, US Pro). Added to this is the majors from 1912 to 1923 - the World Hardcourt Championship and the World Covered Court championship (regardless of what you think of the depth of its field - it still was an official ILTF world championship). Why have I regarded them as majors? Because of the reason that at the time the tournaments were played they were regarded as major titles (even if they have faded with time).

In the disputable but possible majors category - we have:

- Australian Pro - 1954 to 1966 - Rosewall won 3 times, Laver 4 times

- Forest Hills Pro - 1966 - Laver won

- Masters Pro in Los Angeles - 1957 to 1965 - Gonzales won twice, Rosewall and Laver won once each

- Madison Square Garden Pro - 1954 & 1966 to 1967 - Gonzales won once (1954), Laver and Rosewall won once each (1967 and 1966 respectively)

- Philadelphia Indoor Pro - 1950 to 1952 - Gonzales won it twice.

- Tennis Champions Classic - 1970 & 1971 - Laver won both of these.

So this is how the record goes:

Gonzales - 24 majors (2 Amateur Slams + 12 Pro Slams + 3 Tournament of Champions + 7 World Pro tours). In the disputable major category (See above) Gonzales won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Rosewall - 24 majors (4 Amateur Slams + 15 Pro Slams + 1 World Pro tour (1963) + 4 Open era Slams). In the disputable major category (See above) Rosewall won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Laver - 19 majors (6 Amateur Slams + 7 Pro Slams + Wimbledon Pro (1967) + 5 Open era slams = 19). In the disputable major category (See above) Laver won an additional 9 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 28.

Federer - 17 Open era slams

Sampras - 14 Open era slams

Bill Tilden - 14 (10 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hard Court Championship + 3 Pro Slams (1 of these is disputed though - French Pro 1934)

Don Budge - 14 (6 Amateur Slams) + 4 Pro Slams + 4 World Pro tours)

Rafael Nadal 13 - Open era Majors (some may feel free to include the Olympics - I personally don't think so. If the WTF isn't included the Olympics surely should not).

Borg - 11 Open era slams

Henri Cochet - 11 (7 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hardcourt Championship + 2 World Covered Court Championship + 1 Pro Slam)

 

[McLovin]

You seem to be missing someone in between Sampras/Tilden and Borg...

In addition, you should probably count the Olympics as well, which would put that missing person on par w/ Sampras and Tilden.

 

[timnz]

Thanks

You seem to be missing someone in between Sampras/Tilden and Borg...

In addition, you should probably count the Olympics as well, which would put that missing person on par w/ Sampras and Tilden.

Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. Feel free to add in the Olympics to the total - I personally don't think so....but everybody has there own opinion

 

[90's Clay]

Most people don't look at the ridiculous major counts that Rosewall and Pancho have or they have no clue of what they truly achieved .. Obviously since what Tennis Channel had Pancho out of the top 10? ROFLMAO. And was Rosewall even in the top 5 ever?

 

[NatF]

I think it's suspect including the amateur slams, like can Rosewall's 4 amateur slams really be counted as majors when the best players were in the pro ranks? Surely there weren't 8 majors a year during this period - 4 amateur slams, 3 pro slams + World pro tours etc...

How do you define a major?

Titles like the YEC and WCT should count as majors IMO. Especially when the Australian Open was less important at the beginning of the Open Era.

 

[timnz]

Adding in Prestigious non-majors

There is a number of tournaments along with the 4 disputable major tournaments that I have listed earlier that could be included in the count like Season end finals (Masters Cup, WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup (say all you like about that tournament - I saw most of them - and the players were trying very hard to win and best of 5 sets semi's and finals). And with the Olympics coming on in terms of prestige (since 2008 especially) - it can be included too. This is redefining it to a list of 'prestigious tournaments' away from being simply a list of Majors.

So including the 6 disputed majors - if not majors then prestigious tournament wins (Forest Hills Pro, Masters Pro in LA, Madison Square Garden Pro, Philadelphia Pro, Tennis Champions Classic and Australian Pro) + the season end finals + Olympics - the final total of prestigious tournament wins come to:

31 Rosewall (including his 2 WCT finals)

29 Gonzales

28 Laver

23 Federer (with his 6 Masters Cups)

21 Sampras (with his 5 Masters Cups + 2 Grand Slam Cups)

15 Lendl (with his 5 Masters Cups + 2 WCT Finals)

15 McEnroe (with is 3 Masters Cups + 5 WCT Finals)

14 Borg (with his 2 Masters Cups and 1 WCT Final)

14 Tilden

14 Budge

14 Nadal (with his Olympics)

11 Cochet

11 Connors (with his 1 Masters Cup + 2 WCT Finals)

 

[timnz]

Take your point

I think it's suspect including the amateur slams, like can Rosewall's 4 amateur slams really be counted as majors when the best players were in the pro ranks? Surely there weren't 8 majors a year during this period - 4 amateur slams, 3 pro slams + World pro tours etc...

How do you define a major?

Titles like the YEC and WCT should count as majors IMO. Especially when the Australian Open was less important at the beginning of the Open Era.

Take your point here. However, people still still Amateur slams as majors - so I will include them here. See my new post where I total prestigious tournaments which included the season end finals you mention. Boy Rosewall with 31 Prestigious tournament wins!! Amazing.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

What should be included is the number of majors these players missed/weren't able to compete in.

 

[NatF]

Take your point here. However, people still still Amateur slams as majors - so I will include them here. See my new post where I total prestigious tournaments which included the season end finals you mention. Boy Rosewall with 31 Prestigious tournament wins!! Amazing.

31 prestigious tournaments is indeed incredible. Were any of the old masters equivalents considered majors? Miami used to be thought as the 5th major didn't it? I remember an interview with Borg where he states Rome is one of the big ones also.

 

[Chanwan]

Take your point here. However, people still still Amateur slams as majors - so I will include them here. See my new post where I total prestigious tournaments which included the season end finals you mention. Boy Rosewall with 31 Prestigious tournament wins!! Amazing.

Still, isn't it a problem that you then have 8 majors (or more?) a year for certain years? And 6 for many (90's with the Grand Slam Cup for example) and then only 5 for the 00's and onward (except for Olympic years).

That makes any meaningful comparison very, very hard.

 

[DMP]

I like your post. I know the 'buts' it will bring from those who don't get it, but I do. FWIW I think your post shows
1) for goat discussions there should be a difficulty factor for CYGS, and one for a Channel double
2) also for goat discussions Open era majors should be considered about 30% harder than for pre-Open majors (which interestingly aligns with Fantasio's posted stats on the likelihood of upsets with more rounds.
3) however you cut it Rosewall and Gonzales are at the top end of any tally of major competions won in a career. Which is why both are always in any sensibe discussion.

All of which we know to be true

 

[timnz]

Only 4 a year available to each player

Still, isn't it a problem that you then have 8 majors (or more?) a year for certain years? And 6 for many (90's with the Grand Slam Cup for example) and then only 5 for the 00's and onward (except for Olympic years).

That makes any meaningful comparison very, very hard.

There may have been around 8 majors a year....but remember any one player could only compete in around 4 of them. If a player was an amateur then they couldn't compete in the pro's and vice versa. In the Pro's they had the 3 Pro Slams and usually in any one year another event that was deemed of major status eg Tournament of Champions in the late 50's or Pro Wimbledon in 1967 etc. Hence, players could only accumulate 4 or maximum 5 or so a year.

 

[timnz]

I like your post. I know the 'buts' it will bring from those who don't get it, but I do. FWIW I think your post shows
1) for goat discussions there should be a difficulty factor for CYGS, and one for a Channel double
2) also for goat discussions Open era majors should be considered about 30% harder than for pre-Open majors (which interestingly aligns with Fantasio's posted stats on the likelihood of upsets with more rounds.
3) however you cut it Rosewall and Gonzales are at the top end of any tally of major competions won in a career. Which is why both are always in any sensibe discussion.

All of which we know to be true

I liked how my post evolved from being 'majors won' to 'presitigious tournaments' won. There are two tiers here. Majors and tournaments that are still prestigious but just one tier slightly lower eg Masters Cup, WCT Finals etc. Now it is disputable which of these two categories some tournaments fall into....but it is indisputable that they fall in one or the other of these categories. Having said that Pro-Slam fields looks roughly equivalent to winning a WTF today or WCT final in the 1970's or 1980's....given that yes - maybe they only played 3 rounds - but every round was against a top quality opponent. And really when you think about 32 seed draws in the Slams - how often do the top players make it to at least the quarters of a slam - coasting in the first 4 rounds. (Yes there have been high profile exceptions of late - but that is what they are...exceptions).

 

[timnz]

So what is a list of 'prestigious tournaments'

I am looking at tournaments that are above what we would call Masters 1000's today in prestige. And I am looking at their prestige AT THE TIME THEY WERE PLAYED not now. For instance, universally it was regarded that the Berlin World Professional Championships in 1932 and 1933 were a Professional Major at the time (all the newspaper reporting of it indicates that).....but given the passing of years people have forgotten about the event. It needs to be credited as a major.

Hence, for the purposes of finding out how many 'presitigious tournaments' players have won - in the major or important tournament category.... these are the events that qualify:

Wimbledon
US Open/US Championships
French Open/French Championships (1925 onwards)
Australian Open/Australian Championships
World Hard Court Championships (1912 to 1923)
World Covered Court Championships (1913 to 1923)
French Pro
Wembley Pro
US Pro
Tennis Champions Classic (1970 and 1971)
Pro Tournament of Champions (1956 to 1959)
Pro Forest Hills (1966)
Pro Madison Square Garden (1954 & 1966 and 1967)
Bristol Cup (1920 to 1932)
World Professional Championship - Berlin (1932/1933)
Masters Cup (1970 to Present)
WCT Finals (1971 to 1989)
Grand Slam Cup (1990 to 1999)
World Professional Tour Champion (1930's to 1963)
Australian Pro (1954–1966)
Masters Pro in Los Angeles (1957–1965)
Wimbledon Pro 1967
Olympics

(Not sure about Philadelphia Indoor Pro: 1950–1952, U.S Pro Hard Courts: 1945–1946, International Pro Championship of Britain (Stockport) : 1935–1939, Professional Championship of the World: 1927–1928 - perhaps they should be included)

 

[BobbyOne]

I say majors not slams. Because as we know, every slam is a major but not every major is a slam. So who holds the record?

For sake of argument I am going to include World Pro tour victories as majors, Late 1950's Tournament of Champions (in LA and Forest hills) as majors, Wimbledon Pro (1967) as a major, World Pro Championship in Berlin (1932 and 1933) and the traditional Pro Slams as majors (Wembley, French Pro, US Pro). Added to this is the majors from 1912 to 1923 - the World Hardcourt Championship and the World Covered Court championship (regardless of what you think of the depth of its field - it still was an official ILTF world championship). Why have I regarded them as majors? Because of the reason that at the time the tournaments were played they were regarded as major titles (even if they have faded with time).

In the disputable but possible majors category - we have:

- Australian Pro - 1954 to 1966 - Rosewall won 3 times, Laver 4 times

- Forest Hills Pro - 1966 - Laver won

- Masters Pro in Los Angeles - 1957 to 1965 - Gonzales won twice, Rosewall and Laver won once each

- Madison Square Garden Pro - 1954 & 1966 to 1967 - Gonzales won once (1954), Laver and Rosewall won once each (1967 and 1966 respectively)

- Philadelphia Indoor Pro - 1950 to 1952 - Gonzales won it twice.

- Tennis Champions Classic - 1970 & 1971 - Laver won both of these.

So this is how the record goes:

Gonzales - 24 majors (2 Amateur Slams + 12 Pro Slams + 3 Tournament of Champions + 7 World Pro tours). In the disputable major category (See above) Gonzales won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Rosewall - 24 majors (4 Amateur Slams + 15 Pro Slams + 1 World Pro tour (1963) + 4 Open era Slams). Laver - 19 or 20 majors (6 Amateur Slams + 7 Pro Slams + Wimbledon Pro (1967) + 5 Open era slams = 19). In the disputable major category (See above) Rosewall won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Laver - 19 majors (6 Amateur Slams + 7 Pro Slams + Wimbledon Pro (1967) + 5 Open era slams = 19). In the disputable major category (See above) Laver won an additional 9 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 28.

Federer - 17 Open era slams

Sampras - 14 Open era slams

Bill Tilden - 14 (10 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hard Court Championship + 3 Pro Slams (1 of these is disputed though - French Pro 1934)

Don Budge - 14 (6 Amateur Slams) + 4 Pro Slams + 4 World Pro tours)

Rafael Nadal 13 - Open era Majors (some may feel free to include the Olympics - I personally don't think so. If the WTF isn't included the Olympics surely should not).

Borg - 11 Open era slams

Henri Cochet - 11 (7 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hardcourt Championship + 2 World Covered Court Championship + 1 Pro Slam)

timnz, Interesting list.

I think that Rosewall leads if we consider the "classic" majors (23) or maybe Laver if we include "almost- majors" like Wimbledon 1967, MSG, Dunlop 1970 and similary events.

 

[pc1]

There is a number of tournaments along with the 4 disputable major tournaments that I have listed earlier that could be included in the count like Season end finals (Masters Cup, WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup (say all you like about that tournament - I saw most of them - and the players were trying very hard to win and best of 5 sets semi's and finals). And with the Olympics coming on in terms of prestige (since 2008 especially) - it can be included too. This is redefining it to a list of 'prestigious tournaments' away from being simply a list of Majors.

So including the 6 disputed majors - if not majors then prestigious tournament wins (Forest Hills Pro, Masters Pro in LA, Madison Square Garden Pro, Philadelphia Pro, Tennis Champions Classic and Australian Pro) + the season end finals + Olympics - the final total of prestigious tournament wins come to:

31 Rosewall (including his 2 WCT finals)

29 Gonzales

28 Laver

23 Federer (with his 6 Masters Cups)

21 Sampras (with his 5 Masters Cups + 2 Grand Slam Cups)

15 Lendl (with his 5 Masters Cups + 2 WCT Finals)

15 McEnroe (with is 3 Masters Cups + 5 WCT Finals)

14 Borg (with his 2 Masters Cups and 1 WCT Final)

14 Tilden

14 Budge

14 Nadal (with his Olympics)

11 Cochet

11 Connors (with his 1 Masters Cup + 2 WCT Finals)

Your list is interesting and makes a lot of sense but I have a record of Borg's career and I have Borg easily in the high twenties to low thirties imo. That's very impressive considering Borg essentially retired at 25. Some tournaments were huge monetary tournaments which were extremely prestigious in the day which drew a great field which often would be superior to a field in a major.

I believe there is a huge flaw in your logic with Pancho Gonzalez. The seven major tours are clearly far more important than a major. They cannot be counted as equivalent to just one major. Let me explain my reasoning for this. A player can easily win two majors in a year and be considered the second best player for the year or perhaps even lower. For example in 1967 Roy Emerson won two majors and John Newcombe also won two majors. Newcombe was number one for the year (in the amateurs) and Emerson second. In 1973 Newcombe won two majors but Ilie Nastase, with one major won was number one in the world.

If Pancho Gonzalez won a World Pro Tour he was THE WORLD CHAMPION! There were no ifs ands or buts about it. Gonzalez based his year on winning the World Pro Tour and his secondary goal was to win perhaps Pro Majors. A player could in theory win all three Pro Majors and be ranked number two if he lost in the World Head to Head Pro Tour. A World Pro Tour was grueling, going from city to city, playing on different surfaces with often no breaks. It was far tougher to win than any mere major and it often would go on for months. You can easily make the argument winning a World Pro Tour is more important than winning several majors.


