What if no one won??

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by heycal, Oct 6, 2008.

  1. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,546
    Location:
    Arizona
    ^^The girl's mother.
     
    #51
  2. 1hand4ever

    1hand4ever Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    174
    Now, I'm going to explain this to the OP as simply as i can.

    There are two ways this can be resolved:
    You can accept the first one or the second possibility is just as nice.

    1. OP, your reasoning behind the possibility of no one winning 7 matches is flawed. I believe you think no one player can win 7 matches in a SINGLE tournament but this is not possible. You stated earlier that 127 players cannot win 7 matches in a row but for this to happen, 1 player HAS to win 7 matches in a row. It might be possible for a group of players not to win 7 matches in a row in DIFFERENT tournaments, but never the same one.

    2. I believe it's time to accept heycal's theory as definite proof of the copenhagen interpretation. Obviously the OP has stumbled onto something that is completely beyond all of our thought processes, this is why no one can figure it out.:shock::rolleyes:
     
    #52
  3. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Guest

    or 3. It's just as dumb of a thread now as it was on 10/06/08 when it was started.
     
    #53
  4. 1hand4ever

    1hand4ever Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    174
    ^this too .
     
    #54
  5. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    It has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation and everything to do with the Oslo equation.

    In any case, I may be vindicated in less than a week's time when no one wins this year's FO.
     
    #55
  6. 1hand4ever

    1hand4ever Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    174
    Oslo equation? That's a new one. OP, i seriously hope you're just screwing with all of us and having a great big laugh or that you're 7 years old. If not, I'm willing to bet that either federer, monfils, robredo, del potro, gonzo or soderling wins the french open. I'm willing to bet my tennis racquet. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2009
    #56
  7. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,158
    Location:
    Antarctica
    '...ball boys, ball girls, lineswoman and linesman, tourament officials...and PNB PARIBUS..."

    merci beaucoup.
     
    #57
  8. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,800
    Will there every be a time when it is not the girl's mother but the father? Could we just agree that it is unlikely but not impossible?
     
    #58
  9. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    It's very possible, and even likely. History has shown that someone generally does win these things. But what if none of the guys you mention or any one else in the field can manage to win 7 matches in a row this time around? What then?
     
    #59
  10. HellBunni

    HellBunni Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    291
    .....there are different ways to win a match

    1.) beat them in score
    2.) injury retirements
    3.) DQs
    etc...

    if all the players are worn out, the first one to call it quits losses, so his opponent would be the winner.

    the only way to not have a winner, would be to have the whole field drop dead at the same time.
     
    #60
  11. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    but what if they ALL won? nobody loses...
     
    #61
  12. certifiedjatt

    certifiedjatt Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    661
    Location:
    Ontario
    lol!
    love it.
     
    #62
  13. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    I'm not talking about unusual or freak circumstances. I'm just saying that in today's competitive climate, the day may come when no player can win 7 matches in a row.
     
    #63
  14. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Guest

    I can't tell who is taking this thread seriously or not. Heycal, I know you are just trying to lead as many people into this as you can, but it's really a rubbish thread.
     
    #64
  15. Solomon

    Solomon New User

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    There is a winner and a loser in every tournament. That's it, there are no ifs and buts about it. One player will always win 7 matches in a row, even if by ridiculous means.

    This thread is bad, and you should feel bad.
     
    #65
  16. dParis

    dParis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,746
    I'm really sorry for interrupting, but I'm looking to get Gino Vannelli to play at my brother's birthday party. Has anyone seen him here? If he stops by this thread, please let me know.

    -'Preciate it!
     
    #66
  17. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    i dont think there will ever be one player who can ALWAYS win 7 matches in a row.
     
    #67
  18. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    What you guys really mean is that there has always been a winnner so far. But do neither or you possess the imagination or foresight to realize there may come a time when no player can win 7 matches in a row?

    If you think someone will always win 7 matches in a row, I think you are severely underestimating how competitive pro tennis is these days. I mean, for Godsakes, Nadal lost in the third or fourth round at Roland Garros! Doesn't that send up a red flag for you guys that the game is changing and getting much more difficult?
     
    #68
  19. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,800
    You mean matches are real? Pro tennis? What the duece are you on heycal?
     
