mtenis.com.pl

People are obsessed with the slam race. It's something media/ITF have created to keep interest in the sport and not to lose revenue. But how can it even remotely be valid?

1. There were only 3 slams back in the day. AO wasn't a slam until the mid 80s (Borg only played it once for example and many other ATGs didn't play it at all). This fact alone should mean that looking at slam count is wrong.
2. There were only 16 seeds rather than 32 like it is now, making it easier to win a slam now.
3. There are now roofs on show courts, meaning that the top seeds will not have to play 2 days in a row in case of rain, while lower seeded players will. Making it easier for the top seeds to win slam.
4. Court homogenisation. There's way less difference between surfaces these days. Meaning that if you're good on one surface you're more or less good on all surfaces. Making it easier to win multiple slams as they all play more or less the same.
5. In the future, because big changes will come to tennis when Fedal retires, IW could very well become a fifth slam. That would then mean another 3 slams for Nadal and 5 for Fed. Or should they not be counted? But AO is now counted as a slam even in the 70s and 80s when it wasn't considered a slam.

The list goes on and on. ITF and the slams put all this in order after golden age of tennis in the 90s ended and interest in tennis was going down worldwide. They needed to create new superstars to take over from Sampras/Agassi to get the hype back up.

So why are people obsessing over the slam count when clearly it's a really bad metric to use to establish the goat. I don't get it.