Passing all courses
Whisper
Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
win to pass. We take the all time record at each slam & consider that
100%, so;
Laver
W 57% (pass)
U 29% (fail)
F 33% (fail)
A 50% (pass)
Sampras
W 100% (pass)
U 71% (pass)
F 0% (fail)
A 33% (fail)
Federer
W 86% (pass)
U 71% (pass)
F 17% (fail)
A 67% (pass)
Nadal
W 29% (fail)
U 14% (fail)
F 83% (pass)
A 17% (fail)
Agassi
W 14% (fail)
U 29% (fail)
F 17% (fail)
A 67% (pass)
Borg
W 71% (pass)
U 0% (fail)
F 100% (pass)
A 0% (fail)
So we average out & get;
Federer 60%
Sampras 51%
Borg 43%
Laver 42%
Nadal 36%
Agassi 32%
John Liang
Drop all the pre-open era record leave Laver and Borg out
Sampras
USO 100%
W 100%
F 0
AO 50%
Federer
USO 100%
W 86%
F 17%
AO 100%
Agassi
USO 40%
W 14%
F 17%
AO 100%
Nadal
USO 20%
W 28%
AO 25%
F 83%
Average
Federer 75.6%
Sampras 62.5%
Agassi 42.75%
Nadal 39%
Raja, The Great
> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
> win to pass. We take the all time record at each slam & consider that
> 100%, so;
What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
respect him much.
One of the reasons Steffi > Martina is because Steffi won 10 slams on
slow surfaces (AO/FO) and 12 on fast surfaces (Wim/USO). Martina won
only 2 slams on slow surfaces and 16 on fast. Martina comes off as
more one-dimensional. Steffi was an all round great and is a much
stronger choice for the best ever.
drew
> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
> win to pass.
Winning all 4 majors is a great achievement and it certainly is better
than winning 2 majors two times each.
If Sampras had won the French Open once.....hell, if he'd even reached
a final...his legacy would be improved.
ahonkan
> On Feb 9, 4:58 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
> > win to pass. We take the all time record at each slam & consider that
> > 100%, so;
>
> What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
> any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
> one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
> pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
> fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
> respect him much.
That's a hilarious spin on things. Never realized that the players
go through slams thinking "See, I have 2 W, 2 U, 2 A and just 1 F,
so I will just try to win 1 F this year and make it 2 each,
because
Raja says the best players win all the slams almost equally."
Nobody takes Whisper seriously anyway and when you make
statements like the above, you join Whisper.
>
> One of the reasons Steffi > Martina is because Steffi won 10 slams on
> slow surfaces (AO/FO) and 12 on fast surfaces (Wim/USO). Martina won
> only 2 slams on slow surfaces and 16 on fast. Martina comes off as
> more one-dimensional. Steffi was an all round great and is a much
> stronger choice for the best ever.
Martina had much tougher opposition than Steffi,
whose crazed fan ensured she didn't have much.
Martina had less success at FO because Chris
was so good on clay. Kinda like Fed & Rafa.
(The main reason why Sampras' failures at FO
get magnified is that he failed despite the absence
of a dominant clay courter in his era.)
The '1-dimensional' Martina won all possible
titles at all four slams (Ladies Singles, Doubles
and Mixed Doubles). How about Steffi? Martina
holds the record for the most career titles in
both singles and doubles.
Do you realize now why you get bracketed with
Whisper?
ahonkan
Whisper makes a statement and proclaims
it to be true. When he falls flat on his face,
he resorts to woulda-coulda (like Roddick
would have 5-7 slams if no Fed), non-sequiturs
(like Fed losing to Henman after beating
Sampras as if it proves anything) or moves
the goalposts (after Fed bested Sampras in
7543, Whisper started talking about BOAT
and GOAT, H2H etc).
Best is to not humour him.
Raja, The Great
> On Feb 9, 7:15 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:58 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
> > > win to pass. We take the all time record at each slam & consider that
> > > 100%, so;
>
> > What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
> > any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
> > one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
> > pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
> > fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
> > respect him much.
>
> That's a hilarious spin on things. Never realized that the players
> go through slams thinking "See, I have 2 W, 2 U, 2 A and just 1 F,
> so I will just try to win 1 F this year and make it 2 each,
No they go into a match thinking they should win it regardless of
which surface it is. Martina went into clay courts she should win
every match, but she didnt. Steffi did and it was her worst surface
too.
