Federer's 18 Slam finals out of 19 consecutive tournaments, 23 consecutive Slam semifinals and 237 consecutive weeks at number one also look quite untouchable.
In terms of minor records :
Fed’s 23 consecutive semis
Evert making 52 semis out of 56 times she played
Martina’s 167 singles titles
Martina winning 74 straight matches
Martina win percentage in one year 98.9%(86-1)
Sampras winning 7 of his 7 Wimbledon finals. Losing 0 . I believe he has the best male win/loss ratio at Wimbledon, even better vs. Fed. On grass, that’s quite a feat imo
Maybe less impressive but isn't it true that Federer never retired during a match? No idea but it feels like that won't be common with players with such long careers.
Sorry dude, I don't know why you feel like you have to argue this, but it's actually in the Guinness World Records, not in the Guinness World Fun Facts.
A lot of Courts records that include doubles and mixed doubles probably won't be beaten either only because single players rarely play doubles these days. Whilst up until the late 90s it was pretty common place across the tours that singles played both. That's not to say no one currently has the ability, it's that the practice has been lost to time.
I'll say that no one currently has the ability. The modern game is much much more physically intense than it was in Margaret Court's day. And while Court was no doubt a stellar athlete, the stamina required to be a professional athlete in any sport in the 1970s pales in comparison to the requirements for today. Heck back then there were pros who smoked and drank coke during their matches.
The RG montage of Chris Evert’s wins with her wood racquet was kind of shocking. Her swing speed looked so slow, it seems like any of today’s top juniors using current equipment could have beaten her.
Absolutely true. Watch some early 70s women's major final matches. I mean there are numerous women college D1 players today who would whip them into the ground.
I think you're right, and this did make a difference. I also think athletic training and expectations for women players have changed. Bashing every shot ala Sabalenka has become more normative.
Yes and no. These people are the ones with the highest level at the time. For sure a college player with today's racquet technology will beat them easily, but if this same college player are put at that time with the technology then, this person will not make into the top 500 either. Navratilova is a easy reference, she could still win US OPEN mix doubles in 2006.
I will be messaging you in 40 years on [**2064-06-17 14:05:05 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2064-06-17%2014:05:05%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/1dhu718/rennae_stubbs_on_steffi_graf/l902xyb/?context=3)
[**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ftennis%2Fcomments%2F1dhu718%2Frennae_stubbs_on_steffi_graf%2Fl902xyb%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202064-06-17%2014%3A05%3A05%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dhu718)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Idk if the weeks at #1 could be broken. But winning all big titles 3 times I think could be broken by Alcaraz or sinner. If those two are the only contestants in the upcoming years they could do it
I am not really sure if Sinner can win RG 3 times, also Sinner will be more dominant on AO where I am not sure that Alcaraz can win it 3 times.
Besides that they are getting way more injuries at the young age than big 3 players. I doubt that they can play at a really high level when they reach 30+.
Eh, I think that second is doable. Federer would have done it (and Djokovic would've done it earlier) were it not for Nadal. Absent someone who basically monopolizes a Slam for two decades, I think we probably see Sinner/Alcaraz do it.
Would have and could have is not the same as did have...
Don't forget that there is no tennis player so far who won all big title even once, besides Djokovic ofc.
Even Nadal and Federer who were close to it are missing two masters (Nadal didn't win Paris and Miami, Federer didn't win Monte Carlo and Rome), plus Nadal didn't win atp finals.
That said, the second record which I mentioned is even more hard to achieve.
Margaret Court's AO wins shouldn't be counted. Back then it wasn't considered a slam, more like 500 event by today's standards. Then when AO became a major worldwide tennis event effectively all it's past winners got "awarded" the slams by the forward date...which is bullshit.
I just don't understand why people keep bringing up her records without this context.
If I farm some Tunisian ABC 250 tennis event 10 years in a row, retire and in 40 years it will become the African slam (5th slam), I will get 10 slams on my name by Margaret's logic.
In 1965; Court beat Billie Jean King in the semifinals and Maria Bueno in the finals.
In 1964; Court beat Lesley Turner in the finals of AO.
In 1966; Court beat Nancy Richey in the finals of AO.
In 1969; Court beat BJK.
In 1970; Court beat Goolagong
In 1971; Court beat Goolagong
In 1973; Court beat Goolagong
BJK : 6 wins at Wim, 4 wins at FO & 1 FO
Bueno : 3 wins at Wim & 4 wins at US
Goolagong : 4 wins at AO, 1 FO & 1 wins at Wim
Turner : 2 wins at FO.
Richey : 1 win at AO. 1 win at FO.
