PDA

View Full Version : How important is the 'career slam'?


Volcana
Apr 29th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Is winning all four GS titles REALLY that big a deal?

vs1
Apr 29th, 2004, 10:38 PM
I think it's a majour achievement...it not only demonstrates one's ability to excel on four different surfaces, but one must also be prepared and consistent at different times during the season.

tennisIlove09
Apr 29th, 2004, 10:39 PM
No. Hingis didn't win the French but will go down as one of the greatest players ever. Seles didn't win Wimbledon but will go down as one of the greatest players ever.
Sanchez-Vicario only won Paris and New York but has gone down as one of the great players ever.

It's an amazing accomplishment, but not winning it isn't the end of a career.

SelesFan70
Apr 29th, 2004, 10:39 PM
I believe so (except in Monica's case :p ...just kidding). To me, it shows that a player can adapt and has "game". :wavey:

Volcana
Apr 29th, 2004, 10:55 PM
No. Hingis didn't win the French but will go down as one of the greatest players ever. Seles didn't win Wimbledon but will go down as one of the greatest players ever.Could you give me some idea of how many players YOU would put into a group called the 'greatest players ever? Sometimes I stop at six, occasionally I go to eight, maybe ten tops.

Court
Navratilova
Graf
Wills Moody
Evert
King
Connolly
Seles
Lenglen
Goolagong

How on earth did you get Hingis on such a list? There are, if you didn't know, eighteen players with more GS singles titles, and ten with more GS singles and more GS doubles. To me, 'greatest players ever' is supposed to be a SMALL group. I usually go with the 'Big Six' and stop. And yes, I know there's more to greatness than GS titles, but ....

I mean, this is how people get to calling SERENA one of the greatest of alltime. By going with their gut, when all the objective measures say otherwise.

Kart
Apr 29th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Maybe that answers your own question Volcana - would you put Hingis on your list if she had won that one extra match in 1997 ?

Volcana
Apr 29th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Maybe that answers your own question Volcana - would you put Hingis on your list if she had won that one extra match in 1997 ?
No. But of course, that would basically give her Serena's current record, and you'll note Serena isn't on my personal all-time great list either. I'm kind of a hardcase about that sort of thing. Too many players are called 'all-time greats'. I wasn't ever a fan of Graf, but you'd think she'd never played when you look at the records of others who get called 'all-time greats'.

I can only barely make the cases for Goolagong, Connolly and Seles.

Celeste
Apr 30th, 2004, 01:10 AM
I don't like Volcana. I think it's huge, winning a career Slam. Only 14 people have made the career Slam. Althea Gibson is better remembered and considered a better player than Doris Hart and Shirley Fry, both of whom have the career Slam. Gibson doesn't. So I assume Volcana will pull everything about them from the Internet and then act like he knows their results when he's in fact never heard of them.

I think most view Sampras as better than Agassi, but it is Agassi who has the career Slam. In this day, it's amazing that Serena did it all, she really is that good. But Hingis "should" have won those two French finals. What the result of ONE match does to ONE player, even Gibson, who lost an Australian final, is amazing. If Hingis had won that French against Majoli and not succumbed to pressure later that year later at tournaments, she'd not only have the Grand Slam but a career Slam. It's ONE match. Strange. I think winning all 4 is huge, but history doesn't seem to support it. Career Slammers are the best but most are not remembered well. Sad, but true. So, to answer that turd's question, it really doesn't matter.

harloo
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:17 AM
Serena winning the "Serena" slam was a great accomplishment and only a handful of champions have a career slam. I think when you can win them back 2 back, you are showing as a player that you are the best over a period of time on all 4 surfaces.

I really don't even understand why this is a question. A career slam is a great accomplishment whomever achieves it.:rolleyes:

K-Dog
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:19 AM
It isn't that important. Ex. Pete Sampras!!

harloo
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:24 AM
It isn't that important. Ex. Pete Sampras!!Has Pete Sampras won the FO?:rolleyes:

Volcana
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:27 AM
I don't like Volcana.If I want the opinion of people with shit for brains, I promise to ask for you specifically.