MBDunc
Funny. I thought about combining exactly similar table after I saw
your initial post in another thread.
.mikko
Joe Ramirez
> On Feb 9, 9:58 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> > Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
> > win to pass.
Who says?
> We take the all time record at each slam & consider that
> 100%
In the United States, this practice is known as "grading on a curve."
It's usually done on very difficult exams, when applying an absolute
measure of achievement (i.e., % of total) would result in too many
failures or low grades, so an easier standard is created (i.e., % of
best student's mark). You are using the technique in a perverse way
that makes it *more* difficult to pass, by creating extremely high
targets. Laver wins two USOs and is a miserable failure there? I don't
think so.
ahonkan
>
> > > What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
> > > any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
> > > one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
> > > pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
> > > fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
> > > respect him much.
>
> > That's a hilarious spin on things. Never realized that the players
> > go through slams thinking "See, I have 2 W, 2 U, 2 A and just 1 F,
> > so I will just try to win 1 F this year and make it 2 each,
>
> No they go into a match thinking they should win it regardless of
> which surface it is. Martina went into clay courts she should win
> every match, but she didnt. Steffi did and it was her worst surface
> too.
Agreed. All I am doing is pointing out why drawing
inferences from selective statistical records leads
to nonsensical conclusions. Martina faced Chris,
who was a superior clay courter. Steffi got lucky
that she didn't face Monica for a lot of years.
Fed won just 1 FO, but would be holding 5 FO's
in the absence of Rafa (who beat him thrice in F
and once in SF). So Whisper assigning a 'Fail'
grade to Fed on clay is nonsensical, as expected.
stephenj
very raja-like analysis.
--
there is no doubt that the black-white
power struggle in south africa is but a
microcosm of the global confrontation
between the third world and the rich white
nations of the world.
- Steve Biko
Raja, The Great
> On Feb 9, 8:18 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
> > > > any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
> > > > one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
> > > > pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
> > > > fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
> > > > respect him much.
>
> > > That's a hilarious spin on things. Never realized that the players
> > > go through slams thinking "See, I have 2 W, 2 U, 2 A and just 1 F,
> > > so I will just try to win 1 F this year and make it 2 each,
>
> > No they go into a match thinking they should win it regardless of
> > which surface it is. Martina went into clay courts she should win
> > every match, but she didnt. Steffi did and it was her worst surface
> > too.
>
> Agreed. All I am doing is pointing out why drawing
> inferences from selective statistical records leads
> to nonsensical conclusions. Martina faced Chris,
> who was a superior clay courter. Steffi got lucky
> that she didn't face Monica for a lot of years.
Monica and Steffi were pretty much equal on clay. Martina and Chris
weren't. Martina avoided playing clay tournaments for the most part
because of the fear of losing to Chris.
> Fed won just 1 FO, but would be holding 5 FO's
> in the absence of Rafa (who beat him thrice in F
> and once in SF). So Whisper assigning a 'Fail'
There is no guarantee would have won all that.
> grade to Fed on clay is nonsensical, as expected.- Hide quoted text -
Fed is fair on clay not a fail. Sampras is a fail though.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Manco
reilloc
>
>
> win to pass.
There's no need to go any further after you've established this premise:
neither Borg nor Sampras may be in any conversation of greatest, by your
new definition. Having, then, promoted Agassi over either and both
players, do you contend you have remaining any credibility?
LNC
drew
You have to understand Whisperology. Whisper's only goal in life is
to create some
equation that allows Sampras to be considered numerically superior to
all humans who
have ever played tennis.
It is a method similar to the one most children employ when arguing
with their friends about who has the
best of everything. It comes down to "It's better because I say it
is". Then you add some arbitrary weighting
mechanism to everything that you want to evaluate. That's beyond the
average sophistication of a
5 year old but it can usually be mastered by a 12 year old. Now
there is mathematical proof but only if a little lie is
added. That little lie is that the weighting mechanism has been
developed and perfected by a team of
tennis scientists. These are not mere mortals. These are guys who
went to school for 30 years just to develop
these systems. Everybody knows them and they are all powerful and all
knowing....sort of like god only wrt
tennis knowledge.
So it's important to remember that we're not talking about Whisper's
credibility. He is not god. He is just
communicating god's words.
You fucktard. :-)
DavidW
> The '1-dimensional' Martina won all possible
> titles at all four slams (Ladies Singles, Doubles
> and Mixed Doubles). How about Steffi? Martina
> holds the record for the most career titles in
> both singles and doubles.