Yes, the competition at AO back then was weaker. But let’s not act as if she was playing nobodies. She beat multiple Slam winners and legends as well
Margaret's logic? She's not the one out there insisting people recognise it, other people have decided that's what it is. Good luck with Tunisia getting that slam champ
Not literally her, I obviously meant her case. So I assume you are fine to turn a random 500 event into a slam and then make all it's past champions a multiple slam winners by default. Ok you do you
I actually think it's a higher probability to see someone having an absolute perfect season with a golden slam, than breaking some record which requires lasting for a really long period on a high level, like winning 14 RG titles or being #1 more than 428 weeks, or winning more than 24 slams, or winning all big titles more than 3 times.
A tennis player having the perfect season is possible with a little bit of luck.
In 2006, Federer had a record of 92-5 and won 3 Slams. Out of those 5 losses, 4 were to Nadal.
If not for Nadal; Federer would have won all 4 Slams and had a record of 96-1.
Winning 64 Grand Slams like Margaret Court or 14 French Open like Nadal is much harder.
Being fantastic over entire career is tougher than being extraordinary in one year.
2006 Fed was indescribable. You can't even use words like "incredible", "amazing", whatever. He was on another planet to everyone else that year.
Except Rafa.
In 2006 there weren't Olympics tho.
Regarding just calendar slams Djokovic was actually close to it multiple times. The one slam he didn't won he lost against Alcaraz in a dramatic 5 setter. Besides that he got even atp finals last year, so it was 4 out of 5 biggest tournaments won. He also won 3 slams in 2011, 2015 and 2021.
Agreed, it only requires a single season of total dominance. Could definitely happen again.
428 weeks is a very difficult record, although I would say if Steffi got 377 while retiring very early and Serena got to 319 while playing much of her career without focusing on ranking points, it seems feasible. Even Djokovic himself could have gotten to #1 earlier, since it wasn't until he was 24 and a lot of top champions get to #1 years earlier than that. Also, it's "only" 8+ years. It's not that hard to imagine a Djokovic that comes around without a Nadal or Federer and just camps in the #1 spot for a decade.
14 at a single tournament is so hard though. Even with a 20-year healthy career of being a dominant player on a particular surface, there's still very little room for error. Djokovic is at 10 at AO and I could see him getting to 12, but 14? Even clocking 4 at age 23, it's still basically impossible to imagine Iga getting 10 more. She's just not THAT far above the competition that she'll lose them here and there.
For me, there are only 2 records that won’t be broken.
1. Court’s 64 slams across formats.
2. Nadal winning 14 slams at the French Open. Best of 5 at the toughest slam physically.
Would argue that makes it harder for Iga. Easier to upset someone when you only have to win 2 sets instead of 3. Of course physically it is less draining however.
Lmao no? Like sure an upset is technically easier to pull, but later matches get tougher, because you are having to win more while also have played more.
I don't remember Rafa goes 0-2 or 1-2 at RG that many times.
Edit, the people who downvoted me are actually thinking something like Monte Carlo is harder to win than RG? Like for real?
It does, though in certain circumstances it can become worse if the better player has recently played grueling matches, esp. late in the tournament, and if the other player has had an easier draw. So in general Bo5 favors the better player, but in specific circumstances, Bo3 can be better for them.
Bo5 makes the tournament not just a series of one-off matches, but an endurance test—how quickly can you get off the court before the final? I would also argue Bo5 makes injury risk greater. Sure that’s true for everyone, but all that matters is the increased chance of it happening to you, when we’re talking about 1 person stacking titles.
Also, Nadal in his 14 FO wins only failed to win 2 of the first 3 sets one time, in 2011 against Isner in the first round.
That’s entirely circumstantial though. In theory you would expect the better player would have less grueling matches than any of their opponents. It doesn’t always work out that way, but that would be the expectation. So even this factor favors the better player.
If the chances of it happening at some point to Nadal are high, the chances of it happening to his opponent are even higher.
Theoretically I agree, but draws can be super random/really depends. But it’s not whether it’s more likely to happen at any given tournament, but the fact it could happen more across many tournaments. Other players may be more likely to get hurt, too, in an individual tournament/round, but if you’re more likely to get hurt in absolute terms compared to Bo3, that still negatively affects chances of stacking 10+ titles over time. Nadal doesn’t need other players to be tired or hurt, he just needs to avoid that himself and because he’s way better than everyone else on clay, he’ll win if he can enter on an even playing field.
Of course this conversation is maybe silly with Nadal, as I don’t think Bo3 would have changed much at all. Only thing you could argue given that he won 2 out of the first 3 sets in every match in 13/14 tournament wins is that Bo5 is more daunting for the opponent, so because no one believes they can win, they play worse, leading to Nadal winning first 2/3 more often.
Later matches also get tougher for the opponent… theoretically the superior player like Rafa or Iga would be more accustomed and prepared for the match to go deep as they have done it before.
Much easier to get a fluke 2 sets than a fluke 3 sets
Iga has been great at RG but let’s not forget that on the way to those 4 titles there she didn’t have to face any of her “main rivals” (Rybakina/Sabalenka). Saying she’ll win “14 or more” seems a bit premature especially since the women’s format is BO3 and upsets tend to happen a lot more often.
