Comparisons across eras - something to ponder...

[Federberg]

http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2015/03/roger_federer_and_serena_willi.html?

We've had this discussion in various guises over the years. This article encapsulates a lot of the concerns some of us have with just focussing on the slams. Thoughts?

 

[Kirijax]

http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2015/03/roger_federer_and_serena_willi.html?

We've had this discussion in various guises over the years. This article encapsulates a lot of the concerns some of us have with just focussing on the slams. Thoughts?

Very interesting. The guy tackles an almost impossible task and does a good job. I remember those tournaments being huge right when I started following tennis in the late 70s. Glad to see the Grand Slams have gotten their acts together but a shame so much was wasted in the 70s.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting article - just more proof what a mess tennis is as far as statistics go, especially the further back you go. The big glaring problem in this article, for me, is that he doesn't even mention Pro Slams. If we're going to give credit where credit is due, the Pro Slams should be counted in the tally - certainly equal if not greater than the Amateur Slams of the 60s. If we add in Pro Slams, then Laver and Rosewall remain far ahead of everyone else. Laver won 8 Pro Slams, so if we add that to his 14 he has 22. Rosewall stays at 23.

All that said, it is hard for me to say that the Amateur or Pro Slams are more prestigious than today's World Tour Finals, so it is tempting to count those - and perhaps the Tennis Cup - in the tally. Consider how hard it is to win the WTF today: you have to play 5 top 8 players and lose once at most. Once we open the door to non-Slam events like the Philly Indoors, where do we draw the line?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nice read. Proves once and for all Roger is the GOAT :snicker

:lolz:

 

[Federberg]

Interesting article - just more proof what a mess tennis is as far as statistics go, especially the further back you go. The big glaring problem in this article, for me, is that he doesn't even mention Pro Slams. If we're going to give credit where credit is due, the Pro Slams should be counted in the tally - certainly equal if not greater than the Amateur Slams of the 60s. If we add in Pro Slams, then Laver and Rosewall remain far ahead of everyone else. Laver won 8 Pro Slams, so if we add that to his 14 he has 22. Rosewall stays at 23.

All that said, it is hard for me to say that the Amateur or Pro Slams are more prestigious than today's World Tour Finals, so it is tempting to count those - and perhaps the Tennis Cup - in the tally. Consider how hard it is to win the WTF today: you have to play 5 top 8 players and lose once at most. Once we open the door to non-Slam events like the Philly Indoors, where do we draw the line?

Aren't Pro Slams essentially a pre-Open era construct?

 

[El Dude]

Aren't Pro Slams essentially a pre-Open era construct?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Yes, they are pre-Open Era. And I think they weren't considered "Pro Slams" at the time but retro-actively described as such by some writers. But they were, I believe, the top tournaments of the time with the fiercest competition - more so than the amateur Slams.

 

[Federberg]

Nice read. Proves once and for all Roger is the GOAT :snicker

:lolz:

I'm not sure about that, but it does make one wonder if WTF's should be added to the slam count. If that were the case there wouldn't even be a debate about success in this era..:blush:

I'm not advocating it.. just throwing it out there. That would do the following for the big 3...

Roger : 17 + 6 = 23
Rafa : 14 + 0 = 14
Novak : 8 + 4 = 12

Interesting no?

 

[Federberg]

Aren't Pro Slams essentially a pre-Open era construct?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Yes, they are pre-Open Era. And I think they weren't considered "Pro Slams" at the time but retro-actively described as such by some writers. But they were, I believe, the top tournaments of the time with the fiercest competition - more so than the amateur Slams.

The point being that the writer is talking about relatively recent history. If you start going back, then you have discussion about how much the likes of Budge, Vines et al won. Got to draw the line somewhere, and the open era seems like a reasonable place...

 

[shawnbm]

IF you count those pro slams for purposes of this exercise, then the WTF and Miami f/k/a the Lipton (long hailed as the fifth slam up until the last couple years) would have to be counted I would think--and there is a good argument that the Italian (Rome) and German (Hamburg) Opens might also qualify. Those last two were the biggest clay events for decades leading up to Paris, but they did not always attract all the top players like WTF or Miami/Lipton. Now Indian Wells is in the conversation too.

 

[Kirijax]

We just need to consider from 1968 to the early 80s don't we? The French Open was back to its full strength by 1980, and the Australian Open got going again around 1983 when McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander were all playing there. Anything after that should be strictly Grand Slams and maybe WTF.

 

[shawnbm]

I see your point, but I was relating to the pro slams from another post above. I would think Pancho Gonzalez would more majors too under these scenarios. At the end of the day, certain players dominated and with varying degrees of dominance. Those are the special players.

 

[El Dude]

Aren't Pro Slams essentially a pre-Open era construct?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Yes, they are pre-Open Era. And I think they weren't considered "Pro Slams" at the time but retro-actively described as such by some writers. But they were, I believe, the top tournaments of the time with the fiercest competition - more so than the amateur Slams.

The point being that the writer is talking about relatively recent history. If you start going back, then you have discussion about how much the likes of Budge, Vines et al won. Got to draw the line somewhere, and the open era seems like a reasonable place...

I understand, but several great players - Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe - earned some of their Slams before the Open Era, which the writer was counting. So if we're going to count Laver's and Rosewall's amateur Slams from the late 50s and early 60s, why not their pro Slams from the 60s?

I've been advocating for looking at three broad eras: the early years (first Wimbledon up until 1925), the Pro Era (1926-1968), and the Open Era (1968-present). Then you can separate players into which era they primarily played during and count their entire record, regardless of era - so Laver and Rosewall would be Pro Era, while Newcombe would be Open Era. Then it becomes a bit easier, so you don't have to compare Jack Kramer to John McEnroe, but instead Kramer to Budge and McEnroe to Wilander, etc.

This approach also allows us to avoid trying to directly compare a Laver and Federer. But we can compare Laver to his era and Federer to his, and then get a sense of their relative dominance, and compare that.

I'm afraid, though, that there never will be an easy, agreed upon solution. Actually, I'm glad to say that because it means endless conversations ahead!

 

[Federberg]

^fair enough

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I was reading somewhere that the ILTF voting on pro/am once before in 1961 and the vote went narrowly against starting what would've been the open era in 1961/62.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

We just need to consider from 1968 to the early 80s don't we? The French Open was back to its full strength by 1980, and the Australian Open got going again around 1983 when McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander were all playing there. Anything after that should be strictly Grand Slams and maybe WTF.

yes..at least the majors have settled down finally to a constant happening from 1983 onwards.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nice read. Proves once and for all Roger is the GOAT :snicker

:lolz:

I'm not sure about that, but it does make one wonder if WTF's should be added to the slam count. If that were the case there wouldn't even be a debate about success in this era..:blush:

I'm not advocating it.. just throwing it out there. That would do the following for the big 3...

Roger : 17 + 6 = 23
Rafa : 14 + 0 = 14
Novak : 8 + 4 = 12

Interesting no?

It's really not interesting at all. At least that part. A tournament in which you can lose and still win it and only 8 players are allowed to participate should be put on level terms with slams? Yeah, no.

This only further complicates things, rather than helps them, by adding something arbitrary, and to be honest, flat out ridiculous.

The WTF is a tournament in which a player can pull out midway through and get replaced by someone else... after the tournament had started and he's played some matches.

 

[Federberg]

Like I said, I'm not advocating it. I'm not shocked that you would object

I would generally agree, but not for the reasons you put forth...

It's not some random 8 players. It's the 8 best players of the year. I'm sorry but that means something. The fact that Rafa hasn't won it is neither here nor there (I appreciate that you didn't mention him, but let's not kid ourselves here :snicker). The tournament has historical weight, as can be seen by past champions. And part of what we're discussing is the weight we should give to some slams historically which didn't contain competitive fields. The one thing we know for sure is that the WTF is ALWAYS loaded with the top players

Furthermore.. you start dismissing tournament formats like that and El Dude might have to reconsider the credit he gives to past greats if the defending champion only had to play the final!

 

[Kirijax]

The World Tour Finals is a major event, the fifth slam and a tournament every player who wants to be GOAT needs to have on his resume. Sure it's a different format, but what other tournament do you have to play one of the top eight players in the world three, four or five times? The tournament is also a testament to how strong a player is, because if you're not fit or healthy, then it is a tough tournament to win. And most players want to win it. Federer almost destroyed his goal of winning the Davis Cup in trying to get to the final and finally had to drop out.

Maybe we should start including WTF wins when discussing GOAT.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Like I said, I'm not advocating it. I'm not shocked that you would object

I would generally agree, but not for the reasons you put forth...

It's not some random 8 players. It's the 8 best players of the year. I'm sorry but that means something. The fact that Rafa hasn't won it is neither here nor there (I appreciate that you didn't mention him, but let's not kid ourselves here :snicker). The tournament has historical weight, as can be seen by past champions. And part of what we're discussing is the weight we should give to some slams historically which didn't contain competitive fields. The one thing we know for sure is that the WTF is ALWAYS loaded with the top players

Furthermore.. you start dismissing tournament formats like that and El Dude might have to reconsider the credit he gives to past greats if the defending champion only had to play the final!

Wait, how am I dismissing anything? All I'm saying is it shouldn't be held equally to slams which to be honest, I don't really think is debatable. I mean, do you think players would be pulling out of the WTF as often as they did if it had been a slam? You could feasibly win the WTF by winning 3 matches (extreme case, I know, but think about that for a second). More realistically, you can win it by winning 4 matches only.

And El Dude absolutely has to reconsider the credit he gives to past greats when the defending champion only had to play in the final IMO. Sorry, not all tournaments are created equal, and formats do matter. That's why I don't put too much credit in Connors winning 100+ tournaments when so many of them literally consisted of winning two matches.

There are certain things I'll never understand, including the need to elevate things beyond what they really are (not saying you're doing it, but you seem to imply it's worth an argument...but I've yet to understand why). The WTF is an important tournament on its own -- the fifth most important of the year -- but it is still significantly behind the 4 tournaments ahead of it, both in terms of points, value, format, etc... Not sure what that has to do with Nadal. You don't see me arguing that an Olympic gold medal should equal a slam do you? So it's wrong to assume that my argument about the WTF has anything to do with who I root for.

No player, tournament organizer, or anyone involved with tennis puts the WTF on equal footing with slams. That's a fact. That kind of negates the entire argument. I'm not pooping on the article, mind you, but I do not understand this one point at all.

PS: Anyone thinks Federer would have pulled out before the Djokovic match had it been a Grand Slam final?

 

[Federberg]

^I'm with you. I certainly don't see the WTF as being on a par with the slams. I merely speculated, based on the article. I do think the article makes a very interesting point though, regarding comparability of slams across eras. It's one of the reasons why I have a huge problem with the concept of the GOAT. How can we truly compare the ability of players when we even have difficulties comparing the tournaments they were playing in.

The only qualifier I would attach to this - regarding the WTF - and the slams is that certainly in this era there's no comparison between the 2. But you go back to earlier era's and there's a strong argument in favour of the WTF versus some of the slams, and indeed other tournaments. Obviously these days the tour is far more organised, and the heirarchy is more established