A career slam is a great accomplishment whomever achieves it.
Who cares who? I was looking at that Serena vs Hingis thread and concluded most people don't think it amounts to much. But that didn't make a lot of sense, so I figured I'd ask.

harloo
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:37 AM
Who cares who? I was looking at that Serena vs Hingis thread and concluded most people don't think it amounts to much. But that didn't make a lot of sense, so I figured I'd ask.
Who is most people? Hingis fans? Of course it doesn't amount to much to them because of the obvious rivalry between the two. I don't care WHO accomplishes this feat, it's a great achievement(whether I dislike them or not).;) :)

Kabezya
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:42 AM
I think it's important to a player insofar as if the opportunity provided itself, they certainly would take it. The concept of the grand slam in my opinion is important period in that the bottom line is winning and that's what the player wants to do. They want the French, they want the US Open, Wimbledon, and the AO. It shows skill, the ability to adapt to surfaces and players on these surfaces - it is an achievement and a sign to being an all around player.

I can't see a player not wanting to win any of these tournaments, so yes, it is important.

K-Dog
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:43 AM
Has Pete Sampras won the FO?:rolleyes:


Yeah, I said that winning the career slam isn't that important. One example is Pete Sampras, he didn't win the French, but he still is the greatest ever!! You proved my point for me with your reply!

Robbie.
Apr 30th, 2004, 02:55 AM
Yeah, I said that winning the career slam isn't that important. One example is Pete Sampras, he didn't win the French, but he still is the greatest ever!! You proved my point for me with your reply!
I agree to an extent. While Pete's career achievements make him (arguably) the best player ever, it's hard to say that not winning the French has not hurt him.

There are a decent percentage of people who consider Rod Laver to be greater because of of his achievements on all surfaces.

If Sampras had won a single French title i think "greatest player ever" would be a no contest.

tennisIlove09
Apr 30th, 2004, 03:19 AM
Could you give me some idea of how many players YOU would put into a group called the 'greatest players ever? Sometimes I stop at six, occasionally I go to eight, maybe ten tops.

Court
Navratilova
Graf
Wills Moody
Evert
King
Connolly
Seles
Lenglen
Goolagong

How on earth did you get Hingis on such a list? There are, if you didn't know, eighteen players with more GS singles titles, and ten with more GS singles and more GS doubles. To me, 'greatest players ever' is supposed to be a SMALL group. I usually go with the 'Big Six' and stop. And yes, I know there's more to greatness than GS titles, but ....

I mean, this is how people get to calling SERENA one of the greatest of alltime. By going with their gut, when all the objective measures say otherwise.OK, don't call them the "greatest" ever, but One of the greatest ever.

How much does it mean to you? On your "greatest" ever list you have Monica Seles (no Wimbledon title), but Serena is missing (all four majors) isn't?

***

How did I put Hingis on a "greatest ever?" Well, she's the youngest to win a major, youngest #1, one a few to three peat at a major, one of a few to appear in all four major finals in the same season (something neither sister did...they appeared in 4 straight, but not the same Calendar year...Hingis was 5 straight major finals, winning 4 :eek:) The list goes on.

Havok
Apr 30th, 2004, 03:20 AM
on the WTA tour no not really such a big deal. on the ATP tour it is a big deal, bigger than WTA imo.

anabolix
Apr 30th, 2004, 03:25 AM
This has beed discussed in a recent thread.

IMO, no one can be THE greatest in tennis, man or women, and have a major achievement in tennis that they couldn't achieve.

Pete sampras was a king, and he bust his ass trying to win the french. However, he couldn't. He just wasn't good enough. He jsut wasn't skilled enough on clay. same for mcenroe and conners, Same for wilander and llendl on grass.

Borg kicked ass on clay and on grass (6 fernch opens and 5 wimbledons), but couldnt win the us open under lights....etc

I'm a huge Seles fan, but monica couldnt win wimbledon. :-(((
So, as great as her achievements were, I could never say she is THE greatEST.

The career slam for todays players is KEY.


U gotta tick ALL THE BOXES

DeDe4925
Apr 30th, 2004, 03:30 AM
I think it's a wonderful achievement. It shows that a player excels on all surfaces. It's like the difference between making an A and a B. You have to have excellent tennis skills to achieve such an accomplishment. I don't think you can be considered one of the greatest without it, including Sampras.