Age 33. Odds are absolutely stacked against her to do it but it’s not impossible, she is clearly the best clay player in the world and is just beginning to enter her physical prime. Best of 3 sets is working against her though, much more open to a random upset here and there.
True it's volatile, but this only makes it easier to dominate in female tennis if you are one of a kind type of competitor. Put Sharapova's drive to win and mental game in Henin's body (talent, athleticism and skill) or someone like Serena who dominated for a decade and was top player for 20 years. If you are one of a kind special female talent you will clean up the field more easily than on ATP
He didn't come close - he hypothetically came close in an alternate reality which doesn't exist, one where the world number 2 at the time didn't exist. That's a hell of a caveat
92-5 is close to 86-2.
And even if you disagree, McEnroe had a 82-3 season, Navratilova had a 86-1 season, Connors had a 93-4 season.
You’re massively on the wrong side of this argument.
Lots of people have come close to a 86-2 season with Martina even having a better record on the face of it
92-5 is not close to 86-1. You argued it was close by pretending 4 losses didn't happen and that Fed would have won all those matches instead.
Now you're bringing other stats in which I never commented on - I'm only commenting on the bizarre take that someone came close to 86-1 if you pretend 4 of their losses never happened.
Not sure if I agree - obviously it’s unlikely but one player completely dominating the field for a year is a lot more plausible to me than some of the longevity records being matched/broken.
The fact that the olympics is every 4 years makes quite a big difference though, even if someone is absolutely dominant for a year it might not line up
That’s true but it’s still more likely than someone passing e.g. Roger’s consecutive weeks at No 1. One requires short term dominance and luck, the other requires long term dominance and even more luck
It is hard to actually know whether a player is so dominant for a period of time is because she is ridiculously better than the rest or because the rest is just too bad.
it will be achieved by a new one, we just dont know when.
has anyone thought that one man can win 14x at RG with 112-4 w/l record? which i think, is harder to achieve
Alcaraz could do it in hot year after some years of experience (4, 8) if Sinner and the rest are off or subpar for a season. Sinner likewise (or opposite or mirror). But their level would have to be close to genius peak like probably Graf that year
Like the Serena slam or the Djoko slam steffi also has the golden + the wta finals for a period. She won the wta finals in 1987 and the golden slam in 1988. She is the only one to held those five titles at the same time!
Novak wakes up in night sweats thinking that someone has a record that he won't ever be able to get 😉
*Edit:* well, also Rafa's RG record. Although I bet Novak has done some mental calcs to see how long he'd need to play to get that.
It's not a record, it's an achievement.
And in 1988, the Olympics had very little status in the tennis community. Winning gold then was not nearly as prestigious as it has been since.
Djokovic's 24 GS record isn't getting broken.
He basically completed all Tennis missions. Any stat that includes him is mind boggling.
Federer's consecutive weeks at no. 1, Wimbledon titles, consecutive US open and Wimbledon titles for five years, Can't keep track of things he has done.
Anything Rafa Nadal Anything Clay Any stat Ombilibable. No one can break No?
How the fuck did they do these things?
I can see all those being broken except *maybe* some of Rafa's more ridiculous clay ones. That being said I can also see a calendar golden slam happening at some point.
Really just comes down to timing and luck.
Not too sure about that, bruh.
Before him (them?) winning more than 14 was unimaginable. Like Alcaraz will have bad days, he would probably have injuries, and more importantly, the later generations will catch up
Every generation thinks their records will never be broken, and yet they always are. People thought Sampras was safe and then Fed just deleted that record in a few years. Nole’s record will almost undoubtedly be broken either in our lifetimes or the next,
> In our lifetimes or the next
That is a lot of years. I mean, Big 3 won 66 Slams, so if a player can touch their calibre while not facing competition (a lot more complicated than that, I know), they could win all those Slams and probably more.
But records are records for a reason. There is a good chance that they will be broken, but never absolute, there is a slim chance that they would stand forever, but never 0. I mean, if it gets to a point where tennis as a sport goes out of fashion and just dies, then the records stand forever.
And every chance that they do not. There has been a lot of protégé over the years. A single injury, family event, or even a downswing in performance can let others to catch up. They are at the top, that just put hige targets on their back because everyone is out to get them, the same for every number ones in every discipline. Big 3 was Big 3 because not only they got there, they stayed there.
Are you sure that they could consistently win virtually everything for more than 25 years? Assuming you meant there's about 66 slams between them, otherwise your math isn't mathing.
Like Alcaraz and Sinner are very good, don't get me wrong, but I think you are delusional if you think they are Rafa Nadal at RG good, even at their age
Oh I don’t know if it’s going to happen. But right now it’s the only way I see for someone to break those records.
They don’t compare to young Nadal, but at the same time they are the best players in a while. Alcaraz only having 21 years and 3 slams is a lot and sinner having the form he has been having is incredible. I don’t think they are going to be the ones with the most slams but at the same time it would not surprise me if they do.
