Leave “Grand Slam” alone – no retronyms, please!

Jut as the good old guitar got a new name, “acoustic guitar”, when “guitar” was hijacked by electric guitar, we are being forced to look for a new name for the venerable term, Grand Slam.

In 2007, so far ten Grand Slam Titles have been won – five each (Men’ and Women’s Singles and Doubles and Mixed Doubles). And, there are ten more to be won this year.

I remember the times when the four championships used to be called major titles. There is a parallel – golf too has its four: Masters, The US Open, the Open Championships and the US PGA Tournament. Collectively, golf still calls these events the “majors”, on its globe trotting calendar. But, tennis, the brasher and perhaps the more down market of the two, has shifted the terminology – from “majors” to “Grand Slam Titles”. And, that is a point to ponder.

Already we have a number of sons and daughters of Grand Slam – Career Grand Slam, Golden Grand Slam. And, many more should be in the offing shortly. But, the greatest tragedy is if anyone held all the four major titles simultaneously then he/she would be a Grand Slammist.

This is what Federer failed to achieve by not winning the French Open. The last time anyone was a Grand Slammist, in the diluted sense, was when Martina Navratilova won all the four trophies, Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open of ’83 and the French Open of ’84. As much a fan of Martina I was, and still am, I just could not accept that she won the Grand Slam, Philippe Chatrier’s claim notwithstanding. The purist says, Martina never won the Grand Slam and Steffi Graf did, in 1988. But, this purist also claims – that fact alone does not make Steffi the better of the two.

It is all in the matter of opportunities for scoring a Grand Slam. The rarer it is, the more valuable it becomes. It can be realized if and only if a player starts on a high, winning the Australian, and stays high through the season, winning the other three. Lew Hoad missed it by a whisker in 1956.

Let us imagine (and I would not mind if this scenario came true) Federer winning ’07 US Open and Australian, French and Wimbledon in 2008. In my book, he would be holding all the four titles simultaneously, but would not have won the Grand Slam. But, in the age of SMS no one is going to do the thumb dance “Federer holds all the four trophies simultaneously!” It is going to be “Fedex gets GS!” Note the absense of the 'T' [Title].

Then the question arises, what did Budge and Laver (twice) achieve, and on the distaff side, Margaret Court? They did much more than hold the four championships simultaneously. They won their titles in the same calendar year. They accomplished Grand Slams. That year, there was nothing more to conquer (tennis was not an Olympics sport!). They were the ultimate champions that year.

Federer can launch himself on a Grand Slam quest at the ’08 Australian. Imagine the motivating power of aiming for that remote star, not just any neighborhood one. Making something difficult to get is a motivational tool and I don’t see any argument on this from the players; really, there should be none from the fans too.

I believe I have argued vigorously for retaining the original meaning of Grand Slam. But then, I have to acknowledge that winning the four major titles in an unbroken sequence is no ordinary matter. It is definitely of a higher order than Career Grand Slam. If I don’t want a retronym for Grand Slam, I must offer suggestions for the achievement between Grand Slam and Career Grand Slam. These are the sons and daughters of Grand Slam I mentioned earlier. How about, Grand Slam (2007-2008) [to indicate it was not won in a calendar year].

It really should have been guitar (electric) instead of acoustic guitar.

Raghuram Ekambaram