Incidentally I do think tournaments like the Italian Open should be there since it was considered by many the fifth most important tournament in the world. The 1970 Dunlop International final between Laver and Rosewall should also be there in that it was really in essence the Australian Open that year.

 

[NatF]

Your list is interesting and makes a lot of sense but I have a record of Borg's career and I have Borg easily in the high twenties to low thirties imo. That's very impressive considering Borg essentially retired at 25. Some tournaments were huge monetary tournaments which were extremely prestigious in the day which drew a great field which often would be superior to a field in a major.

I believe there is a huge flaw in your logic with Pancho Gonzalez. The seven major tours are clearly far more important than a major. They cannot be counted as equivalent to just one major. Let me explain my reasoning for this. A player can easily win two majors in a year and be considered the second best player for the year or perhaps even lower. For example in 1967 Roy Emerson won two majors and John Newcombe also won two majors. Newcombe was number one for the year (in the amateurs) and Emerson second. In 1973 Newcombe won two majors but Ilie Nastase, with one major won was number one in the world.

If Pancho Gonzalez won a World Pro Tour he was THE WORLD CHAMPION! There were no ifs ands or buts about it. Gonzalez based his year on winning the World Pro Tour and his secondary goal was to win perhaps Pro Majors. A player could in theory win all three Pro Majors and be ranked number two if he lost in the World Head to Head Pro Tour. A World Pro Tour was grueling, going from city to city, playing on different surfaces with often no breaks. It was far tougher to win than any mere major and it often would go on for months. You can easily make the argument winning a World Pro Tour is more important than winning several majors.


Incidentally I do think tournaments like the Italian Open should be there since it was considered by many the fifth most important tournament in the world. The 1970 Dunlop International final between Laver and Rosewall should also be there in that it was really in essence the Australian Open that year.

pc1, do you feel that YE #1's should count as majors as well or just the World Pro Tour? Obviously it's completely subjective how much emphasis we play on the WPT compared to Majors. But it should certainly be taken into account when looking at Gonzalez compared to his contempories. I feel out the pre open era players Gonzalez is quite possibly the greatest of the trio (including Laver and Rosewall). Certainly for peak play he seems to be ranked the highest of them maybe.

 

[urban]

All those stats and numbers remain imo somewhat questionable and arbitrary, its imo not possible to harmonize all the data and formats. The pro tour shifted from the mano a mano tours of the 1950s to a more tournament circuit since the early 60s. The pro champions of the 60s couldn't win as many pro tours, because they simply didn't play this format or played it quite seldom. I am not a special fan of the concept of isolating 3 pro majors per year either, because - unlike the four majors today -those pro championships of Wembley, US and France had no real leading up circuit built around them. In 1964 for example, Laver and Gonzalez had to play the US pro final under wet conditions, because they had a commitment in Edinburgh the day after. The US pro had weak fields around 1960, and Coubertin was often played only one week before Wembley, and so on. I think, the pro circuit of the late 50s and early 60s counts as a whole entity, with 3-5 important events with Wembley consistently preeminent, plus ca. 20 tournaments with 8-16 participants, plus individual tours with 4 players, which were still played in the 60s, plus some extra tv events.

 

[DMP]

I liked how my post evolved from being 'majors won' to 'presitigious tournaments' won. There are two tiers here. Majors and tournaments that are still prestigious but just one tier slightly lower eg Masters Cup, WCT Finals etc. Now it is disputable which of these two categories some tournaments fall into....but it is indisputable that they fall in one or the other of these categories. Having said that Pro-Slam fields looks roughly equivalent to winning a WTF today or WCT final in the 1970's or 1980's....given that yes - maybe they only played 3 rounds - but every round was against a top quality opponent. And really when you think about 32 seed draws in the Slams - how often do the top players make it to at least the quarters of a slam - coasting in the first 4 rounds. (Yes there have been high profile exceptions of late - but that is what they are...exceptions).

My comments are mainly about the tendency of some to see any stats through the lens of a 'goat' discussion, whereas as I assume you are just trying to look how many roughly equivalent competitions players have won, and which they might be.

I like those discussions because they engender interesting and informed discussion (unlike some!). However I do think there is a real problem in looking for equivalents over different eras, because the landscape has changed so much. In particular the 'branding' of the four slams has meant that they stand out more than they did in the past.

The analogy would be a mountain range with four peaks twice as high as all the others (or 30% higher than the world tour finals). In the past the height differences were less, I would say, so the highest peaks stood out less. All this makes comparisons fraught with problems.

 

[timnz]

Agreement

Your list is interesting and makes a lot of sense but I have a record of Borg's career and I have Borg easily in the high twenties to low thirties imo. That's very impressive considering Borg essentially retired at 25. Some tournaments were huge monetary tournaments which were extremely prestigious in the day which drew a great field which often would be superior to a field in a major.

I believe there is a huge flaw in your logic with Pancho Gonzalez. The seven major tours are clearly far more important than a major. They cannot be counted as equivalent to just one major. Let me explain my reasoning for this. A player can easily win two majors in a year and be considered the second best player for the year or perhaps even lower. For example in 1967 Roy Emerson won two majors and John Newcombe also won two majors. Newcombe was number one for the year (in the amateurs) and Emerson second. In 1973 Newcombe won two majors but Ilie Nastase, with one major won was number one in the world.

If Pancho Gonzalez won a World Pro Tour he was THE WORLD CHAMPION! There were no ifs ands or buts about it. Gonzalez based his year on winning the World Pro Tour and his secondary goal was to win perhaps Pro Majors. A player could in theory win all three Pro Majors and be ranked number two if he lost in the World Head to Head Pro Tour. A World Pro Tour was grueling, going from city to city, playing on different surfaces with often no breaks. It was far tougher to win than any mere major and it often would go on for months. You can easily make the argument winning a World Pro Tour is more important than winning several majors.


Incidentally I do think tournaments like the Italian Open should be there since it was considered by many the fifth most important tournament in the world. The 1970 Dunlop International final between Laver and Rosewall should also be there in that it was really in essence the Australian Open that year.

I agree with you about the World Pro tour. Strangely though, people don't even include it at all, when these kind of summations are done. I was determined to include it because it needs to be recognized. Similarly the Tennis Champions Classic won by Laver in 1970 and 1971 is nearly completely gone from people's memories - but in some ways was probably worth 2 slams each year because of the raw tennis difficulty of it. (Playing Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche in the first 3 rounds in a row in best of 5 set matches? - yes it was spread over some time - but to win 13 best of five matches in a row in 1971 (only 1 round robin loss in 1970) - talk about tough! -)

 

[BobbyOne]

I am looking at tournaments that are above what we would call Masters 1000's today in prestige. And I am looking at their prestige AT THE TIME THEY WERE PLAYED not now. For instance, universally it was regarded that the Berlin World Professional Championships in 1932 and 1933 were a Professional Major at the time (all the newspaper reporting of it indicates that).....but given the passing of years people have forgotten about the event. It needs to be credited as a major.

