Which of the four Grand Slams do you fancy the best?

[Mastoor]

In entire history of tennis only 3 men won Grand Slams .

First Don Budge won it in 1938. This was a Calendar Grand Slam in 1938, but the streak consisted of 6 consecutive slams. Comparing to Novak streak this was done on 2 surfaces, except Wimbledon other slams had 5 or 6 rounds only, it was amateur era and he didn't have the best of the opponents. On the other hand this was a Calendar Grand Slam which is what ITF recognizes for proper Grand Slam.

Rod Laver won Calendar Grand Slam or if you like Grand Slam in 1962 and 1969. He played Australian Open in 5 rounds largely against people from his own country, 4 slams were on 2 surfaces, competitions were not exactly pro and he didn't always had the best of the opponents.

Novak's streak of four consecutive slams is called Non-calendar Slam and as such is not recognized by ITF for a "proper" Grand Slam. We can call it Djoker's Poker but it is still a Grand Slam, set of all 4 consecutive slams. Unlike Budge and Laver, No1e played a full set of 28 matches to win those 4 slams. He won them on 3 surfaces in the most professional era and playing against #2 seeds in all 4 finals (Federer was #2 in Wimbledon and USO, Murray at AO and FO).

 

[britbox]

I'm still liking Laver's 1969 Open Era Grand Slam best... Because it was THE Grand Slam... i.e. a Calendar Year Grand Slam which is the real definition of the term. The historical significance edges it for me.

Still, I put the Djokerslam ahead of his 1962 Grand Slam because he was playing amateurs on a split tour without the pros... and ahead of Budge's 1938 slam.

So, in order for me would be:

Laver 1969
Djokovic 2015/2016
Budge 1938
Laver 1962

 

[Denis]

Laver won 3/4 slams on grass in 1969. No way that equals Novaks performance.

 

[britbox]

But it's a True Grand Slam and Djoker's isn't.

 

[Moxie]

But it's a True Grand Slam and Djoker's isn't.

I agree with you on Laver '68 then the Nole Slam, and your reasoning about 1962. Either there is a true Grand Slam, as the ultimate achievement, or there isn't. I think there still is, so Laver is over Novak.

 

[Ricardo]

In entire history of tennis only 3 men won Grand Slams .

First Don Budge won it in 1938. This was a Calendar Grand Slam in 1938, but the streak consisted of 6 consecutive slams. Comparing to Novak streak this was done on 2 surfaces, except Wimbledon other slams had 5 or 6 rounds only, it was amateur era and he didn't have the best of the opponents. On the other hand this was a Calendar Grand Slam which is what ITF recognizes for proper Grand Slam.

Rod Laver won Calendar Grand Slam or if you like Grand Slam in 1962 and 1969. He played Australian Open in 5 rounds largely against people from his own country, 4 slams were on 2 surfaces, competitions were not exactly pro and he didn't always had the best of the opponents.

Novak's streak of four consecutive slams is called Non-calendar Slam and as such is not recognized by ITF for a "proper" Grand Slam. We can call it Djoker's Poker but it is still a Grand Slam, set of all 4 consecutive slams. Unlike Budge and Laver, No1e played a full set of 28 matches to win those 4 slams. He won them on 3 surfaces in the most professional era and playing against #2 seeds in all 4 finals (Federer was #2 in Wimbledon and USO, Murray at AO and FO).

please refrain from changing definition for us, the Grand Slam is what it is.

 

[Denis]

But it's a True Grand Slam and Djoker's isn't.

A 'true' grand slam because laver started his streak randomly in January instead of June? Nonsense.

Besides, laver won his AO in a field of only 48 largely Australian amateurs.

 

[Ricardo]

A 'true' grand slam because laver started his streak randomly in January instead of June? Nonsense.

Besides, laver won his AO in a field of only 48 largely Australian amateurs.

nonsense is those who are trying to change the definition which isn't invented yesterday, only because it suits them.

 

[britbox]

A 'true' grand slam because laver started his streak randomly in January instead of June? Nonsense.

Besides, laver won his AO in a field of only 48 largely Australian amateurs.