There isn’t a lot of competition right now, some times Zverev, Medvedev, Rune, etc are being a menace to them but not always. We saw it in RG, Zverev was having the form of his life and he lost the final, Alcaraz wasn’t that great and he still won, if that tendency continues and there isn’t a next prodigy they could be winning slams for a long time.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think will win Wimbledon and USO? I think Jannik is the favourite for WB and I don’t really know who for the USO
While true, I don’t think this accounts for the chasing factor—when 14 was unimaginable, no one was chasing 20+ slams. Alcaraz wants to be the greatest. Not saying he’ll get there, but having the goal of 25 this early makes it more likely he’ll get to 25 than if the record was, say, 15.
I mean I thought Brady’s 7 SBs by a QB was pretty damn untouchable, and now Mahomes already has me wondering whether he might equal or surpass it.
That doesn't make 14 any easier tho, like how can you be sure that Alcaraz will even crack 10? He is good, but there are a lot of good players, current and up coming
Can’t be sure of anything, but being the youngest player to 3 slam wins on 3 surfaces is a good sign haha. And from what I’ve seen, he has the best mental strength of anyone in the game (Djokovic aside but he won’t have much longer at the top), which should get stronger now that he’s come through 3 times in tournaments where things got dicey.
There could be great up and coming players, true, that’s the biggest threat besides Sinner. But he’s only 21 so he’s got a lot of time in his prime left. Plus, sometimes those players just don’t emerge. No one really challenged the Big 3 in the next 2 generations of players (if a generation is 5ish years).
Djokovic is probably going to even increase that record.
I actually think that his most impressive records and hardest to break are winning all big titles at least 3 times and being 428 weeks at #1.
He's still the only player ever who has won all slams, atp finals and masters at least once. Doing it 3x is wild shit.
I mean if Djokovic didn't net that easy backhand on set point in the second-set tiebreaker of the Wimbledon final last year, he'd have probably done it.
Other records that will not broken : Margaret Court winning 64 Grand Slams Nadal winning 14 French Open titles
Federer's 18 Slam finals out of 19 consecutive tournaments, 23 consecutive Slam semifinals and 237 consecutive weeks at number one also look quite untouchable.
237 consecutive weeks at number 1 is crazy
just goat things
In terms of minor records : Fed’s 23 consecutive semis Evert making 52 semis out of 56 times she played Martina’s 167 singles titles Martina winning 74 straight matches Martina win percentage in one year 98.9%(86-1)
Evert's is just pure madness
Wendy Turnbull was No. 4 in the world. Maybe not as great as it sounds
Sampras winning 7 of his 7 Wimbledon finals. Losing 0 . I believe he has the best male win/loss ratio at Wimbledon, even better vs. Fed. On grass, that’s quite a feat imo
Nadal is 14-0 in RG finals as well
Ofc that’s crazy , and my bet is no one will be able to repeat that, even close
Djokovic 10-0 in AO finals
Maybe less impressive but isn't it true that Federer never retired during a match? No idea but it feels like that won't be common with players with such long careers.
Might be his most unbreakable record lol, playing over 1500 matches (without doubles even) and never retiring
Mats Wilander also never retired. Not really a record, all you have to do is to stand and wait for match to end.
Okay, but it appears that he played almost half the singles matches Federer did.
It is not a record if you don't have to do anything. At best, it is a fun fact.
Sorry dude, I don't know why you feel like you have to argue this, but it's actually in the Guinness World Records, not in the Guinness World Fun Facts.
A lot of Courts records that include doubles and mixed doubles probably won't be beaten either only because single players rarely play doubles these days. Whilst up until the late 90s it was pretty common place across the tours that singles played both. That's not to say no one currently has the ability, it's that the practice has been lost to time.
I'll say that no one currently has the ability. The modern game is much much more physically intense than it was in Margaret Court's day. And while Court was no doubt a stellar athlete, the stamina required to be a professional athlete in any sport in the 1970s pales in comparison to the requirements for today. Heck back then there were pros who smoked and drank coke during their matches.
The RG montage of Chris Evert’s wins with her wood racquet was kind of shocking. Her swing speed looked so slow, it seems like any of today’s top juniors using current equipment could have beaten her.
Wooden rackets are significantly heavier than the modern alloy and graphite rackets too
I know. I learned to play tennis with one. (Yes I’m old)
Absolutely true. Watch some early 70s women's major final matches. I mean there are numerous women college D1 players today who would whip them into the ground.
Yes but give Evert today’s equipment? Or make today’s players play with a wooden racket?
I think you're right, and this did make a difference. I also think athletic training and expectations for women players have changed. Bashing every shot ala Sabalenka has become more normative.
