Would Federer’s legacy be as great without his early success on hard courts?

[Spencer Gore]

There seems to have been a plague of threads trying to suggest that removing clay from the slam record would be an appropriate way to measure Nadal’s legacy.

Why would clay-one of the two original tennis surfaces- be removed from the slam record?

If anything, given the history of the game, it is the hard courts results that have to be considered suspect when talking about all-time greatness, as the vast majority of champions didn’t get the opportunity to play on them.

Remove the hard court results and stick to the original tennis surfaces and the slam total (among players who won some of their slams in the open era) reads:

Nadal 13 slams (11 clay, 2 grass)
Laver 11 slams (2 clay, 9 grass)
Borg 11 slams (6 clay, 5 grass)
Federer 9 slams (1 clay, 8 grass)
Sampras 7 slams (0 clay, 7 grass)

They are all skewed towards one surface, apart from Borg-whose achievement on switching between two such extreme surfaces is astonishing, and becomes more so as time goes by and every player fails to match it.

 

[abmk]

 

[Night Slasher]

If you want to stick to "the original tennis surface", you should remove the clay as well, because the tennis was originally played on grass.

Sorry, you've failed in diminishing Rodja's achievements. Better luck next time.

 

[wangs78]

OP - slow day, yeah?

 

[Otacon]

Federer is yesterday's news according to OP, yet he creates 150 threads about him per week.

 

[strongwilled]

Different hard courts play differently, including at the slams.

The French Open plays more or less the same every year.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Different hard courts play differently, including at the slams.

The French Open plays more or less the same every year.

So what you’re saying is it’s much easier to measure the historic legacy of players using the French as a guide.

 

[True Fanerer]

Borg was in three UO finals on HC after the switch in 1978. He had his chances.

 

[Towny]

Is there a point to this thread? You shouldn't remove clay to evaluate Nadal. You shouldn't remove hard court to evaluate Federer. Keeping them both along with grass, we have Federer on 20 and Nadal on 17. If you want to go back to original surfaces, then it's just grass, putting Federer as best in open era on 8, Nadal on 2

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

There seems to have been a plague of threads trying to suggest that removing clay from the slam record would be an appropriate way to measure Nadal’s legacy.

Why would clay-one of the two original tennis surfaces- be removed from the slam record?

If anything, given the history of the game, it is the hard courts results that have to be considered suspect when talking about all-time greatness, as the vast majority of champions didn’t get the opportunity to play on them.

Remove the hard court results and stick to the original tennis surfaces and the slam total (among players who won some of their slams in the open era) reads:

Nadal 13 slams (11 clay, 2 grass)
Laver 11 slams (2 clay, 9 grass)
Borg 11 slams (6 clay, 5 grass)
Federer 9 slams (1 clay, 8 grass)
Sampras 7 slams (0 clay, 7 grass)

They are all skewed towards one surface, apart from Borg-whose achievement on switching between two such extreme surfaces is astonishing, and becomes more so as time goes by and every player fails to match it.

how many slams for novak? 4?

also im not sure what point you are making. Hard, clay and grass all exist so why remove them? If everything was hard than nadal wouldnt train as a kid they way he did and would adpat for hard courts, if everything was clay then federer, djokovic etc and well everyone would grow up as clay courters instead of the niche surface that it is now etc etc for other surfaces. If tennis was all indoors quick hard then nadal wouldn't suck indoors as he would use his talent to train as an indoor hard court player instead to being a clay courter

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Is there a point to this thread? You shouldn't remove clay to evaluate Nadal. You shouldn't remove hard court to evaluate Federer. Keeping them both along with grass, we have Federer on 20 and Nadal on 17. If you want to go back to original surfaces, then it's just grass, putting Federer as best in open era on 8, Nadal on 2

Yes, but grass is a relic of the past, a time when tennis was as slow as badminton. There are good reasons why 0.00001% of all tennis courts in the world are on grass. If it weren't for English stubbornness and eccentricity, we wouldn't even have a grass slam anymore, since both AO and USO had given up on it ages ago.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Tennis was actually originally played on indoor hard court. After the invention of the lawn mower, they started playing it outdoors on grass.

We all know how Nadal's resume looks on either of those playing conditions.

 

[Towny]

Yes, but grass is a relic of the past, a time when tennis was as slow as badminton. There are good reasons why 0.00001% of all tennis courts in the world are on grass. If it weren't for English stubbornness and eccentricity, we wouldn't even have a grass slam anymore, since both AO and USO had given up on it ages ago.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should evaluate based on grass. Hardcourt is the dominant tour surface and more important. Fed is the hardcourt GOAT. All I'm saying is if you're going to argue that we should ignore hardcourt because it wasn't a surface in the early years of tennis, the same argument can be made against clay

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Tennis was actually originally played on indoor hard court. After the invention of the lawn mower, they started playing it outdoors on grass.

