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

[Mastoor]

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

Yes, it was the only definition in amateur era when tennis was played by handful of players in about 4 countries. In open era any set of 4 slams was recognised as a grand slam until they figured out that Non-Calendar Grand Slams could be won by Slavs, Blacks, lesbians (read Navratilova first of all), while Calendar Slams in either singles competitions somehow tend to be won by Demographic groups more appealing to Western supremacists like Budge and Connolly(white Americans), Laver and Court (white Australians) and Graff (blonde German)t, when they decided to revoke previous definition and to go back to the one from 1938. I can bet they saluted sieg heil on the occasion.

Here's to check the timeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

 

[Mastoor]

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.

It's 1969, but are you aware that the Australian Open he won that year was played in 5 rounds 3 of which he played against players from his own country. That was little better than if Novak won Serbia Open playing largely his own compatriots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles

Unlike that Novak had to play full set of 28 matches,

In no slam that year Laver had to play second best player in the world. he played finals against seeds 9, 3,6, 3 despite the fact that players were choosing which slams to play, so his path was actually even much more easier than today. Novak on the other hand played number 2 ranked player in all 4 slams in his streak.

Therefore, Novak's Grand Slam is very best of them all

 

[Mastoor]

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

Check the link, despite 6 > 4, they made her not holding the Grand slam because she didn't make 4 in one Gregorian year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

 

[britbox]

Yes, it was the only definition in amateur era when tennis was played by handful of players in about 4 countries. In open era any set of 4 slams was recognised as a grand slam until they figured out that Non-Calendar Grand Slams could be won by Slavs, Blacks, lesbians (read Navratilova first of all), while Calendar Slams in either singles competitions somehow tend to be won by Demographic groups more appealing to Western supremacists like Budge and Connolly(white Americans), Laver and Court (white Australians) and Graff (blonde German)t, when they decided to revoke previous definition and to go back to the one from 1938. I can bet they saluted sieg heil on the occasion.

Here's to check the timeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

No it wasn't... they changed the definition for a two year period in 1982... The Open Era was already 14 years old... So since 1925 (91 years ago, for 89 years it's been regarded as a calendar year grand slam and for 2 years (since revoked) it was regarded as holding the four at once)...and right now it's regarded as a calendar year grand slam, like pretty much every other sport.

Funny you should mention the impact of "White supremacist" Steffi Graf... I was surprised to hear how much sway she had over the 1984 decision considering she was 14 years old and not even in the Top 100... particularly considering Navratilova was also white.

 

[Mastoor]

No it wasn't... they changed the definition for a two year period in 1982... The Open Era was already 14 years old... So since 1925 (91 years ago, for 89 years it's been regarded as a calendar year grand slam and for 2 years (since revoked) it was regarded as holding the four at once)...and right now it's regarded as a calendar year grand slam, like pretty much every other sport.

Funny you should mention the impact of "White supremacist" Steffi Graf... I was surprised to hear how much sway she had over the 1984 decision considering she was 14 years old and not even in the Top 100... particularly considering Navratilova was also white.

You can nitpick around the dates any way you want but it doesn't change the point. All the "appealing" people to the above mentioned group won approved calendar Grand Slams sooner or later while those who don't fit racist criteria of those who rule tennis - didn't, even they won 6 in a row like Navratilova, 2 times 4 like Serena or the best streak in men's tennis like Novak. You just can't tell me that it is all by chance

So Martina is white and American when they want her to be white, but guess what, she is also a Slav and they don't treat them like everyone else in tennis.

 

[britbox]

They won Grand Slams clearly defined as "The Grand Slam". Race doesn't come into it. The definition is clear. I'm not nitpicking around dates - the dates define the Grand Slam. Fine to argue that a series of feats might be greater than the Grand Slam... but the meaning is clear.

 

[Moxie]

You can nitpick around the dates any way you want but it doesn't change the point. All the "appealing" people to the above mentioned group won approved calendar Grand Slams sooner or later while those who don't fit racist criteria of those who rule tennis - didn't, even they won 6 in a row like Navratilova, 2 times 4 like Serena or the best streak in men's tennis like Novak. You just can't tell me that it is all by chance

So Martina is white and American when they want her to be white, but guess what, she is also a Slav and they don't treat them like everyone else in tennis.

Seriously, Mastoor, you are losing the plot. A calendar year slam is a thing, including in golf, and BB has described why it is statistically harder to achieve. It's not a conspiracy. It's a convention. And no one in tennis looks down at the people you mention for their achievements.