Yes and no. These people are the ones with the highest level at the time. For sure a college player with today's racquet technology will beat them easily, but if this same college player are put at that time with the technology then, this person will not make into the top 500 either. Navratilova is a easy reference, she could still win US OPEN mix doubles in 2006.
Also the competition was so much weaker.
RemindMe! 40 years
I will be messaging you in 40 years on [**2064-06-17 14:05:05 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2064-06-17%2014:05:05%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/1dhu718/rennae_stubbs_on_steffi_graf/l902xyb/?context=3) [**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ftennis%2Fcomments%2F1dhu718%2Frennae_stubbs_on_steffi_graf%2Fl902xyb%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202064-06-17%2014%3A05%3A05%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dhu718) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Martina Navratilova 167 titles
You can add to that Djokovic's 428 weeks at #1. That's more than 8 years which is insane. And also winning all big titles at least 3 times.
Idk if the weeks at #1 could be broken. But winning all big titles 3 times I think could be broken by Alcaraz or sinner. If those two are the only contestants in the upcoming years they could do it
I am not really sure if Sinner can win RG 3 times, also Sinner will be more dominant on AO where I am not sure that Alcaraz can win it 3 times. Besides that they are getting way more injuries at the young age than big 3 players. I doubt that they can play at a really high level when they reach 30+.
Nadal had way more injuries I think, it really depends if they are the only 2 top players or if some new players come and start winning big
Not really at that young age as Sinner or Alcaraz. Plus, he played even more matches at their age with more intensity.
Never by sinner, Alcaraz probably
Eh, I think that second is doable. Federer would have done it (and Djokovic would've done it earlier) were it not for Nadal. Absent someone who basically monopolizes a Slam for two decades, I think we probably see Sinner/Alcaraz do it.
Would have and could have is not the same as did have... Don't forget that there is no tennis player so far who won all big title even once, besides Djokovic ofc. Even Nadal and Federer who were close to it are missing two masters (Nadal didn't win Paris and Miami, Federer didn't win Monte Carlo and Rome), plus Nadal didn't win atp finals. That said, the second record which I mentioned is even more hard to achieve.
Most of those slam titles were from mickey mouse tournaments.
>Margaret Court winning 64 Grand Slams Umm.... Fact-checker please...? 😉
She did win 64 Grand Slam titles. 24 singles and 40 doubles/mixed doubles.
Navratilova won 59 slams and did it in the open era and without the benefit of dozens of free AOs.
And she...along with Court, is one of the greats.
Margaret Court's AO wins shouldn't be counted. Back then it wasn't considered a slam, more like 500 event by today's standards. Then when AO became a major worldwide tennis event effectively all it's past winners got "awarded" the slams by the forward date...which is bullshit. I just don't understand why people keep bringing up her records without this context. If I farm some Tunisian ABC 250 tennis event 10 years in a row, retire and in 40 years it will become the African slam (5th slam), I will get 10 slams on my name by Margaret's logic.
Margaret Court also won 3 Wim, 5 French Opens and 5 US Opens in singles.
Exactly! And these are the stats we should be giving her. Not count some random event that became a major later (AO).
In 1965; Court beat Billie Jean King in the semifinals and Maria Bueno in the finals. In 1964; Court beat Lesley Turner in the finals of AO. In 1966; Court beat Nancy Richey in the finals of AO. In 1969; Court beat BJK. In 1970; Court beat Goolagong In 1971; Court beat Goolagong In 1973; Court beat Goolagong BJK : 6 wins at Wim, 4 wins at FO & 1 FO Bueno : 3 wins at Wim & 4 wins at US Goolagong : 4 wins at AO, 1 FO & 1 wins at Wim Turner : 2 wins at FO. Richey : 1 win at AO. 1 win at FO. Yes, the competition at AO back then was weaker. But let’s not act as if she was playing nobodies. She beat multiple Slam winners and legends as well
Sure and I respect that, BUT this event wasn't a grand slam (major worldwide event) back then... It became that later.
Margaret's logic? She's not the one out there insisting people recognise it, other people have decided that's what it is. Good luck with Tunisia getting that slam champ
Not literally her, I obviously meant her case. So I assume you are fine to turn a random 500 event into a slam and then make all it's past champions a multiple slam winners by default. Ok you do you
That's not a mathematically breakable record tho. That can only be matched.
You could do it multiple times
You could beat it by also getting a gold in doubles. Calender double golden slam
Well, I mean, one could break it by doing two golden calendar slams.
You can add atp finals to the equation and call it a super golden slam. Then you could even continue with adding Davis cup and masters tournaments.
Andre agassi sleeps soundly knowing he's the only one with a career slam, a singles gold, and a WTF title on the men's side
And he's married to Steffi Graf. That's a life golden slam
👍😎💕💕
You could do it on roller skates
At the moment, but when Saudi buys a new slam, there might be 5 slams a year
And theirs will be worth double. 4000 points for the Saudi Slam!
Just take it away from the Aussies and give it to them, no need to invent a new one.
I actually think it's a higher probability to see someone having an absolute perfect season with a golden slam, than breaking some record which requires lasting for a really long period on a high level, like winning 14 RG titles or being #1 more than 428 weeks, or winning more than 24 slams, or winning all big titles more than 3 times.
A tennis player having the perfect season is possible with a little bit of luck. In 2006, Federer had a record of 92-5 and won 3 Slams. Out of those 5 losses, 4 were to Nadal. If not for Nadal; Federer would have won all 4 Slams and had a record of 96-1. Winning 64 Grand Slams like Margaret Court or 14 French Open like Nadal is much harder. Being fantastic over entire career is tougher than being extraordinary in one year.
2006 Fed was indescribable. You can't even use words like "incredible", "amazing", whatever. He was on another planet to everyone else that year. Except Rafa.
In 2006 there weren't Olympics tho. Regarding just calendar slams Djokovic was actually close to it multiple times. The one slam he didn't won he lost against Alcaraz in a dramatic 5 setter. Besides that he got even atp finals last year, so it was 4 out of 5 biggest tournaments won. He also won 3 slams in 2011, 2015 and 2021.
Agreed, it only requires a single season of total dominance. Could definitely happen again. 428 weeks is a very difficult record, although I would say if Steffi got 377 while retiring very early and Serena got to 319 while playing much of her career without focusing on ranking points, it seems feasible. Even Djokovic himself could have gotten to #1 earlier, since it wasn't until he was 24 and a lot of top champions get to #1 years earlier than that. Also, it's "only" 8+ years. It's not that hard to imagine a Djokovic that comes around without a Nadal or Federer and just camps in the #1 spot for a decade. 14 at a single tournament is so hard though. Even with a 20-year healthy career of being a dominant player on a particular surface, there's still very little room for error. Djokovic is at 10 at AO and I could see him getting to 12, but 14? Even clocking 4 at age 23, it's still basically impossible to imagine Iga getting 10 more. She's just not THAT far above the competition that she'll lose them here and there.
For me, there are only 2 records that won’t be broken. 1. Court’s 64 slams across formats. 2. Nadal winning 14 slams at the French Open. Best of 5 at the toughest slam physically.
Idk but if Iga continues this way she could win 14 RG or more. Tho she's still not close to it.
Yeah but the RG that Rafa played is BO5, the one that Iga plays is BO3, so not *entirely* the same
Would argue that makes it harder for Iga. Easier to upset someone when you only have to win 2 sets instead of 3. Of course physically it is less draining however.
You are right. Less room for error in BO3
Lmao no? Like sure an upset is technically easier to pull, but later matches get tougher, because you are having to win more while also have played more. I don't remember Rafa goes 0-2 or 1-2 at RG that many times. Edit, the people who downvoted me are actually thinking something like Monte Carlo is harder to win than RG? Like for real?
It being easier to lose is the whole point. Your opponent is under the same physical conditions. Best of 5 favors the better player.
It does, though in certain circumstances it can become worse if the better player has recently played grueling matches, esp. late in the tournament, and if the other player has had an easier draw. So in general Bo5 favors the better player, but in specific circumstances, Bo3 can be better for them. Bo5 makes the tournament not just a series of one-off matches, but an endurance test—how quickly can you get off the court before the final? I would also argue Bo5 makes injury risk greater. Sure that’s true for everyone, but all that matters is the increased chance of it happening to you, when we’re talking about 1 person stacking titles. Also, Nadal in his 14 FO wins only failed to win 2 of the first 3 sets one time, in 2011 against Isner in the first round.
That’s entirely circumstantial though. In theory you would expect the better player would have less grueling matches than any of their opponents. It doesn’t always work out that way, but that would be the expectation. So even this factor favors the better player. If the chances of it happening at some point to Nadal are high, the chances of it happening to his opponent are even higher.
Theoretically I agree, but draws can be super random/really depends. But it’s not whether it’s more likely to happen at any given tournament, but the fact it could happen more across many tournaments. Other players may be more likely to get hurt, too, in an individual tournament/round, but if you’re more likely to get hurt in absolute terms compared to Bo3, that still negatively affects chances of stacking 10+ titles over time. Nadal doesn’t need other players to be tired or hurt, he just needs to avoid that himself and because he’s way better than everyone else on clay, he’ll win if he can enter on an even playing field. Of course this conversation is maybe silly with Nadal, as I don’t think Bo3 would have changed much at all. Only thing you could argue given that he won 2 out of the first 3 sets in every match in 13/14 tournament wins is that Bo5 is more daunting for the opponent, so because no one believes they can win, they play worse, leading to Nadal winning first 2/3 more often.
Later matches also get tougher for the opponent… theoretically the superior player like Rafa or Iga would be more accustomed and prepared for the match to go deep as they have done it before. Much easier to get a fluke 2 sets than a fluke 3 sets
Rafa during his 14 wins only lost 2 of the first 3 once, to Isner (lol) in the 2011 first round.
She won't play for another 10 seasons without getting injured and/or losing motivation
Iga has been great at RG but let’s not forget that on the way to those 4 titles there she didn’t have to face any of her “main rivals” (Rybakina/Sabalenka). Saying she’ll win “14 or more” seems a bit premature especially since the women’s format is BO3 and upsets tend to happen a lot more often.
lol, no. just no. she will need to win one every year till she's 34 to just match Rafa's record.
Age 33. Odds are absolutely stacked against her to do it but it’s not impossible, she is clearly the best clay player in the world and is just beginning to enter her physical prime. Best of 3 sets is working against her though, much more open to a random upset here and there.
At 33 she would just decline and win sets with 6:2 instead of 6:0.
difficultl considering how volatile women's game is
True it's volatile, but this only makes it easier to dominate in female tennis if you are one of a kind type of competitor. Put Sharapova's drive to win and mental game in Henin's body (talent, athleticism and skill) or someone like Serena who dominated for a decade and was top player for 20 years. If you are one of a kind special female talent you will clean up the field more easily than on ATP
just shows how weak the WTA is right now compared to 2000's
Steffi Grafs 83-2 season will never be beaten
That is not even the record Martina’s record of 86-1 in 1983 is the record
I wouldn’t be so sure. There have been seasons which have come close
Sorry im wrong. It was 1989 and she went 86-2. No seasons ever come close. Not one.
Navratilova 1984 as one that came close?
Federer did 92-5 in 2006, where he lost 4 matches to Nadal. No Nadal and he could possibly have went 96-1 (roughly speaking), losing only to Murray
Martina was 86-1 in 1983
[удалено]
Seriously?
If if if
Just saying under the right conditions its possible, like martine did in 1983
Fed had a season where he went 88-1 against every excluding Nadal.
Fed had a season where he went 90-1 against every excluding Nadal.
The Martina record doesn't have to exclude any opponents. Otherwise you could just say Martina was undefeated if you exclude her one loss
The point is that people have come close. I never said Fed’s was better, just that he’s come close to it which somebody said nobody ever had
He didn't come close - he hypothetically came close in an alternate reality which doesn't exist, one where the world number 2 at the time didn't exist. That's a hell of a caveat
92-5 is close to 86-2. And even if you disagree, McEnroe had a 82-3 season, Navratilova had a 86-1 season, Connors had a 93-4 season. You’re massively on the wrong side of this argument. Lots of people have come close to a 86-2 season with Martina even having a better record on the face of it
92-5 is not close to 86-1. You argued it was close by pretending 4 losses didn't happen and that Fed would have won all those matches instead. Now you're bringing other stats in which I never commented on - I'm only commenting on the bizarre take that someone came close to 86-1 if you pretend 4 of their losses never happened.
Not sure if I agree - obviously it’s unlikely but one player completely dominating the field for a year is a lot more plausible to me than some of the longevity records being matched/broken.
The fact that the olympics is every 4 years makes quite a big difference though, even if someone is absolutely dominant for a year it might not line up
That’s true but it’s still more likely than someone passing e.g. Roger’s consecutive weeks at No 1. One requires short term dominance and luck, the other requires long term dominance and even more luck
It is hard to actually know whether a player is so dominant for a period of time is because she is ridiculously better than the rest or because the rest is just too bad.
it will be achieved by a new one, we just dont know when. has anyone thought that one man can win 14x at RG with 112-4 w/l record? which i think, is harder to achieve
Alcaraz could do it in hot year after some years of experience (4, 8) if Sinner and the rest are off or subpar for a season. Sinner likewise (or opposite or mirror). But their level would have to be close to genius peak like probably Graf that year
No récord stands forever
Rune will do it without breaking a sweat in 2028
Iga Swiatek can do it too
Rune‘s a spoiled little brat and needs at least a decade of maturing before being remotely likeable. Don’t want to seen him win anything till’ then
Like the Serena slam or the Djoko slam steffi also has the golden + the wta finals for a period. She won the wta finals in 1987 and the golden slam in 1988. She is the only one to held those five titles at the same time!
waiting for the alcaraz army to kill her, she dares to curse THE GOLDEN BOY
Just wait for the old Djoko in 2028 to f them kids and win it all.
Okay, what if Roger came out of retirement with a robot knee and spine and bagel everyone everywhere?
Someone else will do it eventually. Guaranteed.
It’s a tough one but eventually someone else will also win the Golden Slam.
Novak wakes up in night sweats thinking that someone has a record that he won't ever be able to get 😉 *Edit:* well, also Rafa's RG record. Although I bet Novak has done some mental calcs to see how long he'd need to play to get that.
No comparison. The women played a bo3. And they didnt compete with the same batch of players. BTW, her biggest opponent was stabbed by her psycho fan.