Hence, for the purposes of finding out how many 'presitigious tournaments' players have won - in the major or important tournament category.... these are the events that qualify:

Wimbledon
US Open/US Championships
French Open/French Championships (1925 onwards)
Australian Open/Australian Championships
World Hard Court Championships (1912 to 1923)
World Covered Court Championships (1913 to 1923)
French Pro
Wembley Pro
US Pro
Tennis Champions Classic (1970 and 1971)
Pro Tournament of Champions (1956 to 1959)
Pro Forest Hills (1966)
Pro Madison Square Garden (1954 & 1966 and 1967)
Bristol Cup (1920 to 1932)
World Professional Championship - Berlin (1932/1933)
Masters Cup (1970 to Present)
WCT Finals (1971 to 1989)
Grand Slam Cup (1990 to 1999)
World Professional Tour Champion (1930's to 1963)
Australian Pro (1954–1966)
Masters Pro in Los Angeles (1957–1965)
Wimbledon Pro 1967
Olympics

(Not sure about Philadelphia Indoor Pro: 1950–1952, U.S Pro Hard Courts: 1945–1946, International Pro Championship of Britain (Stockport) : 1935–1939, Professional Championship of the World: 1927–1928 - perhaps they should be included)

timnz, The British Pro Championships were played at Southport. The Professional Championship of the world was held also in 1933, 1934 and 1936.

 

[BobbyOne]

Your list is interesting and makes a lot of sense but I have a record of Borg's career and I have Borg easily in the high twenties to low thirties imo. That's very impressive considering Borg essentially retired at 25. Some tournaments were huge monetary tournaments which were extremely prestigious in the day which drew a great field which often would be superior to a field in a major.

I believe there is a huge flaw in your logic with Pancho Gonzalez. The seven major tours are clearly far more important than a major. They cannot be counted as equivalent to just one major. Let me explain my reasoning for this. A player can easily win two majors in a year and be considered the second best player for the year or perhaps even lower. For example in 1967 Roy Emerson won two majors and John Newcombe also won two majors. Newcombe was number one for the year (in the amateurs) and Emerson second. In 1973 Newcombe won two majors but Ilie Nastase, with one major won was number one in the world.

If Pancho Gonzalez won a World Pro Tour he was THE WORLD CHAMPION! There were no ifs ands or buts about it. Gonzalez based his year on winning the World Pro Tour and his secondary goal was to win perhaps Pro Majors. A player could in theory win all three Pro Majors and be ranked number two if he lost in the World Head to Head Pro Tour. A World Pro Tour was grueling, going from city to city, playing on different surfaces with often no breaks. It was far tougher to win than any mere major and it often would go on for months. You can easily make the argument winning a World Pro Tour is more important than winning several majors.


Incidentally I do think tournaments like the Italian Open should be there since it was considered by many the fifth most important tournament in the world. The 1970 Dunlop International final between Laver and Rosewall should also be there in that it was really in essence the Australian Open that year.

pc1, I respect your high opinion about the world pro tours. On the other hand it's always a great achievement to play one's best exactly at a big (knock out) tournament where you must not lose a single match (unlike at the long tours). Players like Laver and Rosewall used to play their best tennis in majors while Gonzalez sometime failed at the big ones.

 

[timnz]

pc1, I respect your high opinion about the world pro tours. On the other hand it's always a great achievement to play one's best exactly at a big (knock out) tournament where you must not lose a single match (unlike at the long tours). Players like Laver and Rosewall used to play their best tennis in majors while Gonzalez sometime failed at the big ones.

The World Pro Tours were what they were. I am very big on the fact that players should be given credit and appropriate prestige for the events they won THAT WERE BIG AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED THEM. Fashions come and go. The WCT Finals was regarded as a defacto major in the 1970's and 1980's but now is largely forgotten. How many recent news profiles about McEnroe mention his 5 WCT finals? It is not fair to the players who work hard to achieve the big wins to wipe them off the slate because they don't met current fashions. The same goes for the World Pro tour. It was a very big deal from the 1930's through to the early 1960's. People didn't view it as a tournament and therefore were comfortable that the dominant player lost some matches. In fact that would have enhanced the spectacle of it, if it was a close run thing. Think of how Hoad dominated the earlier part of the Gonzales/Hoad tour of 1958, and Gonzales grabbed the lead back.

 

[elegos7]

I think for the sake of comparison we should limit the number of major at 4 in a year, otherwise in some years (especially in the 1950s) we may have 7 or 8 majors, which is unfair toward players who played in the 19th century or even now.
I already posted my proposal of the Top4 events in a year, but I include it here once again. As you see, I always chose at least one amateur and one pro event in each year. The number of pro events depended on the number of pro players in the year-end combined world rankings.
I also took into account pro tours (and Davis Cup!) in some years. Of course one could replace some of the events, but I still find it a good way to compare players. The only problem is that players in the 19th century could often play just one major event in a year (for years W. Renshaw only played at Wimbledon, and there was of course a geographical barrier for players like Brookes.)

