26CornerBlitz Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Both have a chance in their respective sports to achieve a Calendar "Grand Slam" by winning all four major titles. Which one would be the more impressive achievement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Either one would be huge, but I think it's even harder to do in golf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 i think simply the longevity of Serena's career makes it more impressive, but either one would be great...would be cool to see triple crown, 2 grand slams in the same year, and a couple years removed from baseball triple crown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Golf seems a lot harder to me with more players capable of winning any given week. I could be wrong thing though as I stink at golf and dont follow tennis lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 i think you are right....there are a bunch of golfers on tour that could win any given sunday, with tennis, i think you have a few that can be on top of their game for the entire 2 weeks of wimbledon or any of the majors. Golf seems a lot harder to me with more players capable of winning any given week. I could be wrong thing though as I stink at golf and dont follow tennis lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 i think you are right....there are a bunch of golfers on tour that could win any given sunday, with tennis, i think you have a few that can be on top of their game for the entire 2 weeks of wimbledon or any of the majors. Also in tennis, you are far more in control of your fate. It is only you against that person on the other side of the net. All you have to do is beat that one person. With golf, you can be having the round of your life, but has very little impact, if any at all, on some guy 5 holes ahead of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I went with Spieth. Serena is the most dominant athlete in any sport (men's or women's) ever in my opinion. It wouldn't shock me at all if she did it, because she's so much better, even at her age. It would still be an incredible feat either way though. Whereas everyone else in tennis is a lesser opponent for Serena, there are a lot of golfers who you could argue are Spieth's equals. For him to win four majors against his equals, it would be unbelievable because he would need to be nearly flawless those four weekends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) I went with Spieth as well. He could have weekends of his life at the British and the PGA and still not win one or the other because someone else had the weekend of their life. Serena can beat any other female tennis player on any given day; they just can't play on her level when she's at her best. Lots of guys can play on Spieth's level, and to beat them all out for all four major championships requires as much luck as it does skill. Edited July 8, 2015 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Golf is much harder -- there's really no comparison. You have to beat the entire field in each event vs. winning six one-on-one match ups. Plus, the field is much deeper in golf than in either men or women's tennis. It seems tennis is always dominated by a small handful of players in every era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Interesting how Spieth is prepping for the British... Jordan Spieth adds St Andrews to his virtual world before Open test I have got a full swing simulator in my house, Spieth explained. I have played a few holes at St Andrews, made the fairways and greens firm. I was able to see some of the lines off the tees. Obviously it is not the same as being there but at least I get to see some of the holes so when I get there Im not too surprised. I played it once but that was a long time ago. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/07/jordan-spieth-the-open-rory-mcilroy-golfing-simulator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 It's official: No Rory in the upcoming Open Championship will make it "easier" for Spieth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Golf is much harder -- there's really no comparison. You have to beat the entire field in each event vs. winning six one-on-one match ups. Plus, the field is much deeper in golf than in either men or women's tennis. It seems tennis is always dominated by a small handful of players in every era. I don't follow golf so cannot really say which sport is more difficult for a Grand Slam. But I wanted to comment on the domination of the sport - the last 10+ years have been great for the men's side with the Big-4 Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray giving us some thrilling competition and high levels of tennis. Unfortunately, the women's side has been bereft of similar competition. There are a lot of above average playes but few who put up consistent resistance to Serena. I am a massive fan of Serena for her tenacity, competitiveness and skill. Few players on the women's side (after Steffi Graf) have been able to play at that astronomical level for so many years. I will lament her eventual retirement even though she is looking great even at 33. Who knows when we will see another US champion let alone one to compete for Serena's legacy. I do hope she bests Graf's 22 and Margaret Court's 24 grad slam titles so that there is no doubt about who the G.O.A.T in women's tennis is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I don't follow golf so cannot really say which sport is more difficult for a Grand Slam. It's never been done should be one indication that it's way harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 It's never been done should be one indication that it's way harder. I know they like to brush over it since it wasn't one calendar year, but Tiger winning 4 consecutively back in 2000-2001 absolutely counts in my book. That was one of the most dominant stretches in all of sports history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 It certainly was. But, it just wasn't the Grand Slam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) I went with Spieth. Serena is the most dominant athlete in any sport (men's or women's) ever in my opinion. It wouldn't shock me at all if she did it, because she's so much better, even at her age. It would still be an incredible feat either way though. Whereas everyone else in tennis is a lesser opponent for Serena, there are a lot of golfers who you could argue are Spieth's equals. For him to win four majors against his equals, it would be unbelievable because he would need to be nearly flawless those four weekends. Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slam singles championships in the 60s and 70s and basically retired at the age of 31 to have kids (and retired temporarily during in the middle of her run because of a kid and came back and won 3 in 1973). And let's not forget about her 40, yes 40 doubles and mixed doubles Gland Slam championships. Serena has won 20 at she is 33 now and doesn't have any kids. Now, no doubt Serena would spank her in both of their primes, but dominating their own times, Margaret has to be seen as the best. But Serena is amazing, no doubt. Edited July 8, 2015 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slam singles championships in the 60s and 70s and basically retired at the age of 31 to have kids (and retired temporarily during in the middle of her run because of a kid and came back and won 3 in 1973). And let's not forget about her 40, yes 40 doubles and mixed doubles Gland Slam championships. Serena has won 20 at she is 33 now and doesn't have any kids. Now, no doubt Serena would spank her in both of their primes, but dominating their own times, Margaret has to be seen as the best. But Serena is amazing, no doubt. Don't forget that Serena has also missed lots of time with an assortment of injuries/illnesses. Edited July 8, 2015 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I don't by the "era" argument. In Serena's era I would bet she could beat some decent ranked men, plus she had to play against the likes of Venus. I bet in the 60s no woman could win a single game against decent ranked men. Now, Martina v. Serena or Venus in their prime would be a match for the ages. Don't forget that Serena has also missed lots of time with an assortment of injuries/illnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slams in the 60s and 70s and basically retired at the age of 31 to have kids (and retired temporarily during in the middle of her run because of a kid and came back and won 3 in 1973). Serena has won 20 at she is 33 now and doesn't have any kids. Now, no doubt Serena would spank her in both of their primes, but dominating their own times, Margaret has to be seen as the best. But Serena is amazing, no doubt. Maybe. She also won 13 of her 24 before the Open Era. I'm sure she would have still won a good deal of them even if pros were allowed to play as evidenced by her record in the Open Era. If Serena had been alive in that time, she likely would not have been allowed to participate because she didn't come from money. There are also way more women playing tennis (all sports really) now than there were back then so the pool of talent is much greater. They're both great. Based purely on numbers, Court is more dominant. Factoring in everything else I just consider Serena to be more dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I don't by the "era" argument. In Serena's era I would bet she could beat some decent ranked men, plus she had to play against the likes of Venus. I bet in the 60s no woman could win a single game against decent ranked men. Now, Martina v. Serena or Venus in their prime would be a match for the ages. Would ya'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts