PDA

View Full Version : Grand Slam Hypothetical...


Cybelle Darkholme
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:30 PM
So if starting in 2004 all the top twenty players on the wta tour decide to boycott all the grandslams for lets say more prize money than the men then Alexandra Stevenson won each of the grandslams for a career slam for the year would you consider her achievement legitimate or not?

Keith
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:31 PM
It would be a miracle.

moby
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:31 PM
it is like argueing whether GS won during the professional era were valid.

and the answer is yes. but of course it isnt fair

Diya
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:32 PM
I doubt she'd still win EVEN one GS :lol:

Tratree
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:34 PM
Alex's problem is not the top 20 players....it's her first round matchup that usually does her in at the slams.

Cybelle Darkholme
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:34 PM
People youre not answering the question. :kiss: If she won each of the grandslams while the other top players were out protesting and boycotting would you consider her grandslam circumspect or not?

Experimentee
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:39 PM
I dont think the point is Alex, you can substitute that name for ay other low ranked player.
The question is whether it would still be legitimate. I think it wouldnt be considered as great an achievement as winning with a full draw by people of today, but in 50 years not many people will know and will just see her name next to all those Grand Slams and think she was great.

Tratree
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:41 PM
My feeling is, you beat whoever shows up and you are the champion. It's not the player's fault that the tope 20 or whatever didn't show. You can only play who is in the draw.

sartrista7
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:42 PM
1973 Wimbledon - there was a boycott by most of the leading men and Jan Kodes ended up the champion. I have no idea which of the leading men pulled out, or how much of a player Kodes was before and after, but what I do know is that Jan Kodes = former Wimbledon champion. Maybe at the time it wouldn't have been seen as a 'legitimate' win, but thirty years on I doubt anyone cares, least of all Kodes.

villa
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:43 PM
Congrats to her for winning the 7 matches she did or however many she would win- however as an achievement it shouldn't be as highly regarded as winning say the 3 slams this year...

Similarly the same way the usopen winners acheivement won't be as highly regarded as the winners of the other 3 slams this year...the two most dominant slam players in the last 3 years are out (venus/serena) and possibly lindsay aswell- thats 3 out of 5 top 5 players....The quality of oposition is less therefore the quality of the result is reduced aswell...

VS Fan
Aug 23rd, 2003, 05:51 PM
This is simple, Venus and Serena will not be there,
They were both finalist in FIVE of the last SIX slams.

The 2003 USopen trophy will STILL ba a significant achievement, but I suspect there will be a rather empy feeling to the winner, since she will not win it from the current premier players.

Cybell's senerio is an extreme exageration of the current situation at the US Open.

AnDyDog621
Aug 23rd, 2003, 07:02 PM
hahahaha, can we see Alex win a title before saying she is gonna win all the majors

Martian Willow
Aug 23rd, 2003, 07:13 PM
So if starting in 2004 all the top twenty players on the wta tour decide to boycott all the grandslams for lets say more prize money than the men then Alexandra Stevenson won each of the grandslams for a career slam for the year would you consider her achievement legitimate or not?

I don't think the comparison is entirely valid. The reason Venus and Serena are not playing is related to their ability as tennis players. They could play, but they won't, because they are not capable of winning. Therefore whoever wins won because they were capable of winning when others were not, which is the same reason anyone wins anything ever. Why Williams fans can't get their heads round the idea that their injuries are as relevant to their ability as tennis players as their serves or their down-the-line backhands is a mystery to me. Steffi could have won more Slams if she hadn't been so injury prone, but she was, so she didn't. :)

MartinaI
Aug 23rd, 2003, 07:44 PM
My feeling is, you beat whoever shows up and you are the champion. It's not the player's fault that the tope 20 or whatever didn't show. You can only play who is in the draw.

I totally agree with this view. If you win, you win don't you!

Joseosu19
Aug 23rd, 2003, 08:54 PM
Boycotting is different than injury. Injury is unfortunate, but part of the game.

controlfreak
Aug 23rd, 2003, 09:37 PM
A lot of people on this board seems to relish arguing the fine details of what is valid, what is not valid, who is more valid, etc etc.

To me it is very simple. A title is a title, a grand slam is a grand slam, a number one is a number one, and a great player is a great player. At the end of the day, how it was is how it was, and that is what will be recorded in history. If Alexandra Stevenson won The Grand Slam in 2004, it would be questioned but it could never be changed. She would join Connolly, Court and Graf in the record books, and many years from now, tennis commentators would remember her feat and regard it just as highly as those of her predecessors. Just like the Jan Kodes example.

Dava
Aug 23rd, 2003, 10:15 PM
Look with or without Alex there I dont think she would win!

But I see your point, I dont know, if people choose ot to compete, or are forced not to, it thier problem not Alex's or whoever. I dont think the women would boycott to begin with.

starr
Aug 23rd, 2003, 11:17 PM
I don't think there is a knowlegeable tennis fan who considers Kordes accomplishment along side that of those who turned professional.

This is a different matter though. There have been many sports injuries that have kept good players out of the draw. This round of injuries although unfortunate it has happed to two of the very top players, is no different. As someone pointed out, Serena appears to have won Wimbledon due to her sister's injury. There's no shame in that.

disposablehero
Aug 23rd, 2003, 11:35 PM
So if starting in 2004 all the top twenty players on the wta tour decide to boycott all the grandslams for lets say more prize money than the men then Alexandra Stevenson won each of the grandslams for a career slam for the year would you consider her achievement legitimate or not?

If Alex Stevenson could win The Grand Slam with ONLY the top twenty players boycotting, I'd be shocked enough to call it legitimate.