Only the very desperate cite doubles to make their case. Doubles is effectively
a different sport (you might as well include a player's badminton and table
tennis records as well), you only get half credit for it because you have a
partner, and no one cares about it.
ocean
good enough to win at all the slams which makes Borg and Sampras look
like underachievers. Just saying....
Shakes
Looks fair, except Laver is still controversial because of pre-open
era. Top 3 are correct.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Well this is something new. This doesn't make much sense, but anyway,
you made a system with Federer on top.
Raja, The Great
ahonkan seems like a desperate Martina fan. Anyone who uses doubles to
downgrade Steffi is clearly very desperate.
CloudsRest
McEnroe: A Player for All Courses?
"But he (McEnroe) also knows that for history to count him as one of
the true greats alongside Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg, he is going to
have to win at least one major clay court title...but if he puts his
mind to the task, one day soon he will become a horse for all
courses."
Superdave
and anyone who uses anything to upgrade shara must be a paki.
Ali Asoag
Good post.
ahonkan
Puhleez. I was refuting your 'Martina is 1-dimensional'
statement by pointing out that in addition to winning
the highest no. of singles and doubles titles (and winning
just 4 GS singles titles less than Steffi in a far more
competitive era), she has also won all possible titles
at all grand slams. So how is she 1-dimensional
vis-a-vis Steffi, who basically only played Singles?
Moreover, a doubles player should get half the credit
for a doubles win, but how about a Davis cup tie?
It is crazy to treat a Davis Cup win as a personal
achievement, when the win/ loss is almost never on
your racket alone - even if you played both singles
and doubles!
Still there are nutcases who want to show Rafa's
DC titles to rate him higher than Fed!
Raja, The Great
> On Feb 10, 3:20 am, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 3:08 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > ahonkan wrote:
> > > > The '1-dimensional' Martina won all possible
> > > > titles at all four slams (Ladies Singles, Doubles
> > > > and Mixed Doubles). How about Steffi? Martina
> > > > holds the record for the most career titles in
> > > > both singles and doubles.
>
> > > Only the very desperate cite doubles to make their case. Doubles is effectively
> > > a different sport (you might as well include a player's badminton and table
> > > tennis records as well), you only get half credit for it because you have a
> > > partner, and no one cares about it.
>
> > ahonkan seems like a desperate Martina fan. Anyone who uses doubles to
> > downgrade Steffi is clearly very desperate.
>
> Puhleez. I was refuting your 'Martina is 1-dimensional'
> statement by pointing out that in addition to winning
> the highest no. of singles and doubles titles (and winning
> just 4 GS singles titles less than Steffi in a far more
> competitive era), she has also won all possible titles
> at all grand slams. So how is she 1-dimensional
> vis-a-vis Steffi, who basically only played Singles?
She is one dimensional because she relatively SUCKED on clay. She won
only 2 FOs and one of them was courtesy a huge upset of Evert by
Jaeger and the second was when Evert was going through her lame
(1983-84) period where she was playing with wooden rackets when the
world had moved on.
>
> Moreover, a doubles player should get half the credit
> for a doubles win, but how about a Davis cup tie?
No dice... zero credit for doubles. Its a different ball game. And not
everyone is interested in it.
> It is crazy to treat a Davis Cup win as a personal
> achievement, when the win/ loss is almost never on
> your racket alone - even if you played both singles
> and doubles!
>
> Still there are nutcases who want to show Rafa's
> DC titles to rate him higher than Fed!
Stop changing the topic
Whisper
> On Feb 9, 4:58 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
>> 100%, so;
>
> What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
> any all time records.
Therefore she isn't tops in any 'subject'.
Margaret Court 100% at AO (11 titles)
Navaratilova 100% at Wimbledon (9 titles)
Evert 100% at FO (7 titles)
Mallory 100% at USO (8 titles)
I strongly object to the idea 'passing all courses' can be attributed to
winning just once at a slam. That's insulting to the players who won up
to 11 times - can't say they both 'passed the course'.
To 'pass the course' you need to win at least 50% of the all time
record, thus for a woman to 'pass' Wimbledon she needs 5 titles - Venus
has scraped in.
Whisper
Not at the expense of a Wimbledon or USO crown.
