One Slam Wonders vs. Slam-less #1s

[kskate2]

**BUMP**

 

[Federberg]

Lol! Poor thing has gone from being slam-less to being talked about as a one slam wonder? Never ends...

 

[britbox]

Funny to see some of those old posters names... @Calvy @jhar26 @Omair @SingleBackhand @colleen66 @Sundaymorningguy..

I'd still go with the premise of slam>#1

 

[AnonymousFan]

If career prize money and endorsements for both one slam wonder and slam-less #1 are about the same, then I'd pick one slam wonder.

 

[lomaha]

Lol! Poor thing has gone from being slam-less to being talked about as a one slam wonder? Never ends...

You're only a slam wonder if you haven't reach nr. 1 - that's the way I understand the two definitions. And Caro did both....

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You're only a slam wonder if you haven't reach nr. 1 - that's the way I understand the two definitions. And Caro did both....

No, I disagree. Common definition of one slam wonder is a player who has won only one slam.

Caro moved from being a slamless #1 to one-slam wonder.

Both are kind of derogratory and so the OP was wondering as to which one is better.

 

[DarthFed]

Actually a tough call when you stop and think about it. Getting to #1 in the world in anything is obviously a huge deal even if it is only for a few weeks. But I'd probably still prefer winning a major. They are the holy grail.

 

[kskate2]

**BUMP**