So here is my list of the Top4 events:
1877 WIM Gore
1878 WIM Hadow
1879 WIM Hartley IRL Vere Goold
1880 WIM Hartley IRL W. Renshaw Prince's Lawford
1881 WIM W. Renshaw IRL W. Renshaw Prince's W. Renshaw
1882 WIM W. Renshaw IRL W. Renshaw Prince's E. Renshaw
1883 WIM W. Renshaw IRL E. Renshaw Prince's Lawford
1884 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Lawford USA Sears
1885 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Lawford USA Sears
1886 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Lawford USA Sears
1887 WIM Lawford IRL E. Renshaw USA Sears
1888 WIM E. Renshaw IRL E. Renshaw NoE Hamilton
1889 WIM W. Renshaw IRL Hamilton NoE Hamilton
1890 WIM Hamilton IRL Lewis NoE Pim
1891 WIM Baddeley IRL Lewis NoE Pim
1892 WIM Baddeley IRL E. Renshaw NoE Pim
1893 WIM Pim IRL Pim NoE Pim
1894 WIM Pim IRL Pim NoE Baddeley
1895 WIM Baddeley IRL Pim NoE Baddeley
1896 WIM Mahony IRL Baddeley NoE Baddeley
1897 WIM R. Doherty IRL Eaves USA Wrenn
1898 WIM R. Doherty IRL Mahony NoE L. Doherty
1899 WIM R. Doherty IRL R. Doherty USA Whitman
1900 WIM R. Doherty IRL R. Doherty USA Whitman
1901 WIM Gore IRL R. Doherty USA Larned
1902 WIM L. Doherty USA Larned DC Whitman
1903 WIM L. Doherty USA L. Doherty DC L. Doherty
1904 WIM L. Doherty USA Ward DC L. Doherty
1905 WIM L. Doherty USA Wright DC Smith
1906 WIM L. Doherty USA Clothier DC Smith
1907 WIM Brookes USA Larned DC Brookes
1908 WIM Gore USA Larned DC Wright
1909 WIM Gore USA Larned DC Brookes
1910 WIM Wilding USA Larned DC -
1911 WIM Wilding USA Larned DC Brookes
1912 WIM Wilding USA McLoughlin DC Parke
1913 WIM Wilding USA McLoughlin WHC Wilding DC Parke
1914 WIM Brookes USA Williams WHC Wilding DC McLoughlin
1915 USA Johnston
1916 USA Williams
1917 USA Murray
1918 USA Murray
1919 WIM Patterson USA Johnston IntA Gobert DC Patterson
1920 WIM Tilden USA Tilden WHC Laurentz DC Johnston
1921 WIM Tilden USA Tilden WHC Tilden DC Johnston
1922 WIM Patterson USA Tilden WHC Cochet DC Johnston
1923 WIM Johnston USA Tilden WHC Johnston DC Tilden
1924 WIM Borotra USA Tilden Olympic Games Richards DC Tilden
1925 WIM Lacoste USA Tilden FRA Lacoste DC Johnston
1926 WIM Borotra USA Lacoste FRA Cochet DC Johnston
1927 WIM Cochet USA Lacoste FRA Lacoste DC Lacoste
1928 WIM Lacoste USA Cochet FRA Cochet DC Cochet
1929 WIM Cochet USA Tilden FRA Lacoste DC Cochet
1930 WIM Tilden USA Doeg FRA Cochet DC Cochet
1931 WIM Wood USA Vines pUSA Tilden DC Cochet
1932 WIM Vines USA Vines pUSA Kozeluh DC Borotra
1933 WIM Crawford USA Perry pGER Nusslein DC Perry
1934 WIM Perry FRA von Cramm pWEM Vines pUSA Nusslein
1935 WIM Perry FRA Perry pFRA Vines DC Perry
1936 WIM Perry FRA von Cramm pSouthport Nusslein DC Perry
1937 WIM Budge pTour Vines pFRA Nusslein DC Budge
1938 WIM Budge pTour Vines pFRA Nusslein DC Budge
1939 USA Riggs pTour Budge pUSA Vines pFRA Budge
1940 USA McNeill pUSA Budge
1941 USA Riggs pUSA Perry
1942 pTour Budge pUSA Budge
1943
1944
1945 phUSA Riggs
1946 USA Kramer pUSA Riggs phUSA Riggs DC Kramer
1947 USA Kramer pUSA Riggs pPhi Riggs DC Kramer
1948 USA Gonzales pUSA Kramer pTour Kramer DC Parker
1949 WIM Schroeder USA Gonzales pUSA Riggs pWEM Kramer
1950 WIM Patty pTour Kramer pUSA Segura pPhi Gonzales
1951 WIM Savitt pTour Kramer pUSA Segura pPhi Kramer
1952 WIM Sedgman pUSA Segura pWEM Gonzales DC Sedgman
1953 USA Trabert pTour Kramer pWEM Sedgman DC Hoad
1954 WIM Drobny FRA Trabert pTour Gonzales phUSA Gonzales
1955 WIM Trabert USA Trabert pUSA Gonzales phUSA Gonzales
1956 WIM Hoad USA Rosewall pUSA Gonzales pWEM Gonzales
1957 WIM Hoad pToChamp Gonzales pWEM Rosewall pUSA Gonzales
1958 WIM Cooper pUSA Gonzales pWEM Sedgman pFRA Rosewall
1959 WIM Olmedo pToChamp Hoad pWEM Anderson pFRA Trabert
1960 WIM Fraser pTour Gonzales pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
1961 WIM Laver pUSA Gonzales pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
1962 WIM Laver USA Laver pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
1963 WIM McKinley pUSA Rosewall pWEM Rosewall pFRA Rosewall
1964 WIM Emerson pUSA Laver pWEM Laver pFRA Rosewall
1965 USA Santana pUSA Rosewall pWEM Laver pFRA Rosewall
1966 WIM Santana pUSA Laver pWEM Laver pFRA Rosewall
1967 WIM Newcombe pUSA Laver pWIM Laver pFRA Laver
1968 WIM Laver USA Ashe FRA Rosewall PSW Laver
1969 WIM Laver USA Laver FRA Laver AUS Laver
1970 WIM Newcombe USA Rosewall PSW Laver Dunlop Sydney Laver
1971 WIM Newcombe USA Smith FRA Kodes AUS Rosewall
1972 WIM Smith USA Nastase FRA Gimeno WCT Rosewall
1973 WIM Kodes USA Newcombe FRA Nastase WCT Smith
1974 WIM Connors USA Connors FRA Borg WCT Newcombe
1975 WIM Ashe USA Orantes FRA Borg WCT Ashe
1976 WIM Borg USA Connors FRA Panatta WCT Borg
1977 WIM Borg USA Vilas FRA Vilas Masters Connors
1978 WIM Borg USA Connors FRA Borg Masters McEnroe
1979 WIM Borg USA McEnroe FRA Borg Masters Borg
1980 WIM Borg USA McEnroe FRA Borg Masters Borg
1981 WIM McEnroe USA McEnroe FRA Borg Masters Lendl
1982 WIM Connors USA Connors FRA Wilander Masters Lendl
1983 WIM McEnroe USA Connors FRA Noah Masters McEnroe
1984 WIM McEnroe USA McEnroe FRA Lendl Masters McEnroe
1985 WIM Becker USA Lendl FRA Wilander Masters Lendl
1986 WIM Becker USA Lendl FRA Lendl Masters Lendl
1987 WIM Cash USA Lendl FRA Lendl AUS Edberg
1988 WIM Edberg USA Wilander FRA Wilander AUS Wilander
1989 WIM Becker USA Becker FRA Chang AUS Lendl
1990 WIM Edberg USA Sampras FRA Gomez AUS Lendl
1991 WIM Stich USA Edberg FRA Courier AUS Becker
1992 WIM Agassi USA Edberg FRA Courier AUS Courier
1993 WIM Sampras USA Sampras FRA Bruguera AUS Courier
1994 WIM Sampras USA Agassi FRA Bruguera AUS Sampras
1995 WIM Sampras USA Sampras FRA Muster AUS Agassi
1996 WIM Krajicek USA Sampras FRA Kafelnikov AUS Becker
1997 WIM Sampras USA Rafter FRA Kuerten AUS Sampras
1998 WIM Sampras USA Rafter FRA Moya AUS Korda
1999 WIM Sampras USA Agassi FRA Agassi AUS Kafelnikov
2000 WIM Sampras USA Safin FRA Kuerten AUS Agassi
2001 WIM Ivanisevic USA Hewitt FRA Kuerten AUS Agassi
2002 WIM Hewitt USA Sampras FRA Costa AUS Johansson
2003 WIM Federer USA Roddick FRA Ferrero AUS Agassi
2004 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Gaudio AUS Federer
2005 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Safin
2006 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Federer
2007 WIM Federer USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Federer
2008 WIM Nadal USA Federer FRA Nadal AUS Djokovic
2009 WIM Federer USA Del Potro FRA Federer AUS Nadal
2010 WIM Nadal USA Nadal FRA Nadal AUS Federer
2011 WIM Djokovic USA Djokovic FRA Nadal AUS Djokovic
2012 WIM Federer USA Murray FRA Nadal AUS Djokovic
2013 WIM Murray USA Nadal FRA Nadal AUS Djokovic

Base on these, here are players with at least 10 majors:
Ken Rosewall 20
Rod Laver 19
Roger Federer 17
Pancho Gonzales 15
Bill Tilden 14
Björn Borg 14
Pete Sampras 14
Rafael Nadal 13
Ivan Lendl 12
Willie Renshaw 11
Henri Cochet 11
Jack Kramer 11
John McEnroe 10

 

[timnz]

I think for the sake of comparison we should limit the number of major at 4 in a year, otherwise in some years (especially in the 1950s) we may have 7 or 8 majors, which is unfair toward players who played in the 19th century or even now.
I already posted my proposal of the Top4 events in a year, but I include it here once again. As you see, I always chose at least one amateur and one pro event in each year. The number of pro events depended on the number of pro players in the year-end combined world rankings.
I also took into account pro tours (and Davis Cup!) in some years. Of course one could replace some of the events, but I still find it a good way to compare players. The only problem is that players in the 19th century could often play just one major event in a year (for years W. Renshaw only played at Wimbledon, and there was of course a geographical barrier for players like Brookes.)

What about the notion that I put forward earlier? Ie you could gave 8 majors a year as long as any one player could only compete in 4 of them. The reason I say that is that under the scheme you propose in many years players don't get four majors to compete for. For example 1965 or 1966 - of the events you listed, how many could Laver compete in, how many could Santana compete in? You are disadvantaging players of that era who only got to participate in a subset of 4 major events (if we use your system of tallying 'majors'). Hence, it is fairer to include the top 4 amateur events + top 4 pro events in any one year - since any one player could only get a maximum of 4 in any one year.

 

[YaoPau]

The answer is irrelevant IMO. Pro Slam counts weren't that important, money and status as the world's best was important, and if you aren't awarding Gonzales the equivalent of a Slam for winning the biggest prize in the tennis world in his era (Kramer's H2H tour) year after year, then pros are still being terribly undervalued by the major system.

