Who is the man with the most majors

[KG1965]

Man with the most major in my eyes is Federer with 17 slam + 6 tour finals..
I hope Djokovic becomes second best atleast in open era. ( I don't think he will cross Fed).

Man with the most majors in my eyes is Federer (17).
... Laver with only 5 slam (only Open Era) is my GOAT.

The majors comparison does not stand .

Federer has won many Master1000 + 6 Finals .
Laver many big titles , wct titles , pro titles .

 

[timnz]

Man with the most majors in my eyes is Federer (17).
... Laver with only 5 slam (only Open Era) is my GOAT.

The majors comparison does not stand .

Federer has won many Master1000 + 6 Finals .
Laver many big titles , wct titles , pro titles .

You can't compare era's easily. But that isn't just between Amateur, Pro and Open era's. Are slams won in the early 1970's worth as much as ones won today? All you can do is acknowledge the achievements that players achieved at the time they played. Therefore I don't believe the Open era cut-off has to be done (which you have done with Laver). Tennis has a much larger history than just back to 1968.

 

[Limpinhitter]

You can't compare era's easily. But that isn't just between Amateur, Pro and Open era's. Are slams won in the early 1970's worth as much as ones won today? All you can do is acknowledge the achievements that players achieved at the time they played. Therefore I don't believe the Open era cut-off has to be done (which you have done with Laver). Tennis has a much larger history than just back to 1968.

I think you misunderstood KG's post. He didn't cut off the history of tennis at 1968. He cut off the comparisons of counting majors at 1968.

 

[pc1]

Man with the most majors in my eyes is Federer (17).
... Laver with only 5 slam (only Open Era) is my GOAT.

The majors comparison does not stand .

Federer has won many Master1000 + 6 Finals .
Laver many big titles , wct titles , pro titles .

KG1965's post on cutting off the comparisons makes some sense especially since he clearly indicates that he takes the whole career into account when he mentions that Rod Laver is his GOAT. I assume that is what KG means anyway.

I'm not sure if I agree with cutting off the comparisons of counting majors at 1968 but I'm not sure if I disagree either. It is something to think about.

 

[Limpinhitter]

KG1965's post on cutting off the comparisons makes some sense especially since he clearly indicates that he takes the whole career into account when he mentions that Rod Laver is his GOAT. I assume that is what KG means anyway.

I'm not sure if I agree with cutting off the comparisons of counting majors at 1968 but I'm not sure if I disagree either. It is something to think about.

KG's argument that the traditional majors before 1990 had widely varying status also seems to have a lot of merit, making the comparison of major title counts between past and present champions all the more dubious.

 

[KG1965]

You can't compare era's easily. But that isn't just between Amateur, Pro and Open era's. Are slams won in the early 1970's worth as much as ones won today? All you can do is acknowledge the achievements that players achieved at the time they played. Therefore I don't believe the Open era cut-off has to be done (which you have done with Laver). Tennis has a much larger history than just back to 1968.

I also think that the history is much more than the Open Era.
But I think the amateurs history is ... little relevance.

 

[pc1]

I also think that the history is much more than the Open Era.
But I think the amateurs history is ... little relevance.

I wouldn't say it's of little relevance. We do have to take it into account of course. There are exceptions at times.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Majors won is just one criteria, perhaps it is the most or one of the most important ones but it is still just one facet of a career. Obviously defining what a major is across various era's is very difficult, do we go by format and draw? Or do we consider only the top 4 tournaments of any year majors for simplicity and to be fair?

There were lots of various big events in the early Open Era this is true. Weighting them is of course difficult. Sometimes I think it would be useful to have tiers for majors to differentiate without assigning exact values. But there's so much subjectivity.

My issue with the pro majors is that the field lacked depth, in a pro type field would there have been a Del Potro at the USO in 2009? A Cilic at the USO in 2014? Would Djokovic have encountered a Querrey at Wimbledon this year? Would Wawrinka have been in the pro's in 2014 to stop Djokovic at the AO?

I prefer not to compare major title hauls from earlier era's than 1990 to now personally.



Thanks for your friendly words Bobby and the information about the French Pro. The French Pro in 1968 had a really good draw and Mccauley includes 1968 in his history of professional tennis. So I'm on the fence with regards to including it as a 'major'. Again as I said to pc1 it depends on whether draw/format determines what is a major or if it's due to status relative to other events.

Of course, the term "Pro Major" was not used during the old pro era, it is a term which was invented years after open tennis came along, probably in an attempt to construct an equivalent with which to puff the numbers of those great players who spent much of their time in the split era pro field.

Further, it is now clear that the old Forest Hills Tournament of Champions was the most prestigious and media central event in the late 1950s, and the 1967 Wimbeldon Pro was the most prestigious event of its era, both events offering the highest paycheques of their respective seasons.

These events should certainly be regarded as pro majors, a term whcih was created well after the fact.