A grand slam is winning all four majors in the one season. You can personally redefine it as much as you like... but it's still not the Grand Slam... and yeah, a Calendar Year Grand Slam is statistically harder to complete.

 

[Federberg]

Personally I'll go with Novak's. Altogether tougher proposition. More varied surfaces and tougher competition

 

[britbox]

Personally I'll go with Novak's. Altogether tougher proposition. More varied surfaces and tougher competition

What he did may be tougher... but it's not a Grand Slam by true definition.

The Calendar Year Grand Slam is the holy grail of tennis. It's statistically harder to do.

If you have a ten year career then you have 10 attempts at it. In that same 10 year span, you would have 37 attempts at 4 in a row.

 

[shawnbm]

Novak's is a very impressive feat to me, but the Calendar Year Grand Slam is what it is. Laver had to win the biggest events of the year and that creates its own unique pressure. The surfaces were grass and clay then, but everybody was playing the same events. Laver's deservedly should be first, with Novak behind him. If Novak does do it, then I put it ahead of Laver because of the additional surface issue.

 

[Ricardo]

A grand slam is winning all four majors in the one season. You can personally redefine it as much as you like... but it's still not the Grand Slam... and yeah, a Calendar Year Grand Slam is statistically harder to complete.

Exactly, the chance is 1:4 comparing to winning 4 in a row. Then again facts don't matter to the fanatics.

 

[britbox]

Novak's is a very impressive feat to me, but the Calendar Year Grand Slam is what it is. Laver had to win the biggest events of the year and that creates its own unique pressure. The surfaces were grass and clay then, but everybody was playing the same events. Laver's deservedly should be first, with Novak behind him. If Novak does do it, then I put it ahead of Laver because of the additional surface issue.

Agreed. If he pulls it off this year I would too... and he would also have 6 in a row.

 

[shawnbm]

Can you imagine that--six in a row? I think Martina did that in 1983-84.

 

[Federberg]

What he did may be tougher... but it's not a Grand Slam by true definition.

The Calendar Year Grand Slam is the holy grail of tennis. It's statistically harder to do.

If you have a ten year career then you have 10 attempts at it. In that same 10 year span, you would have 37 attempts at 4 in a row.

Yup in terms of chances the Calendar Year one is obviously tougher. But as with year end rankings, I'm not particulary bothered about the calendar issue. Just doing what Novak has done in this era with a deeper pool of talent is the clincher for me

 

[Ricardo]

Yup in terms of chances the Calendar Year one is obviously tougher. But as with year end rankings, I'm not particulary bothered about the calendar issue. Just doing what Novak has done in this era with a deeper pool of talent is the clincher for me

deeper pool may be for lower ranked players, but his best opponents are Murray and 34yo Fed while Laver competed against Rosewall and other legends. In any case Murray is not all timer.

 

[britbox]

Yup in terms of chances the Calendar Year one is obviously tougher. But as with year end rankings, I'm not particulary bothered about the calendar issue. Just doing what Novak has done in this era with a deeper pool of talent is the clincher for me

What he's done isn't the issue for me... needless to say it's a great achievement but it's not a grand slam in the true definition. Kind of like a 6 nations rugby team winning 5 on the spin isn't counted as a grand slam unless it's in the same season... The Year End No.1 doesn't matter to me either... but at least you don't call yourself the Year End #1 in June.

 

[Federberg]

What he's done isn't the issue for me... needless to say it's a great achievement but it's not a grand slam in the true definition. Kind of like a 6 nations rugby team winning 5 on the spin isn't counted as a grand slam unless it's in the same season... The Year End No.1 doesn't matter to me either... but at least you don't call yourself the Year End #1 in June.

Ah! Your issue is with the precise definition of a grand slam. Yup I agree with your definition. I'm just saying that I think Novak's 4 in row earns greater respect from me given how the sport has progressed

 

[britbox]

Ah! Your issue is with the precise definition of a grand slam. Yup I agree with your definition. I'm just saying that I think Novak's 4 in row earns greater respect from me given how the sport has progressed

Fair enough.