Remember the Pro Slams were fit in between H2H tour stops. If you were on the H2H tour, do you really care how well do you in the Pro Slam (tourneys which often had like 8 players participating)? The priority was absolutely (1) H2H tour (2) everything else.

Similarly, most amateur Slams were meaningless.

 

[timnz]

The answer is irrelevant IMO. Pro Slam counts weren't that important, money and status as the world's best was important, and if you aren't awarding Gonzales the equivalent of a Slam for winning the biggest prize in the tennis world in his era (Kramer's H2H tour) year after year, then pros are still being terribly undervalued by the major system.

Remember the Pro Slams were fit in between H2H tour stops. If you were on the H2H tour, do you really care how well do you in the Pro Slam (tourneys which often had like 8 players participating)? The priority was absolutely (1) H2H tour (2) everything else.

Similarly, most amateur Slams were meaningless.

Hence, you agree that wins in H2H need to be recognized as Major achievements?

 

[kiki]

The World Pro Tours were what they were. I am very big on the fact that players should be given credit and appropriate prestige for the events they won THAT WERE BIG AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED THEM. Fashions come and go. The WCT Finals was regarded as a defacto major in the 1970's and 1980's but now is largely forgotten. How many recent news profiles about McEnroe mention his 5 WCT finals? It is not fair to the players who work hard to achieve the big wins to wipe them off the slate because they don't met current fashions. The same goes for the World Pro tour. It was a very big deal from the 1930's through to the early 1960's. People didn't view it as a tournament and therefore were comfortable that the dominant player lost some matches. In fact that would have enhanced the spectacle of it, if it was a close run thing. Think of how Hoad dominated the earlier part of the Gonzales/Hoad tour of 1958, and Gonzales grabbed the lead back.

I agree there.Fashions are important and each time has its own priorities.Good example on Masters/Dallas, major definitley in those 2 decades, and same status as old pro majors.

 

[kiki]

in the bracket that goes from 1970-71 to 1989, it became a battle between Masters (ran by ITF thorugh its Gran Prix Circuit) and the WCT privately owned tour, led by Hunt, for the unofficial title of world´s fourth event.AO felt mostly behind even if it became competitive against both season ending championships by the middle 80´s.Some years, even the French had difficulties to assert itself as one of the big three.So, it is basically a sistem where 6 tournaments must be included.Just before that, the Italian and South African Open were just as relevant.

Of course, it´s been much simpler from 1990 onwards, where the big 4 , plus the Masters and, for some years, Miami ATP championships have been on the upper echelon, with no relevant differences among the 4 traditional slams.

Curiously enough, women´s circuit had also Avon and Virginia Slims Finals viewed by most fans and experts as major titles, more or less equivalent to the Masters/WCT Finals.

 

[urban]

Despite the problems observed by Timnz I like the Elegos list as a rough nearing. It holds it as simple as possible, and it gives a rough overview, and it reckons with pros and amateurs, and Davis Cup in the older era. The people we have generally on the top tier, come on top here, too, although you could always give the one or the other a few more. Tilden for example didn't play that much majors due to the travelling conditions.
I my estimation, given same conditions as today for the 1920-30 period, Tilden would have probably won the most majors, but this doesn't make him automatically the best ever. Competition, hth, year end Nr. 1, tournaments won, domination in a certain year or over a 5 year period (in absolute and in percentage numbers), extra achievements like the GS or the RG-Wim double or streaks in important tournaments, longevity factors (year of top 3 or top 5 or top ten) and other factors are to be considered too.

 

[YaoPau]

Hence, you agree that wins in H2H need to be recognized as Major achievements?

I'd put them above major achievements, and I don't see the sense in counting majors for pros in that time.

Nowadays, everyone knows it's a Grand Slam counting game. Back in the 50s and 60s, the top pros would play each other dozens of times each year, and the "pro slams" were just getting their footing - it was just the tournament of the week for some of them. I think you count Slams starting around 1980, maybe later, and before then you gotta use more a lot more context to get any precision with rankings.

 

[Fantasio]

under the scheme you propose in many years players don't get four majors to compete for.

I think the problem is much more complicated than that. We should remember that, apart from the number of majors, in the Pro Era amateurs could not play in the Pro tournaments, and viceversa. I think you should match together the number of victories and the "ratio" (= victories/tournaments played) in order to have a better idea of the situation (for example, Tilden could benefit from such a criteria).
Also, you should include Olympics, past and present, and Irish Championships. And eventually victories should be weighted (for example, 100 for Open Era slams, 50 for Masters Cup, 35 for amateur slams, 65 for Pro slams and so on).

 

[kiki]

I think the problem is much more complicated than that. We should remember that, apart from the number of majors, in the Pro Era amateurs could not play in the Pro tournaments, and viceversa. I think you should match together the number of victories and the "ratio" (= victories/tournaments played) in order to have a better idea of the situation (for example, Tilden could benefit from such a criteria).
Also, you should include Olympics, past and present, and Irish Championships. And eventually victories should be weighted (for example, 100 for Open Era slams, 50 for Masters Cup, 35 for amateur slams, 65 for Pro slams and so on).

Olympics? what for?

 

[BobbyOne]

I'd put them above major achievements, and I don't see the sense in counting majors for pros in that time.

Nowadays, everyone knows it's a Grand Slam counting game. Back in the 50s and 60s, the top pros would play each other dozens of times each year, and the "pro slams" were just getting their footing - it was just the tournament of the week for some of them. I think you count Slams starting around 1980, maybe later, and before then you gotta use more a lot more context to get any precision with rankings.

YaoPau, You underrate the importance of the pro majors.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

I say majors not slams. Because as we know, every slam is a major but not every major is a slam. So who holds the record?

For sake of argument I am going to include World Pro tour victories as majors, Late 1950's Tournament of Champions (in LA and Forest hills) as majors, Wimbledon Pro (1967) as a major, World Pro Championship in Berlin (1932 and 1933) and the traditional Pro Slams as majors (Wembley, French Pro, US Pro). Added to this is the majors from 1912 to 1923 - the World Hardcourt Championship and the World Covered Court championship (regardless of what you think of the depth of its field - it still was an official ILTF world championship). Why have I regarded them as majors? Because of the reason that at the time the tournaments were played they were regarded as major titles (even if they have faded with time).

In the disputable but possible majors category - we have:

- Australian Pro - 1954 to 1966 - Rosewall won 3 times, Laver 4 times

- Forest Hills Pro - 1966 - Laver won

- Masters Pro in Los Angeles - 1957 to 1965 - Gonzales won twice, Rosewall and Laver won once each

- Madison Square Garden Pro - 1954 & 1966 to 1967 - Gonzales won once (1954), Laver and Rosewall won once each (1967 and 1966 respectively)

- Philadelphia Indoor Pro - 1950 to 1952 - Gonzales won it twice.

- Tennis Champions Classic - 1970 & 1971 - Laver won both of these.

So this is how the record goes:

Gonzales - 24 majors (2 Amateur Slams + 12 Pro Slams + 3 Tournament of Champions + 7 World Pro tours). In the disputable major category (See above) Gonzales won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Rosewall - 24 majors (4 Amateur Slams + 15 Pro Slams + 1 World Pro tour (1963) + 4 Open era Slams). In the disputable major category (See above) Rosewall won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Laver - 19 majors (6 Amateur Slams + 7 Pro Slams + Wimbledon Pro (1967) + 5 Open era slams = 19). In the disputable major category (See above) Laver won an additional 9 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 28.

Federer - 17 Open era slams

Sampras - 14 Open era slams

Bill Tilden - 14 (10 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hard Court Championship + 3 Pro Slams (1 of these is disputed though - French Pro 1934)

Don Budge - 14 (6 Amateur Slams) + 4 Pro Slams + 4 World Pro tours)

Rafael Nadal 13 - Open era Majors (some may feel free to include the Olympics - I personally don't think so. If the WTF isn't included the Olympics surely should not).

Borg - 11 Open era slams

Henri Cochet - 11 (7 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hardcourt Championship + 2 World Covered Court Championship + 1 Pro Slam)

Didn't Ellsworth Vines win 5 pro tours + 3 amateur slams + 5 pro slams?

 

[hoodjem]

I say majors not slams. Because as we know, every slam is a major but not every major is a slam. So who holds the record?

For sake of argument I am going to include World Pro tour victories as majors, Late 1950's Tournament of Champions (in LA and Forest hills) as majors, Wimbledon Pro (1967) as a major, World Pro Championship in Berlin (1932 and 1933) and the traditional Pro Slams as majors (Wembley, French Pro, US Pro). Added to this is the majors from 1912 to 1923 - the World Hardcourt Championship and the World Covered Court championship (regardless of what you think of the depth of its field - it still was an official ILTF world championship). Why have I regarded them as majors? Because of the reason that at the time the tournaments were played they were regarded as major titles (even if they have faded with time).

In the disputable but possible majors category - we have:

- Australian Pro - 1954 to 1966 - Rosewall won 3 times, Laver 4 times

- Forest Hills Pro - 1966 - Laver won

- Masters Pro in Los Angeles - 1957 to 1965 - Gonzales won twice, Rosewall and Laver won once each

- Madison Square Garden Pro - 1954 & 1966 to 1967 - Gonzales won once (1954), Laver and Rosewall won once each (1967 and 1966 respectively)

- Philadelphia Indoor Pro - 1950 to 1952 - Gonzales won it twice.

- Tennis Champions Classic - 1970 & 1971 - Laver won both of these.

So this is how the record goes:

Gonzales - 24 majors (2 Amateur Slams + 12 Pro Slams + 3 Tournament of Champions + 7 World Pro tours). In the disputable major category (See above) Gonzales won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Rosewall - 24 majors (4 Amateur Slams + 15 Pro Slams + 1 World Pro tour (1963) + 4 Open era Slams). In the disputable major category (See above) Rosewall won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Laver - 19 majors (6 Amateur Slams + 7 Pro Slams + Wimbledon Pro (1967) + 5 Open era slams = 19). In the disputable major category (See above) Laver won an additional 9 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 28.

Federer - 17 Open era slams

Sampras - 14 Open era slams

Bill Tilden - 14 (10 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hard Court Championship + 3 Pro Slams (1 of these is disputed though - French Pro 1934)

Don Budge - 14 (6 Amateur Slams) + 4 Pro Slams + 4 World Pro tours)

Rafael Nadal 13 - Open era Majors (some may feel free to include the Olympics - I personally don't think so. If the WTF isn't included the Olympics surely should not).

Borg - 11 Open era slams

Henri Cochet - 11 (7 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hardcourt Championship + 2 World Covered Court Championship + 1 Pro Slam)

Should we count doubles also?

For instance, 2 major doubles titles = 1 major.



(It was certainly important to Newcombe.)

 

[BobbyOne]

Didn't Ellsworth Vines win 5 pro tours + 3 amateur slams + 5 pro slams?

Anti-Fedal, Yes he did. Vines is under-rated.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Anti-Fedal, Yes he did. Vines is under-rated.

Well timnz, why isn't he included in the list?

 

[xFedal]

Novak has now 12 slams and 5YEC... so thats 17 majors for him.....

 

[Limpinhitter]

I say majors not slams. Because as we know, every slam is a major but not every major is a slam. So who holds the record?

For sake of argument I am going to include World Pro tour victories as majors, Late 1950's Tournament of Champions (in LA and Forest hills) as majors, Wimbledon Pro (1967) as a major, World Pro Championship in Berlin (1932 and 1933) and the traditional Pro Slams as majors (Wembley, French Pro, US Pro). Added to this is the majors from 1912 to 1923 - the World Hardcourt Championship and the World Covered Court championship (regardless of what you think of the depth of its field - it still was an official ILTF world championship). Why have I regarded them as majors? Because of the reason that at the time the tournaments were played they were regarded as major titles (even if they have faded with time).

In the disputable but possible majors category - we have:

- Australian Pro - 1954 to 1966 - Rosewall won 3 times, Laver 4 times

- Forest Hills Pro - 1966 - Laver won

- Masters Pro in Los Angeles - 1957 to 1965 - Gonzales won twice, Rosewall and Laver won once each

- Madison Square Garden Pro - 1954 & 1966 to 1967 - Gonzales won once (1954), Laver and Rosewall won once each (1967 and 1966 respectively)

- Philadelphia Indoor Pro - 1950 to 1952 - Gonzales won it twice.

- Tennis Champions Classic - 1970 & 1971 - Laver won both of these.

So this is how the record goes:

Gonzales - 24 majors (2 Amateur Slams + 12 Pro Slams + 3 Tournament of Champions + 7 World Pro tours). In the disputable major category (See above) Gonzales won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Rosewall - 24 majors (4 Amateur Slams + 15 Pro Slams + 1 World Pro tour (1963) + 4 Open era Slams). In the disputable major category (See above) Rosewall won an additional 5 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 29.

Laver - 19 majors (6 Amateur Slams + 7 Pro Slams + Wimbledon Pro (1967) + 5 Open era slams = 19). In the disputable major category (See above) Laver won an additional 9 more - so his Majors total could be as high as 28.

Federer - 17 Open era slams

Sampras - 14 Open era slams

Bill Tilden - 14 (10 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hard Court Championship + 3 Pro Slams (1 of these is disputed though - French Pro 1934)

Don Budge - 14 (6 Amateur Slams) + 4 Pro Slams + 4 World Pro tours)

Rafael Nadal 13 - Open era Majors (some may feel free to include the Olympics - I personally don't think so. If the WTF isn't included the Olympics surely should not).

Borg - 11 Open era slams

Henri Cochet - 11 (7 Amateur Slams + 1 World Hardcourt Championship + 2 World Covered Court Championship + 1 Pro Slam)

On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/did-laver-win-36-majors.562156/

Here is my breakdown as set forth in my OP:

Of course the answer depends on what counts as a major. It seems that some contend that Rosewall won 25 majors. From the link below, it appears that Rosewall won a total of 15 "pro majors," and it is well settled that he won 4 amateur and 4 open majors for a total of 23. I don't know where the other 2 come from.

In Laver's case, it is well settled that he won 6 amateur majors and 5 open majors for a total of 11 traditional majors. In addition, Laver won the following pro titles:

Wembley - 6
U.S. Pro - 5
French Pro - 3
Australian Pro - 4
Wimbledon Pro - 1
MSG Pro - 1
Masters Pro - 1
Forrest Hills Pro - 1
Tennis Champions Classic - 2
Dunlop International at Sydney - 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_tennis_tournaments_before_the_Open_Era

These total 25. Add to that his 11 amateur and open majors, Laver has a total of 36 majors.

Of the "pro majors," I have included all of Laver's titles through his last in 1969. It seems to me that if a pro major counted as a major in the pre open era, and the quality of the draw included a similar level of competition, I see no reason to withdraw the status of pro major just because pros were also eligible to play in the traditional majors. Regarding the Australian Pro, Wimbledon Pro, MSG Pro, Masters Pro, Forrest Hills Pro, the same standard applies. I don't have easy access to the draws of these events. Perhaps a board member can find them.

It also seems that the Tennis Champions Classics that Laver won were as prestigious as any major, amateur, pro or open, given the level of the competition and the prize money involved in those events. Further, it seems that it is well settled, at least among a majority of the members of this board, that the Dunlop International at Sydney was the defacto Australian National Championship of 1970.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

@Limpinhitter , are you sure with your count? Wikipedia is listing Rosewall as 23 majors + 2wct final ( which was a major in those years) , while they are listing Laver 19 .
According to your count 36 which deviate lot from the page.
I checked another page , none of them are listing 36 , they are giving 19 or 20 .
How are you counting ? Is us pro from 1968 was a major?.