Of course the actual "Grand Slam" is as rare as hen's teeth, but so, almost, is holding all four Majors at once. Sure, we can talk about it being relatively equivalent, or redefining "Grand Slam," but it's not a conspiracy against anyone to hold out the notion of a calendar year Grand Slam as an achievement.

 

[Ricardo]

It's 1969, but are you aware that the Australian Open he won that year was played in 5 rounds 3 of which he played against players from his own country. That was little better than if Novak won Serbia Open playing largely his own compatriots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles

Unlike that Novak had to play full set of 28 matches,

In no slam that year Laver had to play second best player in the world. he played finals against seeds 9, 3,6, 3 despite the fact that players were choosing which slams to play, so his path was actually even much more easier than today. Novak on the other hand played number 2 ranked player in all 4 slams in his streak.

Therefore, Novak's Grand Slam is very best of them all

get real, Laver's compatriots were much better than Novak's.... forgot to take your med again?

yeah number 2 ranked player, one is someone in his mid 30s who is well past usual tennis retirement age and the other? I've summed up him alright in other post so just look it up.

 

[shawnbm]

A rather odd way of viewing tennis history--through a race lens. I suppose we could say tennis was exported around the world by the British Empire much the way cricket was but, for some reason, turned out different than cricket in terms of the people who came to dominate it. Even though a British thing (I believe), when one thinks of cricket in USA Trinidad and Tobago, India, Pakistan and the Caribbean Island populations come to the fore, not so much the people of the United Kingdom. Tennis was mostly a UK and Australian thing except for on the Continent with the red clay--the French and southern European people tended to participate and dominate more there. Now, the whole world is tennis' oyster and someone can pop up anywhere and become a dominant player.

 

[Ricardo]

we are all racists if we don't change the century-old definition in Djoker's favour, right Mastoor?

 

[Billie]

People are free to pick whatever they think is better or harder to achieve. I have no problem with people deciding to pick Laver's, there are for and against it arguments that are all valid.

For me Nole slam is better because he did play full 28 matches to win them, on 3 different surfaces. Laver's came in 1 calendar year so that is valid also. I was too small to remember 1969, but reading about these events, I tend to think that the competition wasn't on such a high level as it is today. The players then were not as professional as the players have been for at least a decade now. But again, that can be construed as a personal opinion. Frankly I don't think they are easy to win at all.

I am really looking forward to see how long Nole can keep this streak going. It's been so awesome so far, anything more will be mind blowing for me. Go Nole!!!!

A good article about Nole slam from NBC sports:

http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/the-djoker-slam/

 

[shawnbm]

That was an excellent read on Novak--thanks for posting it, Billie.

 

[Moxie]

I think the competition was on a high level in 1969. The amateurs were just joining the pros, and there were a lot of great players on offer. And the stakes were high, because of the recent amalgamation. Also, there was a very distinct difference between grass and clay. So Laver's CYGS had its own complications. But, as many of us always say, it's hard to compare eras. The competition in the men's game in the the past 10-11 years has been intense, at least starting when Nadal came up to challenge Federer. And the players have to cross 3 surfaces, not 2. (It's worth remembering, though, that HC is rather in-between grass and clay, and they've slowed the grass, at least at Wimbledon.)

So it still shakes down to the Holy Grail of tennis: the calendar year Grand Slam. Is it still a thing?

 

[shawnbm]

Sí, Moxie, todavía.

 

[Ricardo]

People are free to pick whatever they think is better or harder to achieve. I have no problem with people deciding to pick Laver's, there are for and against it arguments that are all valid.

For me Nole slam is better because he did play full 28 matches to win them, on 3 different surfaces. Laver's came in 1 calendar year so that is valid also. I was too small to remember 1969, but reading about these events, I tend to think that the competition wasn't on such a high level as it is today. The players then were not as professional as the players have been for at least a decade now. But again, that can be construed as a personal opinion. Frankly I don't think they are easy to win at all.

I am really looking forward to see how long Nole can keep this streak going. It's been so awesome so far, anything more will be mind blowing for me. Go Nole!!!!

A good article about Nole slam from NBC sports:

http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/the-djoker-slam/

Professionalism only gets better, so players say 50 years from now on will be more professional benefitting from technology. By this logic, Nole's (or others) achievement will also be less valuable as they are simply not as 'professional'.

way to promote your player!!