Tennis Forum banner

Please choose the option(s) that most closely reflect your opinion.

  • <1 Doubles Slam = 1 singles slam (doubles slams are worth more than singles slams)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    49
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
20,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,748 Posts
I would personally say 5 or 6. Although for the Hall of Fame is 3 to 4; probably because they're all about tennis and nothing about fame whoring.

Criteria for automatic ballot inclusion on first eligible ballot will be:
- Singles: Must have won 3 major singles titles and have been world No. 1 for a minimum of 13 weeks; Or, have won 5 major singles titles
- Doubles: Must have won 12 major doubles titles and have been world No. 1 for a minimum of 52 weeks; Or, have won 15 major doubles titles
https://www.tennisfame.com/blog/2017/5/international-tennis-hall-of-fame-to-amend-induction-policies-in-2-01-8
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hanan Ubis

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
20,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,438 Posts
When comparing singles, nobody cares about doubles. That’s a fact. Simply because some players don’t even play doubles and, obviously, success also depends on your partner. Makarova has 3 doubles GS. Do we compare her to Azarenka, Kerber or Halep now? No, of course not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,678 Posts
A person with one singles slam is greater than a person with 100+ doubles slams.

For example: The Bryan brothers in ATP, none of them is greater than any of the slam winners in Singles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoonballPusher

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
Any discipline won in a grand slam is the same weather singles or doubles any win in a slam is great accomplishment even in the doubles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: bobito

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
They shouldn't be combined at all. You can be a singles great and/or a doubles great but these 2 don't combine into a single "greatness" factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,442 Posts
6.9... giggity

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaySix

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
34,454 Posts
Three or four. In that ballpark.

A person with one singles slam is greater than a person with 100+ doubles slams.

For example: The Bryan brothers in ATP, none of them is greater than any of the slam winners in Singles.
This is exactly the type of post I would expect from you. No, that is not a compliment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
A person with one singles slam is greater than a person with 100+ doubles slams.

For example: The Bryan brothers in ATP, none of them is greater than any of the slam winners in Singles.
Greatness is difficult to measure with objective criteria and cross singles/doubles disciplines. But I would say Bryan brothers are greater than Costa or Gaudio, definitely in terms of fame, names recognition, overall results, dominance and as tennis ambassadors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,019 Posts
When comparing singles, nobody cares about doubles. That’s a fact. Simply because some players don’t even play doubles and, obviously, success also depends on your partner. Makarova has 3 doubles GS. Do we compare her to Azarenka, Kerber or Halep now? No, of course not.
azarenka has 4 slams in dubs and mixed, shes no comparison to all of them. :scratch:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,678 Posts
Greatness is difficult to measure with objective criteria and cross singles/doubles disciplines. But I would say Bryan brothers are greater than Costa or Gaudio, definitely in terms of fame, names recognition, overall results, dominance and as tennis ambassadors.
I would say that they are more well-known due to their personal circumstances:
Being twins, and above all, being Americans.

On the long run, I don't think their name recognition will hold up. Costa and Gaudio's names will be forever written on the list of Roland Garros Singles champions.
 

·
***** Emeritus
Joined
·
42,021 Posts
Greatness is difficult to measure with objective criteria and cross singles/doubles disciplines. But I would say Bryan brothers are greater than Costa or Gaudio, definitely in terms of fame, names recognition, overall results, dominance and as tennis ambassadors.
Perfect example. Gaudio's slam was a fluke really. OTOH, Costa really dominated clay tennis (or was up there with the best of them) for a couple of seasons, so he's definitely greater. But you can also reason that Gaudio's slam is worth more just because of his one-time run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,500 Posts
When you are evaluating the legacy and greatness of a tennis player, what is the ratio (of worthiness) of women's doubles slams to singles slams?
Not sure it can be evaluated

But if you wanted to try:eek:h: surely the value of a doubles title has to diminish over time?? Certainly since I have started watching tennis there may be the odd blip here and there but the overall trend in terms of the quality of the doubles field has been in only one direction - continually downwards. People will say it is a different discipline which it is but surely nobody is seriously arguing the best players in the world are playing doubles? And at one point many of them did.

And the value of doubles may keep diminishing as many of the young players coming through seem to have very little interest. Ironically the nearest thing to a well known young player in a doubles draw these days is Jelena Oysterpancake.:eek:h: Even Ash Barty seemed to have better things to do this Wimbledon.:[
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,682 Posts
Personal examination would be 4 doubles slam = 1 singles slam. However, the general consensus here would tell you that it's not comparable.

Reason for 4 is because 2 players worked for this slam so the work is half and the importance itself is half. In general grand slam prize $ these days reflects that as well. Usually doubles prize money is 1/4 of singles, but if you consider the prize $ being distributed to each individual, then it will be 1/8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
928 Posts
Doubles is not worthy of a comparison to singles, doubles is mostly for failed single players who were never good enough, or average single players who play doubles to bump up their career earnings, that's the only reason they bother. Vast majority of people don't care about who won what doubles comp in the years that follow let alone remember, not outside of super fans anyway. Just basically a load of average players shuffling around in small spaces making an easy living.

Let's not pretend otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoonballPusher
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top