Andy T
Apr 30th, 2004, 04:25 AM
I think it has become more significant nowadays than when three of the slams were played on grass because it shows an ability to adapt to all surfaces and conditions. Another reason it counts more nowadays is that the grand slam has been ressurected as the main goal in tennis, something it wasn't between 71-81, during which time both RG and Oz went through a slump.

As for the greatest question raised by Volcana, I'd have to divide tennis into three periods:1880-1920, 1920-60 and 1960-now. For the first period, I don't know enough to have an opinion and would probably go with the players who won Wimbledon the most or sth. Lenglen, Wills and Connolly stand out as the greatest three players in the second period and in the post 1960 era, I'd plump for the following 4:
Court - Evert -Navratilova - Graf ( in no specific order)
To complete a top 10, I'd add Bueno, King, Goolagong, Seles, Hingis and S. Williams (again in no particular order).
Venus Williams and Justine Hénin would be my two candidates for a place depending on what happens in the rest of their careers.

Volcana
Apr 30th, 2004, 05:20 AM
How much does it mean to you? On your "greatest" ever list you have Monica Seles (no Wimbledon title), but Serena is missing (all four majors) isn't?
Seles and Connolly are both special cases. Both were very dominant young, both were struck by physical tragedy. Connolly never played again. And since I'm trying to decide who the greatest PLAYERS are, not who the had the greatest CAREERS, and they clearly WERE the dominant players when injured, I cut them both some slack.

Lenglen was really the first super-athlete in the game. The first 'star', if you will. As for Goolagong, I saw her whole career. And she accomplished an incredible amount while having to compete against both Court and King. It's as if Sanchez-Vicario had somehow managed to win twice as many majors with Steffi and Monica in the way.

Serena's knockin' onthe door, don't get me wrong. If any active player is going to make my all-time list, she's the only one showing signs. But eighteen players HAVE won six majors. And she's only 22. Let her win a couple more and make it easy for me to make my all-time top ten an all-time top eleven. I actually find winning the grand slam (or four in a row, call it a petite slam?) more significant than winning all four in a career.

Brian Stewart
Apr 30th, 2004, 06:56 AM
The career slam is important as a benchmark. The only more difficult task in the sport is to win all 4 in succession.

It's a goal. A progression. Players use these to mark the progress of their careers.

Make the top 100. Top 50. Top 30. Top 20. Top 10. Top 5. #1.

Win a singles title. Win a primary event. Win a Tier I. Reach a slam final. Win a slam singles title. Win a 2nd slam singles title to "consolidate" the first (remove the "fluke" tag). Win at least 2 different slams. Win all 4.

It's a matter of levels of achievement. Does it mean absolutely everything? No. It has to be taken in context. Many early greats never played in Australia. As Andy pointed out, in the late 70's to very early 80's, the Australian and the French were not considered very important to the players. (Indeed, the Aussie almost lost it's Slam status.) Suppose things hadn't turned around until later in the 80's, when Graf emerged. Evert and Navratilova might never have won "down under".

On the other hand, it does elevate general opinion about a player. Who would even mention Doris Hart or Shirley Fry without the career slam? Only hardcore historians. How much less acclaim would Fred Perry receive were he not the first to do it? And how much more acclaim would Ivan Lendl receive had he won 1 of those Wimbledon finals? How much higher would John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, or Boris Becker rank with a French title? (Mac also needed the Aussie, but does anyone doubt he would have won one?) Give Wilander or Seles a Wimbledon, or Hingis or Davenport a Roland Garros, and they're thought of in a different light.

So while you don't need the Grand Slam, or the Career Slam, to be considered Great, having one does make you appear greater than you would otherwise.

irma
Apr 30th, 2004, 07:06 AM
I think the criteria is wimbledon. It's not my choice but it's a fact

Take Lendl he often is forgotten in best players talk because he didn't win wimbledon. Mac didn't win the french or australia, Borg didn't win australia and the us open, connors didn't win the french and still they are mostly mentioned.

The only exception is maybe Monica but she is in a special positition anyway. Still would she have won wimbledon and not the us open by example. Her legend would have been even bigger. jmho.