 

[NatF]

On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/did-laver-win-36-majors.562156/

Here is my breakdown as set forth in my OP:

Of course the answer depends on what counts as a major. It seems that some contend that Rosewall won 25 majors. From the link below, it appears that Rosewall won a total of 15 "pro majors," and it is well settled that he won 4 amateur and 4 open majors for a total of 23. I don't know where the other 2 come from.

In Laver's case, it is well settled that he won 6 amateur majors and 5 open majors for a total of 11 traditional majors. In addition, Laver won the following pro titles:

Wembley - 6
U.S. Pro - 5
French Pro - 3
Australian Pro - 4
Wimbledon Pro - 1
MSG Pro - 1
Masters Pro - 1
Forrest Hills Pro - 1
Tennis Champions Classic - 2
Dunlop International at Sydney - 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_tennis_tournaments_before_the_Open_Era

These total 25. Add to that his 11 amateur and open majors, Laver has a total of 36 majors.

Of the "pro majors," I have included all of Laver's titles through his last in 1969. It seems to me that if a pro major counted as a major in the pre open era, and the quality of the draw included a similar level of competition, I see no reason to withdraw the status of pro major just because pros were also eligible to play in the traditional majors. Regarding the Australian Pro, Wimbledon Pro, MSG Pro, Masters Pro, Forrest Hills Pro, the same standard applies. I don't have easy access to the draws of these events. Perhaps a board member can find them.

It also seems that the Tennis Champions Classics that Laver won were as prestigious as any major, amateur, pro or open, given the level of the competition and the prize money involved in those events. Further, it seems that it is well settled, at least among a majority of the members of this board, that the Dunlop International at Sydney was the defacto Australian National Championship of 1970.

Laver did not win 36 majors. Lets not be ridiculous.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Laver did not win 36 majors. Lets not be ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about it? Be specific. My criteria is consistent with that of the instant OP's criteria and the vociferous Rosewall fanboys. If pre-open, non-traditional majors are in play, then tell me which of the major titles I enumerated for Laver's total are ridiculous.

 

[Limpinhitter]

@Limpinhitter , are you sure with your count? Wikipedia is listing Rosewall as 23 majors + 2wct final ( which was a major in those years) , while they are listing Laver 19 .
According to your count 36 which deviate lot from the page.
I checked another page , none of them are listing 36 , they are giving 19 or 20 .
How are you counting ? Is us pro from 1968 was a major?.

Is the purpose of this thread merely to parrot wikipedia? Who wrote and/or contributed to the wikipedia entries? Members of this board? I wrote a complete explanation supporting my premise that Laver won 36 majors, based on the OP's criteria as well as the criteria used to support the notion that Rosewall won 25 majors. If you don't agree, please explain why. Be specific. Which of the majors that I enumerated would you not count toward Laver's total.

PS: To be clear, this is what I recently wrote in the "who is your top 10 right now" thread: "The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."

My point is that if you are going to apply a standard to Rosewall, you have to apply that standard to everyone.

 

[NatF]

What's ridiculous about it? Be specific. My criteria is consistent with that of the instant OP's criteria and the vociferous Rosewall fanboys. If pre-open, non-traditional majors are in play, then tell me which of the major titles I enumerated for Laver's total are ridiculous.

I don't care about consistency with vociferous Rosewall fanboys. I've had enough discussions about these inflated major counts in my tenure here. You know it's nonsense and you're just trying to get a rise from people - or should I say someone.

Regardless I personally wouldn't count majors in the way you're doing. I'd separate it into amateur, pro, open. A lot of those tournaments are no more worthy of major status than masters tournaments.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I don't care about consistency with vociferous Rosewall fanboys. I've had enough discussions about these inflated major counts in my tenure here. You know it's nonsense and you're just trying to get a rise from people - or should I say someone.

Regardless I personally wouldn't count majors in the way you're doing. I'd separate it into amateur, pro, open. A lot of those tournaments are no more worthy of major status than masters tournaments.

No. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone. I'm trying to apply the same standard across the board. You can't reasonably apply one standard to Rosewall and a different standard to everyone else.

Interestingly, in the "top 10" thread, you just posted that you personally would include the YEC in the major count. Fine. Perhaps it should be. But, if you open that door, don't complain when I walk through it.

 

[NatF]

No. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone. I'm trying to apply the same standard across the board. You can't reasonably apply one standard to Rosewall and a different standard to everyone else.

Interestingly, in the "top 10" thread, you just posted that you personally would include the YEC in the major count. Fine. Perhaps it should be. But, if you open that door, don't complain when I walk through it.

Reading comprehension fail? If you're making a blanket majors leaders list and include amateur and pro majors in it then I think it's absolutely right to include the YEC, especially for players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl etc...However I personally wouldn't count up majors in this way for players across era's.

At best you could say Laver won more big titles than Rosewall - if this is strictly true I don't know. But I wouldn't say Laver has 36 major titles versus just 14 for Nadal for example. To me that is absolute BS.

Again if you know the standard is nonsense to begin with why entertain it...or maybe you do really think Laver won 36 majors Perhaps Laver fans are the worst on this board

 

[Limpinhitter]

Reading comprehension fail? If you're making a blanket majors leaders list and include amateur and pro majors in it then I think it's absolutely right to include the YEC, especially for players like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl etc...However I personally wouldn't count up majors in this way for players across era's.

At best you could say Laver won more big titles than Rosewall - if this is strictly true I don't know. But I wouldn't say Laver has 36 major titles versus just 14 for Nadal for example. To me that is absolute BS.

Again if you know the standard is nonsense to begin with why entertain it...or maybe you do really think Laver won 36 majors Perhaps Laver fans are the worst on this board

I didn't say the standard was nonsense. Reading comprehension fail?

I'm saying that applying one standard to Rosewall and another to everyone else is nonsense. Again, what I have said, and continue to say, is this: "The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."

PS: I am also a Rosewall fan.

 

[pc1]

I don't care about consistency with vociferous Rosewall fanboys. I've had enough discussions about these inflated major counts in my tenure here. You know it's nonsense and you're just trying to get a rise from people - or should I say someone.

Regardless I personally wouldn't count majors in the way you're doing. I'd separate it into amateur, pro, open. A lot of those tournaments are no more worthy of major status than masters tournaments.

No. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone. I'm trying to apply the same standard across the board. You can't reasonably apply one standard to Rosewall and a different standard to everyone else.

Interestingly, in the "top 10" thread, you just posted that you personally would include the YEC in the major count. Fine. Perhaps it should be. But, if you open that door, don't complain when I walk through it.

I think most of can agree that the concept of just counting classic majors (amateur and Open) and Pro Majors can be very flawed. There are a lot of other important tournaments in tennis that have to be taken into account. Heck all tournaments have to taken into accounts. All matches should be taken into account like the old tours including the legit World Championship Tours during the old Amateur/Pro divide day.

For example Sampras, Djokovic and Federer winning so many Year End Championships have to be taken into account.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think most of can agree that the concept of just counting classic majors (amateur and Open) and Pro Majors can be very flawed. There are a lot of other important tournaments in tennis that have to be taken into account. Heck all tournaments have to taken into accounts. All matches should be taken into account like the old tours including the legit World Championship Tours during the old Amateur/Pro divide day.

For example Sampras, Djokovic and Federer winning so many Year End Championships have to be taken into account.

Very true, especially when comparing pre-open and open careers. As I said in my "Did Laver win 36 Majors," thread: "Of course the answer depends on what counts as a major."