I suppose you could use this in the GOAT debates, but that's why I'm sticking it here, in the Asylum.

This focuses on Grand Slam results.  It's possible I'll try incorporating other achievements in it as well, but no guarantees.  Also, I'm putting this up without having done any of the results.

The idea is to create a score for a player, dependent on results at Grand Slams.  The score is constructed as:

1 x (# grand slam singles wins in the Open era) + 1/2 x (# grand slam singles runner-ups in the Open era) + 1/2 x (# grand slam doubles wins in the Open era) + 1/4 x (# grand slam doubles runner-ups in the Open era) + 2 (if the player has a career slam for singles in the Open era) + 1 (if the player has a career slam for doubles in the Open era)

I feel doubles should have some representation, though this is likely to just make Martina Navaratilova and John McEnroe higher than they would otherwise be (my guess would be Martina takes the top spot with this).  Possibly, it's something that should be dropped or spun off into its own doubles value.  Also, I specifically want to deal with the Open Era, sorry Margaret Court and Rod Laver.

The idea of incorporating Master's/Premier titles, Year End championships and #1 status (either achieving it or the weeks held, I'm not sure) also exists, but I'm not sure whether (or how) I want to take those into account.