We all know how Nadal's resume looks on either of those playing conditions.

was this post designed to inflame @clayqueen ? That is not right

 

[Sport]

Tennis was actually originally played on indoor hard court. After the invention of the lawn mower, they started playing it outdoors on grass.

We all know how Nadal's resume looks on either of those playing conditions.

No, it was originally played on indoor wood, not indoor hard courts.

Both clay and grass were adopted much earlier than hard courts.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should evaluate based on grass. Hardcourt is the dominant tour surface and more important. Fed is the hardcourt GOAT. All I'm saying is if you're going to argue that we should ignore hardcourt because it wasn't a surface in the early years of tennis, the same argument can be made against clay

No, I perfectly understood you, and agreed with you, just wanted to underline the big difference between traditional clay and traditional grass.

 

[Towny]

No, I perfectly understood you, and agreed with you, just wanted to underline the big difference between traditional clay and traditional grass.

Ok fair enough

 

[MeatTornado]

Yes, but grass is a relic of the past, a time when tennis was as slow as badminton. There are good reasons why 0.00001% of all tennis courts in the world are on grass. If it weren't for English stubbornness and eccentricity, we wouldn't even have a grass slam anymore, since both AO and USO had given up on it ages ago.

How dare you

 

[UnderratedSlam]

How dare you

This is slower than grass growing.

Speaking of grass...

 

[True Fanerer]

Yes, but grass is a relic of the past, a time when tennis was as slow as badminton. There are good reasons why 0.00001% of all tennis courts in the world are on grass. If it weren't for English stubbornness and eccentricity, we wouldn't even have a grass slam anymore, since both AO and USO had given up on it ages ago.

Wimbledon was the best slam since 2017 AO. Grass isn't going anywhere.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Wimbledon was the best slam since 2017 AO. Grass isn't going anywhere.

WAS the best slam? Did they take it out of the calendar?

 

[True Fanerer]

WAS the best slam? Did they take it out of the calendar?

Unfortunately, for Vamosians like you they haven't.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Unfortunately, for Vamosians like you, they haven't.

Vamosians?

Are they like Martians, but smarter?

Are they those guys from the planet GOAT, right next to the Overrated Swiss nebula?

 

[Ann]

The best revenge for a stupid thread about Rafa on clay is an even worserer thread about Federer on hard courts.

EPIC FAIL

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

WAS the best slam? Did they take it out of the calendar?

Pretty sure he was referring to this year's or the last two Wimbledon tournaments, not Wimbledon in general.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Yes, but grass is a relic of the past, a time when tennis was as slow as badminton. There are good reasons why 0.00001% of all tennis courts in the world are on grass. If it weren't for English stubbornness and eccentricity, we wouldn't even have a grass slam anymore, since both AO and USO had given up on it ages ago.

Sorry to stray from the topic, and I know someone has already responded to this, but I can't help it. Badminton is the fastest racket sport, and it's not debatable. Smashes in badminton can reach over 400 kph and in controlled conditions, almost 500 kph. That's over two times the speed of the fastest serves in tennis, and badminton players don't have the luxury of having shots bounce to slow it down. Don't confuse defensive lobs and droppers in badminton for how the game is always played.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Sorry to stray from the topic, and I know someone has already responded to this, but I can't help it. Badminton is the fastest racket sport, and it's not debatable. Smashes in badminton can reach over 400 kph and in controlled conditions, almost 500 kph. That's over two times the speed of the fastest serves in tennis, and badminton players don't have the luxury of having shots bounce to slow it down. Don't confuse defensive lobs and droppers in badminton for how the game is always played.

Yes, the initial speed is measured in light-years, but a mili-fraction of a second after that the speed comes down to a halt. Turtles can overtake it. Isn't really comparable to tennis balls which lose speed at a much lesser rate.

That silly thing isn't even a ball! It's like a little rocket-wannabe.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Yes, the initial speed is measured in light-years, but a mili-fraction of a second after that the speed comes down to a halt. Turtles can overtake it. Isn't really comparable to tennis balls which lose speed at a much lesser rate.

That silly thing isn't even a ball! It's like a little rocket-wannabe.

That's a good point, though obviously hyperbole. The speed of a tennis ball definitely retains its speed more, but it's definitely much slower than badminton after the bounce. Badminton is a sport of extremes where blinding fast smashes mix in with agonizingly slow lobs and droppers. I find tennis a lot more entertaining and athletic, but respect the incredible speed at which badminton is played. Seeing a badminton player retrieve a 350 kph smash can be just as exhilarating as tennis player retrieve a 230 kph serve.

 

[Sum Buddy Ells]

Borg 11 slams (6 clay, 5 grass)

Borg =