    #69
  20. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    these people are all failing to see the big picture here. the idea that only one person will continue to win every slam from here on completely disregards the 18th century philosopher David Hume's thoughts on the problems of induction. what says that just because something has happened in the past that it will continue to happen in the future? that completely relies on the idea of uniformity in nature, and i have yet to see any proof that would substantiate that idea. there is no more evidence to the fact that there will be one and only one slam winner at each slam for the rest of time then there is to say that there wont be.
     
    #70
  21. kimbahpnam

    kimbahpnam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,675
    what if there are two winners?

    the first one happened in 1925 by Jean Borotra & René Lacoste
     
    #71
  22. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Excellent post. And obviously, Hume's thoughts on the possibility of no one winning 7 matches in a row someday should be given more weight than some JV tennis player posting here at TT.
     
    #72
  23. lethalfang

    lethalfang Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,420
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I don't know about no one winning 7 matches in a row, but why can't 2 players both win 7 matches in a row? Someday we will have a tournament where both players win the Singles Final, and we will have 2 champions.
     
    #73
  24. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    i definitely agree. in fact, if you read my earlier post, i stated my belief that in men's tennis we will see all 128 entrants win the title before we see nobody win at all. in women's tennis, i believe we will see nobody win the title fairly soon.
     
    #74
  25. lethalfang

    lethalfang Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,420
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    There will be a time when the quality of tennis is so good in a particular tournament, that the total matches won will outnumber the total matches lost. In other words, on a given day, 60% of players will have won, and only 40% of players will have lost.
     
    #75
  26. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    Yes, of course. I think the real trouble here is whether there will always be an even number of competitors moving on from round to round. what if there are 5 people who all make it to the semis? the ATP will have to come up with something QUICK in that situation...
     
    #76
  27. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Guest

    You guys should take this act on the road in comedy clubs.
     
    #77
  28. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Wait till one of these scenarios actually happens, Woodrow, as it no doubt will some day, what with the various advance in both fitness and racket technology. May not be such a laughing matter then.
     
    #78
  29. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,221
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    heycal, you are sounding like a guy called sobad, and believe me, that's no compliment !
     
    #79
  30. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Guest

    Ok chief. I agree with Sentinel
     
    #80
  31. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    It's a compliment in my book. Sobad's work here is always grounded in solid science.
     
    #81
  32. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,221
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    ROTFL !!! And that solid science would be szhizophrenology, right ? :twisted::)
     
    #82
  33. Mike Bulgakov

    Mike Bulgakov Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    The Future
    Isn't SoBad currently fomenting a revolution in the Uzbek mountains? He is clearly skilled in languages and very smart. SoBad's posts were very entertaining.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2009
    #83
  34. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Why are we speaking of him in the past tense? Is he dead, ala chess9?
     
    #84
  35. TonLars

    TonLars Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,479
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    heycal..... was playing the other day..... 5-5 in the the 4th set..... points so long..... so hot...... we couldnt finish.... neither won. You.... were right....
     
    #85
  36. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    With Nadal pullling out, and Federer feeling too much pressure to make history, do you guys think it's possible that this no one might end up winning Wimbledon this year? Those two aside, I'm not convinced Murray or Djokervic can win 7 in a row on grass, nor can any other player.

    So we shall see....
     
    #86
  37. certifiedjatt

    certifiedjatt Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    661
    Location:
    Ontario
    you are unbelievable! hard to stay away from this thread. this has to be the longest running joke on TT.
     
    #87
  38. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,546
    Location:
    Arizona
    They are capable of winning 7 in a row on any surface. But it's good that Wimbledon doesn't have a draw of 256 or 512. I don't think they'd ever have a champion if they required the feat of winning 8 or 9 consectutive matches. It's just too difficult, nobody can win 8 matches in a row against good players. That's why tournaments never have a draw of more than 128.
     
    #88
  39. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Excellent points. I never realized before how they came up with this rather weird number of 128 for a draw. (I mean, why not 135 or 150?) So this makes a lot of sense.

    The only question now is whether once someone fails to win 7 in a row, which will surely happen sometime soon, will they feel the need to reduce the draw size to, say, 125 or 100, to make it a bit easier for one player to make it through? