[blue sky]

... or someone with at least 1 of all four.

I've always preferred variety. That's why I loved Steffi and couldn't really get behind Seles. Steffi owned every surface and Monica could never get it done on grass.

On the ATP, by the same logic, I preferred Agassi to Sampras. Even though Pete had 7 Wimbledon's, he never got a French.

How does this work for you guys? Do you prefer concentration in one slam or variety?

 

[vwfan]

winning ANY slam is tough.

however, Sampras is considered great cause he dominated the most historic slam: Wimbledon.

So, if you got to only dominate one, it's best if that one is Wimbledon.

 

[kinseh]

I prefer variety as well, winning slams on different surfaces is a big achievement.

Winning multiple slams on one surface should not be underestimated though. People always say (well, they don't anymore, but they used to) that Venus couldn't win anything on other surfaces than grass, but having won 5 Wimbledon's is somewhat of an achievement in itself, even if you don't win one single match on other surfaces. Also, when you're a multiple champion, the other players try extra hard to beat you, as it's nice to say that you have beaten the defending or a former champion.

But that's just my point of view.

 

[Miss Amor]

Venus haters will say they prefer 1 of each and nothing else.

Non biased tennis fanatics will say they would rather have 5 slam titles and be known for completely owning a particular Grandslam.

 

[choi15]

I prefer variety as well, winning slams on different surfaces is a big achievement.

Winning multiple slams on one surface should not be underestimated though. People always say (well, they don't anymore, but they used to) that Venus couldn't win anything on other surfaces than grass, but having won 5 Wimbledon's is somewhat of an achievement in itself, even if you don't win one single match on other surfaces. Also, when you're a multiple champion, the other players try extra hard to beat you, as it's nice to say that you have beaten the defending or a former champion.

But that's just my point of view.

:lol::lol::lol:...somewhat?!?

 

[espntennis]

I think really if you're talking about a multiple (7or8plus let's say) it would be nice to hold all of them. It doesn't happen alot so it's obviously pretty tough.

 

[espntennis]

Look at a player like Sharapova. 3 GS all on different surfaces (W'04, USO'06, AO '08). Who knows if the draw gods will ever smile on her at Roland Garros.

 

[blue sky]

I prefer variety as well, winning slams on different surfaces is a big achievement.

Winning multiple slams on one surface should not be underestimated though. People always say (well, they don't anymore, but they used to) that Venus couldn't win anything on other surfaces than grass, but having won 5 Wimbledon's is somewhat of an achievement in itself, even if you don't win one single match on other surfaces. Also, when you're a multiple champion, the other players try extra hard to beat you, as it's nice to say that you have beaten the defending or a former champion.

But that's just my point of view.

Look, the other thing is, is it really that big a deal to "own" a slam? Yeah, it's great that Sampras had 7 and Venus has 5, but maybe what that really means is that Wimbledon is ridiculously easy to win, if you have a certain skill set.

I think Sampras even said that he would give up a couple of his Wimbys just to get one Roland Garros (I forget the exact quote).

There's a reason they call it "the career" or "calendar" slam. Because it's really hard to do.

 

[serenus_2k8]

Look, the other thing is, is it really that big a deal to "own" a slam? Yeah, it's great that Sampras had 7 and Venus has 5, but maybe what that really means is that Wimbledon is ridiculously easy to win, if you have a certain skill set.

I think Sampras even said that he would give up a couple of his Wimbys just to get one Roland Garros (I forget the exact quote).

There's a reason they call it "the career" or "calendar" slam. Because it's really hard to do.

Anyone who would trade multiple slams for one of another is a fool. Can I ask, is Roland Garros ridiculously easy then too, since players like Nadal and Henin seem to be able to dominate it? Is Miami ridiculously easy to win because the WS dominate it? Obviously not...

 

[calabar]

winning ANY slam is tough.

however, Sampras is considered great cause he dominated the most historic slam: Wimbledon.

So, if you got to only dominate one, it's best if that one is Wimbledon.

He is also considered the greatest ever mostly by Americans. How he can be considered above Rod Laver is one of sports greatest mystery.

 

[kinseh]

:lol::lol::lol:...somewhat?!?

