...based on the achievement at the time. (ie. players defeated).
Everyone here puts up a 'greatest ever' post, but no one puts players' slam wins in isolation...
eg. Agassi comeback from slump USO win defeating 4? top10 players along the way = HUGE BONUS POINTS eg. Hewitt 'winning' Wimb without any useful competition = STRAIGHT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE CLASS eg. Sampras with at least 1 Wimb that = NOT HIGHLY REGARDED
So how bout someone (ie. not me) does their homework, and puts forward a list that tells the truth about the class of slam wins..........
* And keep your "all slam wins are valid" comments to your brainless selves.
...based on the achievement at the time. (ie. players defeated).>
Everyone here puts up a 'greatest ever' post, but no one puts players' slam > wins in isolation...>
eg. Agassi comeback from slump USO win defeating 4? top10 players along the > way = HUGE BONUS POINTS> eg. Hewitt 'winning' Wimb without any useful competition = STRAIGHT TO THE > BOTTOM OF THE CLASS> eg. Sampras with at least 1 Wimb that = NOT HIGHLY REGARDED
He beat Becker along the way before thrashing Pioline in final - that counts big time. Otherwise we can't count Krajicek's win either as he beat Washington in final & Stoltenberg in semis.
So how bout someone (ie. not me) does their homework, and puts forward a > list that tells the truth about the class of slam wins..........>
You expect we'll all reach concensus..?
* And keep your "all slam wins are valid" comments to your brainless selves.>
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly soft draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all in the field.....
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly> soft draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all> in the field.....
Yes, that's the general rule to follow. The presumption has to be that a slam win is 100% legit, and the burden of proof- a very heavy burden - is on anyone who wants to argue otherwise in a particular case.
Of course, there are some obvious exceptional circumstances that can justify an "*" after a slam win (Kodes's boycotted W win, Lendl's AO win when Edberg defaulted, all 10 of Graf's post-seles stabbing slam wins, and maybe one or two other cases).
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:nOU_d.461$M17.12469@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> SV wrote:>
...based on the achievement at the time. (ie. players defeated).>>
Everyone here puts up a 'greatest ever' post, but no one puts players' >> slam wins in isolation...>>
eg. Agassi comeback from slump USO win defeating 4? top10 players along >> the way = HUGE BONUS POINTS>> eg. Hewitt 'winning' Wimb without any useful competition = STRAIGHT TO >> THE BOTTOM OF THE CLASS>> eg. Sampras with at least 1 Wimb that = NOT HIGHLY REGARDED>
He beat Becker along the way before thrashing Pioline in final - that > counts big time. Otherwise we can't count Krajicek's win either as he > beat Washington in final & Stoltenberg in semis.>
Sure, and that's the point. Ok, he beat Sampras, but where was the rest of the decent competition? Either it was luck (the top grasscourters got beaten early, or his draw), or it was very lean period for decent grasscourters. Either way, you're correct, winning W beating Stolts & Washington, doesn't really stack up when compared over the years.
So how bout someone (ie. not me) does their homework, and puts forward a >> list that tells the truth about the class of slam wins..........>>
You expect we'll all reach concensus..?>
Of course not. But I actually kept stats way back between 93-98 on this exact thing, and the results were very enlightening. I'd just be interested to see what has transpired in the years since.
* And keep your "all slam wins are valid" comments to your brainless >> selves.>>
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly soft > draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all in the > field.....>
Valid or not, it's not the aim here. Whoever won 02 W with that draw must go straight to the bottom of the list of "quality of slam win" (not an envious title). On the other hand, Agassi's US94 win beating 3 top 10ers and 2 top 15ers (as well as Forget), is about as difficult as it gets. Therein lies the enormous difference.
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly soft >>draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all in the >>field.....>>
Valid or not, it's not the aim here. Whoever won 02 W with that draw must > go straight to the bottom of the list of "quality of slam win" (not an > envious title). On the other hand, Agassi's US94 win beating 3 top 10ers > and 2 top 15ers (as well as Forget), is about as difficult as it gets. > Therein lies the enormous difference.>
You're kidding? The combined slam title tally for all of Agassi's opponents was 1 - that's amongst the easiest draws in open era.
By comparison every 1 of Sampras' slam victories was harder than this.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:I63%d.535$M17.15201@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> SV wrote:>>>
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly soft >>>draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all in the >>>field.....>>>
Valid or not, it's not the aim here. Whoever won 02 W with that draw >> must go straight to the bottom of the list of "quality of slam win" (not >> an envious title). On the other hand, Agassi's US94 win beating 3 top >> 10ers and 2 top 15ers (as well as Forget), is about as difficult as it >> gets. Therein lies the enormous difference.>>
You're kidding? The combined slam title tally for all of Agassi's > opponents was 1 - that's amongst the easiest draws in open era.>
By comparison every 1 of Sampras' slam victories was harder than this.>
lol... beating 1 class player and 6 never-will-be's is not my idea of hard.
hewitt & agassi are the extremes here no question... and btw, think you'll find the players agassi played had around 10 slam final appearances between them (for something like 2 or 3 wins) - that's quality.
and besides, you should know by now i don't even like agassi.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:I63%d.535$M17.15201@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
SV wrote:>>
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly soft >>>>draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all in the >>>>field.....>>>>
Valid or not, it's not the aim here. Whoever won 02 W with that draw >>>must go straight to the bottom of the list of "quality of slam win" (not >>>an envious title). On the other hand, Agassi's US94 win beating 3 top >>>10ers and 2 top 15ers (as well as Forget), is about as difficult as it >>>gets. Therein lies the enormous difference.>>>
You're kidding? The combined slam title tally for all of Agassi's >>opponents was 1 - that's amongst the easiest draws in open era.>>
By comparison every 1 of Sampras' slam victories was harder than this.>>
lol... beating 1 class player and 6 never-will-be's is not my idea of hard.
It's easier to beat 7 mediocrities than 6 + 1 great guy...
hewitt & agassi are the extremes here no question... and btw, think you'll > find the players agassi played had around 10 slam final appearances between > them (for something like 2 or 3 wins) - that's quality.
Big whoop - anyone who beat Lendl in a slam had 19.... didn't Goran play Sampras/Lendl/Agassi at '92 Wimbledon? That's 51 slam finals right there...
and besides, you should know by now i don't even like agassi.>
Beating Kafelnikov/Stich in USO isn't a big deal. If Sampras did that he'd be criticized for soft draw....
There have been many tougher slams than Agassi's '94 USO - eg Stich beating Becker, Edberg & Courier Wim '91 for loss of 1 set.
Sampras at '01 USO played 4 USO champs in succession (Rafter, Agassi, Safin & Hewitt).... that shits all over Agassi v Kafelnikov/Stich.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:0la%d.639$M17.17768@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> SV wrote:>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >> news:I63%d.535$M17.15201@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
SV wrote:>>>
Open era, yes all slam wins are valid. Yes Hewitt got an incredibly >>>>>soft draw in '02, but Sampras/Agassi/Flipper/Krajicek/Federer were all >>>>>in the field.....>>>>>
Valid or not, it's not the aim here. Whoever won 02 W with that draw >>>>must go straight to the bottom of the list of "quality of slam win" (not >>>>an envious title). On the other hand, Agassi's US94 win beating 3 top >>>>10ers and 2 top 15ers (as well as Forget), is about as difficult as it >>>>gets. Therein lies the enormous difference.>>>>
You're kidding? The combined slam title tally for all of Agassi's >>>opponents was 1 - that's amongst the easiest draws in open era.>>>
By comparison every 1 of Sampras' slam victories was harder than this.>>>
lol... beating 1 class player and 6 never-will-be's is not my idea of >> hard.>
It's easier to beat 7 mediocrities than 6 + 1 great guy...>
hewitt & agassi are the extremes here no question... and btw, think >> you'll find the players agassi played had around 10 slam final >> appearances between them (for something like 2 or 3 wins) - that's >> quality.>
Big whoop - anyone who beat Lendl in a slam had 19.... didn't Goran play > Sampras/Lendl/Agassi at '92 Wimbledon? That's 51 slam finals right > there...>
and besides, you should know by now i don't even like agassi.>>
Beating Kafelnikov/Stich in USO isn't a big deal. If Sampras did that > he'd be criticized for soft draw....>
There have been many tougher slams than Agassi's '94 USO - eg Stich > beating Becker, Edberg & Courier Wim '91 for loss of 1 set.>
Sampras at '01 USO played 4 USO champs in succession (Rafter, Agassi, > Safin & Hewitt).... that shits all over Agassi v Kafelnikov/Stich.>
i did say i only kept stats during part of the 90s... once it was sampras/agassi vs the rest, i tuned out.
