• Hey Whisper

    From *skriptis@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 13 09:19:23 2024
    What's the value of career grand slam in your mind and notably, having the "best career grand slam record"?

    I'm aware that you think highly of Nadal's "most titles a single GS event across all of them".


    Tennis history has been changing a lot in the past 2 decades, we've seen many records being broken and new ones being set.


    We all remember that tennis world (fedfuckers bias) universally declared Federer the goat already after 2009 FO when he both tied Sampras and achieved career grand slam thus surpassing him in their mind that is.

    Rest of us clearly acknowledged it only after 2009 Wim, Federer then had the numbers (15>14, 83>80 and cgs vs no cgs).


    I also remember that there was a bigger hype around Djokovic's 2016 FO in the sense of it being a career grand slam, than it was about him achieving non-calendar grand slam.

    Sure non-calendar grand slam is a bigger one, naturally, but it doesn't feel it's that much bigger?

    Frankly I don't feel it too right now as well.


    I'd say

    Grand Slam >>> NCYGS > CGS



    Another one for you.


    Wimbledon record beats other slam records, but do you perhaps feel most dominant slam record (currently Nadal's 14 FO) is on pair with owning the Wimbledon record in terms of significance?

    And how does that compare to CGS, CGS record and overall slam record, and of course, to the Grand Slam?



    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From *skriptis@21:1/5 to The Iceberg on Tue Feb 13 11:47:06 2024
    The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
    On 13/02/2024 08:19, *skriptis wrote:> > What's the value of career grand slam in your mind and notably, having the "best career grand slam record"?> > I'm aware that you think highly of Nadal's "most titles a single GS event across all of them".> > >
    Tennis history has been changing a lot in the past 2 decades, we've seen many records being broken and new ones being set.> > > We all remember that tennis world (fedfuckers bias) universally declared Federer the goat already after 2009 FO when he both
    tied Sampras and achieved career grand slam thus surpassing him in their mind that is.> > Rest of us clearly acknowledged it only after 2009 Wim, Federer then had the numbers (15>14, 83>80 and cgs vs no cgs).no, never acknowledged it in 2009 cos Fed didn'
    t get most difficult record of 6 consecutive years #1! also Nadal was still at peak back then and Fed had only won USO 2008 cos of those paid-off linesmen!!> I also remember that there was a bigger hype around Djokovic's 2016 FO in the sense of it being
    a career grand slam, than it was about him achieving non-calendar grand slam.> > Sure non-calendar grand slam is a bigger one, naturally, but it doesn't feel it's that much bigger?yes cos Djoker went nuts trying to get it, but then Stan proved he was
    even better than Djoker!> Frankly I don't feel it too right now as well.> > > I'd say> > Grand Slam >>> NCYGS > CGS> > > > Another one for you.> > > Wimbledon record beats other slam records, but do you perhaps feel most dominant slam record (currently
    Nadal's 14 FO) is on pair with owning the Wimbledon record in terms of significance?> > And how does that compare to CGS, CGS record and overall slam record, and of course, to the Grand Slam?no Wimbledon record is still most significant cos nobody
    outside of tennis much knows about the FO, that's just how it is.



    Tnx. lol

    Yeah, I'm leaning towards this way of reasoning.

    Bonus for Nadal is that his record of being the best king in all slams, is basically safe, but Wimbledon record is Wimbledon record.




    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)