Look, the other thing is, is it really that big a deal to "own" a slam? Yeah, it's great that Sampras had 7 and Venus has 5, but maybe what that really means is that Wimbledon is ridiculously easy to win, if you have a certain skill set.

I think Sampras even said that he would give up a couple of his Wimbys just to get one Roland Garros (I forget the exact quote).

There's a reason they call it "the career" or "calendar" slam. Because it's really hard to do.

I do prefer 3 or 4 different slams over 5 of the same one myself, but if a player "owns" a slam, it doesn't necessarily mean that that particular slam is ridiculously easy to win. The reason can also be that the player is just amazing on that surface. Look at Justine and Rafa -- both ATP & WTA have some really good clay-courters, but they still "own"(owned in Justine's case) RG, because they are amazing clay-courters.

But I agree that a career slam is a huge achievement and something that is really hard to do.

 

[blue sky]

I do prefer 3 or 4 different slams over 5 of the same one myself, but if a player "owns" a slam, it doesn't necessarily mean that that particular slam is ridiculously easy to win. The reason can also be that the player is just amazing on that surface. Look at Justine and Rafa -- both ATP & WTA have some really good clay-courters, but they still "own"(owned in Justine's case) RG, because they are amazing clay-courters.

But I agree that a career slam is a huge achievement and something that is really hard to do.

Thank you! That's really what I was trying to say. Venus can win 20 WB's, but, until she wins a French, I really don't give a shit about her.

Thanks again!

 

[V's a star]

Anyone who would trade multiple slams for one of another is a fool. Can I ask, is Roland Garros ridiculously easy then too, since players like Nadal and Henin seem to be able to dominate it? Is Miami ridiculously easy to win because the WS dominate it? Obviously not...

:worship: God some people are sooooooo DUMB (bluesky)

 

[Harvs]

variety...

 

[V's a star]

Thank you! That's really what I was trying to say. Venus can win 20 WB's, but, until she wins a French, I really don't give a shit about her.

Thanks again!

So then every player who hasnt won the French u dont give a shit about??? come on this is so ridiculous. good thing rest of the world doesnt work like u

 

[adner]

I believe it's harder to win slams on different surfaces than to win one specific slam, but in my eyes anyone who has won more than one slams is already a great champion and really does it matter who would be better of these champions? It can't be judged as they all played in different periods of time.

 

[Hanan Ubis]

Venus haters will say they prefer 1 of each and nothing else.

Non biased tennis fanatics will say they would rather have 5 slam titles and be known for completely owning a particular Grandslam.

:tape:

i'm a venus fan and i wouldn't venture that far.

honestly, it's a really close call. thankfully, for venus, she has 2 USOs and has proven that she is more than capable @ both of the other ones so.....

 

[Uranium]

Thank you! That's really what I was trying to say. Venus can win 20 WB's, but, until she wins a French, I really don't give a shit about her.

Thanks again!

So the only player you probably like currently on the women's tour now should be Serena and that's it since she is the only current player with all 4 slams:tape:

Venus wouldn't give a shit about you if she does or doesn't win the French, so you're even:hug:

 

[djul14]

Clearly someone with at least 1 of all four.
Not saying that for ex 5Wimbledon mean nothing, but being able to win 1Wimbledon and then 1 on every other surface, is a proof that your skills are so high that they allow you to be efficient everywhere.

 

[PizzaMan]

Well, back in the day, as a child, Borg was my favorite player and I loved his domination of Wimbledon (I think he won 6 Wimbys, 2 FOs, and zero AO and USO). I didn't even know and/or care that the other slams existed. In fact, I, even as an American, only became truly aware of the USO (rather than just having a vague notion of its existence), thru Borg's failed attempts to win the thing in the later years of his prime (I hated McEnroe back then because he thwarted Borg's USO efforts :lol.

I still retain much of the perspective of casual American tennis fans, which really only care about Wimby. So I guess I prefer dominance of Wimby over having one of each major. But I only feel that way for Wimby. I prefer a career slam over dominance of any of non-Wimby slams.

Now, Vee is my favorite player today, but that has no bearing on my preference for Wimby dominace. Even before she ever won Wimby, let alone became its queeen, I preferred Wimby dominance and she was my fave. :wavey: