Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon - not proper 'opens'!!

Hawkeye established in another thread that the Australian Open is worthless because it's at the start of the year. Then some bright spark had the audacity to point out that the French was worthless as it's played on clay, then some other 'humorous' person pointed to the grass at Wimbledon being flawed (I agree except when it's The Olympics )

Obviously the only 'true' Slam is the US Open (which I obviously agree with)

Hence the correct roll of champions is as follows;-

Connors - 5
Sampras - 5
Federer - 5
McEnroe - 4
Lendl - 3
Agassi - 2
Edberg - 2
Rafter - 2

Actually, being serious for a mnute, looking at this list, there is a strong arugment that the US Open best reflects who was best at the time. So it was good of Hawkeye to send us down this path

Not to be taken seriously. Merry Xmas everyone

banbrotam wrote:then some other 'humorous' person....

You cheeky blighter!

The US Open is certainly a good test of how well a player can play when the crowd are calling out to vendors for hot dogs, checking their cell phones for more important sports news, like baseball scores, shouting 'Dude, how ya doin'?' to their friend on the opposite side of the stadium, and making plans for further cosmetic surgery.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:then some other 'humorous' person....

You cheeky blighter!

The US Open is certainly a good test of how well a player can play when the crowd are calling out to vendors for hot dogs, checking their cell phones for more important sports news, like baseball scores, shouting 'Dude, how ya doin'?' to their friend on the opposite side of the stadium, and making plans for further cosmetic surgery.

How deliciously ironic that the daftness of Hawkeye, should help us reveal just how prestigious the US Open is. I've always insisted that it is the hardest to win, simply because the highest percentage of Tennis players play their best Tennis on this surface (in comparison to the others)

Hence, only the elite win this event more than twice

You see for me, this is where Borg's status has a big fat question mark

US Open is a litmus test no doubt as it demands all court ability.

There are some interesting stories behind Borg and USO...a title he clearly should have won. With Borg's unreal movement, his foot speed in video's are startling even to this day, in this era he would have been a beast. No doubts for me where Borg's concerned...still has the best % W:L.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:then some other 'humorous' person....

You cheeky blighter!

The US Open is certainly a good test of how well a player can play when the crowd are calling out to vendors for hot dogs, checking their cell phones for more important sports news, like baseball scores, shouting 'Dude, how ya doin'?' to their friend on the opposite side of the stadium, and making plans for further cosmetic surgery.

Socal would probably be the only American actually watching the tennis.

lydian wrote:US Open is a litmus test no doubt as it demands all court ability.

There are some interesting stories behind Borg and USO...a title he clearly should have won. With Borg's unreal movement, his foot speed in video's are startling even to this day, in this era he would have been a beast. No doubts for me where Borg's concerned...still has the best % W:L.

Yeah but effectively leaving the game at 25-26 ensures a great win-loss record. Most losses are garnered at the start and end of a career.

I'll just say one word that will expose this list as worthless

Borg!

hawkeye wrote:I'll just say one word that will expose this list as worthless

Borg!

An exception that proves the rule, my dear Hawkeye!!