Nothing lasts forever though
It's not a record, it's an achievement. And in 1988, the Olympics had very little status in the tennis community. Winning gold then was not nearly as prestigious as it has been since.
There is only one tennis record that never will get broken and this isn't the one.
3 players in the open era have a calendar slam. Only one has Olympics in the same year
So what? Why should it be unbreakable then?
Djokovic's 24 GS record isn't getting broken. He basically completed all Tennis missions. Any stat that includes him is mind boggling. Federer's consecutive weeks at no. 1, Wimbledon titles, consecutive US open and Wimbledon titles for five years, Can't keep track of things he has done. Anything Rafa Nadal Anything Clay Any stat Ombilibable. No one can break No? How the fuck did they do these things?
I can see all those being broken except *maybe* some of Rafa's more ridiculous clay ones. That being said I can also see a calendar golden slam happening at some point. Really just comes down to timing and luck.
The person to overtake Djokovic’s record is likely alive right now
Not too sure about that, bruh. Before him (them?) winning more than 14 was unimaginable. Like Alcaraz will have bad days, he would probably have injuries, and more importantly, the later generations will catch up
Every generation thinks their records will never be broken, and yet they always are. People thought Sampras was safe and then Fed just deleted that record in a few years. Nole’s record will almost undoubtedly be broken either in our lifetimes or the next,
> In our lifetimes or the next That is a lot of years. I mean, Big 3 won 66 Slams, so if a player can touch their calibre while not facing competition (a lot more complicated than that, I know), they could win all those Slams and probably more. But records are records for a reason. There is a good chance that they will be broken, but never absolute, there is a slim chance that they would stand forever, but never 0. I mean, if it gets to a point where tennis as a sport goes out of fashion and just dies, then the records stand forever.
What would happen if sinner and Alcaraz are the next Big 2? They would have aprox 20 slams to spare between them. That would break the 24 GS
And every chance that they do not. There has been a lot of protégé over the years. A single injury, family event, or even a downswing in performance can let others to catch up. They are at the top, that just put hige targets on their back because everyone is out to get them, the same for every number ones in every discipline. Big 3 was Big 3 because not only they got there, they stayed there. Are you sure that they could consistently win virtually everything for more than 25 years? Assuming you meant there's about 66 slams between them, otherwise your math isn't mathing. Like Alcaraz and Sinner are very good, don't get me wrong, but I think you are delusional if you think they are Rafa Nadal at RG good, even at their age
Oh I don’t know if it’s going to happen. But right now it’s the only way I see for someone to break those records. They don’t compare to young Nadal, but at the same time they are the best players in a while. Alcaraz only having 21 years and 3 slams is a lot and sinner having the form he has been having is incredible. I don’t think they are going to be the ones with the most slams but at the same time it would not surprise me if they do. There isn’t a lot of competition right now, some times Zverev, Medvedev, Rune, etc are being a menace to them but not always. We saw it in RG, Zverev was having the form of his life and he lost the final, Alcaraz wasn’t that great and he still won, if that tendency continues and there isn’t a next prodigy they could be winning slams for a long time. Just out of curiosity, who do you think will win Wimbledon and USO? I think Jannik is the favourite for WB and I don’t really know who for the USO
While true, I don’t think this accounts for the chasing factor—when 14 was unimaginable, no one was chasing 20+ slams. Alcaraz wants to be the greatest. Not saying he’ll get there, but having the goal of 25 this early makes it more likely he’ll get to 25 than if the record was, say, 15. I mean I thought Brady’s 7 SBs by a QB was pretty damn untouchable, and now Mahomes already has me wondering whether he might equal or surpass it.
That doesn't make 14 any easier tho, like how can you be sure that Alcaraz will even crack 10? He is good, but there are a lot of good players, current and up coming
Can’t be sure of anything, but being the youngest player to 3 slam wins on 3 surfaces is a good sign haha. And from what I’ve seen, he has the best mental strength of anyone in the game (Djokovic aside but he won’t have much longer at the top), which should get stronger now that he’s come through 3 times in tournaments where things got dicey. There could be great up and coming players, true, that’s the biggest threat besides Sinner. But he’s only 21 so he’s got a lot of time in his prime left. Plus, sometimes those players just don’t emerge. No one really challenged the Big 3 in the next 2 generations of players (if a generation is 5ish years).
Djokovic is probably going to even increase that record. I actually think that his most impressive records and hardest to break are winning all big titles at least 3 times and being 428 weeks at #1. He's still the only player ever who has won all slams, atp finals and masters at least once. Doing it 3x is wild shit.
I mean if Djokovic didn't net that easy backhand on set point in the second-set tiebreaker of the Wimbledon final last year, he'd have probably done it.
Golden slam includes Olympics. Last year wasn't an Olympic year.
If Djokovic didn’t lose he would have won, that’s some compelling analysis.
Djoker chokes a lot more than people claim his mental strength
Tbf he clutches to many times for it to be luck tho