Whisper
> On 9 helmi, 12:58, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
>>
>> Federer 60%
>> Sampras 51%
>> Borg 43%
>> Laver 42%
>> Nadal 36%
>> Agassi 32%
>
> Funny. I thought about combining exactly similar table after I saw
> your initial post in another thread.
>
> .mikko
I thought it worthy of a thread.
Whisper
> On Feb 9, 7:29 am, John Liang<jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 9:58 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
>>> win to pass.
>
> Who says?
>
>> 100%
>
> In the United States, this practice is known as "grading on a curve."
> It's usually done on very difficult exams, when applying an absolute
> measure of achievement (i.e., % of total) would result in too many
> failures or low grades, so an easier standard is created (i.e., % of
> best student's mark). You are using the technique in a perverse way
> that makes it *more* difficult to pass, by creating extremely high
> targets. Laver wins two USOs and is a miserable failure there? I don't
> think so.
A 2 time USO champ has not 'passed' the course in the same manner as 5
or 7 time champs. I noticed a trend in rst to stamp 1 time winners
through as 'passed' alongside 7 time champs - eg Sampras & Agassi
'passed' Wimbledon. Complete bollocks.
Whisper
> On Feb 9, 8:18 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
>>>> any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
>>>> one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
>>>> pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
>>>> fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
>>>> respect him much.
>>
>>> That's a hilarious spin on things. Never realized that the players
>>> go through slams thinking "See, I have 2 W, 2 U, 2 A and just 1 F,
>>> so I will just try to win 1 F this year and make it 2 each,
>>
>> No they go into a match thinking they should win it regardless of
>> which surface it is. Martina went into clay courts she should win
>> every match, but she didnt. Steffi did and it was her worst surface
>> too.
>
> Agreed. All I am doing is pointing out why drawing
> inferences from selective statistical records leads
> to nonsensical conclusions. Martina faced Chris,
> who was a superior clay courter. Steffi got lucky
> that she didn't face Monica for a lot of years.
Well, they are 3-3 h2h at FO, & Monica got a little lucky to win 1992, &
1990 for that matter. I can't see this as Steffi dodging a bullet.
Whisper
> grade to Fed on clay is nonsensical, as expected.
>
It's ridiculous to say Borg (6 times winner) & Fed (1 time) both
'passed' FO. Imo Borg topped the class with 100%, & Fed did get off the
mark but only managed 17%.
Whisper
Fed got 17% at FO, Sampras flunked out with 0%.
Sampras did score 100% at the biggest exam in history though.
Whisper
er, Agassi is at the bottom of that list. Get off the crack.
heyguys
At the time of the stabbing Seles had equalled or surpassed Graf at 3
of the slams (with 3-4 fewer attempts at each). She had 3 FOs to
Graf's 2--beating her in 2 finals and losing a semi in 3 sets as a 15
year old in her first slam. Kind of strange to imply Graf had the edge
there.
Superdave
That's 17% better than the previous goat could manage though .
reilloc
You put Agassi ahead of Sampras and Borg when you set the standard as
"passing *all* courses." Go back into the crack in the woodwork from
which you oozed.
LNC
Whisper
> On Feb 10, 6:05 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2011 3:01 AM, ahonkan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 8:18 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
>>>>>> any all time records. Neither do Laver. The best players do not win
>>>>>> one slam too many times... they win all the slams almost equally. You
>>>>>> pet player Sampras was highly one dimensional and did well only on
>>>>>> fast surfaces. Thats one one the reasons many including me, do not
>>>>>> respect him much.
>>
>>>>> That's a hilarious spin on things. Never realized that the players
>>>>> go through slams thinking "See, I have 2 W, 2 U, 2 A and just 1 F,
>>>>> so I will just try to win 1 F this year and make it 2 each,
>>
>>>> No they go into a match thinking they should win it regardless of
>>>> which surface it is. Martina went into clay courts she should win
>>>> every match, but she didnt. Steffi did and it was her worst surface
>>>> too.
>>
>>> Agreed. All I am doing is pointing out why drawing
>>> inferences from selective statistical records leads
>>> to nonsensical conclusions. Martina faced Chris,
>>> who was a superior clay courter. Steffi got lucky
>>> that she didn't face Monica for a lot of years.
>>
>> 1990 for that matter. I can't see this as Steffi dodging a bullet.
>
> At the time of the stabbing Seles had equalled or surpassed Graf at 3
> of the slams (with 3-4 fewer attempts at each). She had 3 FOs to
> Graf's 2--beating her in 2 finals and losing a semi in 3 sets as a 15
> year old in her first slam. Kind of strange to imply Graf had the edge
> there.
