Sawfish <
sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 9/16/23 10:18 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> Much of the same logic can be applied to the CYGS debate, the main difference being that there is an existing convention that, by arbitrary past custom, all four
slams must be won in the same calendar year. So if no one in the past had made a point of noting the year in which 4 consecutive slams were won, there'd be no debate today.>> But calendar year, annual comparisons in general and seasons in sports, all of
it is a well established concept.Yes, that is the "existing convention".>> There's no agenda there, it's just normal way to look at things? Nothing to see or discuss.It is, but there is no intrinsic reason to do so that I can see. It appears that at some
point someone, somewhere, got the ball rolling by presenting it as a sort of "neat" coincidence.Consider the following hypothetical...A player in 2025 (eg) starts the year by winning the AO, then goes on to win the French, Wimbledon, the USO. This person
is a great, mythological hero.Immediately after that run the same player in 2026 loses the AO and French, and wins Wimbledon, the USO, the 2027 AO, 2027 the French, and 2027 Wimbledon.In this example we have the absurd idea that the four slams that
occurred in 2025 are of greater importance than the 5 that start with Wimbledon 2026, include the 2026 USO, 2027 AO, the 2027 French, and the 2027 Wimbledon.That hypothetical five consecutive slams--which includes 2 Wimbledons--would not be worth as much
as the 4 slams that occurred in 2025, if I understand the argument in favor of special value for a CYGS. On the surface of it this seems intuitively absurd.So you know what would happen? Brad Gilbert, in his role as TV color commentator, would make up,
on the fly, a new category for 5 consecutive slams. We'd sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and nod, droolingly, and the CYGS would be pushed back in value to where the no-CYGS had been, and having a non-CYGS, plus $5, would get you a triple
breve at Starbuck's.Am I missing something here, skript? I know it's a labored hypothetical, but that's why RST exists...isn't it?;^)>>> OTOH picking a certain year to start measuring Federer or Djokovic era, that's quite arbitrary. But since Mikko was
joking, nothing to see either.Agreed.>>>>>> Next question: who the fuck first made a big deal about the calendar year? A sports writer? A player? ???> Crawford was pumping himself in 1933 to win all 4 ITF official championships I believe?>> But yeah some
journalist I think started using the term Grand Slam and it stuck.Thanks for the info!>>-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish
I will quote no specific part, I will reply as a whole.
First of all, I believe there's intrisic value in one calendar year as it corresponds with natural cycles, being dormant in winter, blossoming in spring, summer, autumn you get it. After that there's a winter hibernation and from spring we start all over
again?
So that's one cycle.
Of course you could say cycle beings at the summer solstice? Or at any other point.
But in reality, most cultures put start of the year at either winter solstice, or spring equinox.
It's kinda logical and it simplifies things, we get equal blocks of time that we can compare?
Whether it's harvest, conquest, production, sports...
Second part of your question.
Five straight slams from Wimbledon to Wimbledon is an amazing 12 month and 2 weeks period, but those two seasons look like this.
2 slams, Wim, USO
3 slams, AO, FO, Wim.
In first season you did 50% of maximum, in second you did 75%.
It just doesn't look as Impressive when you look at the honours roll and list of all slam winners. OTOH owning one entire seasons, and that season being yours and yours alone stands out a lot more.
But I will concede one point here. 5 straight slam wins is an underrated achievement, and in my book that's 2 non-calendar slams, not one.
Look at Budge situation, consecutive slams?
1937 - Wim (1), US (2)
1938 - Aus (3), French (4), Wim (5), US (6)
Budge naturally achieved non-calendar Grand Slam when he won his 4th. It's unclear how do we call what he did when he won his 5th.
But when he won his 6th, he gets credited with Grand Slam, and his non-calendar Grand Slam gets erased. No more?
I mean check the record books, they claim he can't be credited with non-calendar Grand Slam as those slams are part of his Grand Slam and no double counting is allowed. Ok fine.
But it appears that non-calendar Grand Slam is sort of achievement which you can lose, if you improve it enough?
That's kinda confusing for me.
I would approach it differently, perhaps I would say that non-calendar Grand Slam is the instance of holding all 4 slams at the same time, other than at the last slam in the season which is then Grand Slam.
So I would say Budge has 2 non-calendar Grand Slams and Djokovic has 1.
Laver has 2 Grand Slams and Budge has 1.
In reality it's very confusing.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)