Just look at the actual matches. 10-8 in 3rd set to Seles when Graf was
at her rock bottom, & the '90 final Graf led 6-2 in 1st t/b & lost it.
I can't see anything that suggests Seles was warm fave to beat Graf on
any surface.
Whisper
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:07:00 +1100, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2011 3:01 AM, ahonkan wrote:
>>> and once in SF). So Whisper assigning a 'Fail'
>>> grade to Fed on clay is nonsensical, as expected.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 'passed' FO. Imo Borg topped the class with 100%,& Fed did get off the
>> mark but only managed 17%.
>>
>>
>
>
> That's 17% better than the previous goat could manage though .
True - but it's still 17%.
Raja, The Great
> On 10/02/2011 1:15 AM, Raja, The Great wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:58 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than 1
> >> win to pass. We take the all time record at each slam& consider that
> >> 100%, so;
>
> > What is this fucking bullshit all time record? Steffi does not hold
> > any all time records.
>
> Therefore she isn't tops in any 'subject'.
Then why is she your choice of GOAT? Seems hypocritical right. Either
you consider this stat as irrelevant or pay utmost importance to it
and don't consider Graf as GOAT.
>
> Margaret Court 100% at AO (11 titles)
> Navaratilova 100% at Wimbledon (9 titles)
> Evert 100% at FO (7 titles)
> Mallory 100% at USO (8 titles)
Yeah so Steffi fails in all slams, doesn't see...lol
heyguys
Seles was the slight favorite on slower, high bouncing courts, Graf a
solid favorite on faster, low bouncing courts. Their record bears
that out.
TT
>
>
> Winning all 4 slams is not 'passing all courses' as you need more than
>
> Federer 60%
> Sampras 51%
> Borg 43%
> Laver 42%
> Nadal 36%
> Agassi 32%
>
>
That was interesting pow, but weird too. I'm out of words.
TT
> On Feb 9, 7:29 am, John Liang<jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 9:58 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> win to pass.
>
>> We take the all time record at each slam& consider that
>> 100%
> In the United States, this practice is known as "grading on a curve."
> It's usually done on very difficult exams, when applying an absolute
> measure of achievement (i.e., % of total) would result in too many
> failures or low grades, so an easier standard is created (i.e., % of
> best student's mark).
Same system is used in other countries too.
> You are using the technique in a perverse way
> that makes it *more* difficult to pass, by creating extremely high
> targets. Laver wins two USOs and is a miserable failure there? I don't
> think so.
You have a point there. Although you failed to notice that Laver won 3
US Pro on top of that.
Whisper, which one is better...winning 4 AO and 4 USO compared to
winning 8 Wimbledons...
Joe Ramirez
realize some do), it would still be a *different* major from the U.S.
Nationals/U.S. Open. "Passing all courses" is about specific
tournaments, not countries. However, I think Laver passed either way.
TT
> On Feb 11, 5:34 pm, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 9.2.2011 17:57, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> in other countries too.
>>> You are using the technique in a perverse way
>>> that makes it *more* difficult to pass, by creating extremely high
>>> targets. Laver wins two USOs and is a miserable failure there? I don't
>>> think so.
>> You have a point there. Although you failed to notice that Laver won 3
>> US Pro on top of that.
>>
> Even if one counted the U.S. Pro as a true major (I don't, but I
> realize some do),
doh
> it would still be a *different* major from the U.S.
> Nationals/U.S. Open.
In that case many players listed above would fail miserably at US
Pro...Federer 0% - FAIL...Nadal 0% FAIL...Sampras 0% FAIL... etc etc...
Raja, The Great
> On Feb 11, 5:34 pm, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:> 9.2.2011 17:57, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> in other countries too.
>
> > > You are using the technique in a perverse way
> > > that makes it *more* difficult to pass, by creating extremely high
> > > targets. Laver wins two USOs and is a miserable failure there? I don't
> > > think so.
>
> > You have a point there. Although you failed to notice that Laver won 3
> > US Pro on top of that.
>
> Even if one counted the U.S. Pro as a true major (I don't
Many do. You are in minority here.
CloudsRest
Some people might, but they are the ones in the minority group.
Otherwise, people would list Laver with more than 11 majors. I've
never seen that happen, on any network or reputable website. Most
agree Laver would have won more majors had he been allowed to play in
them.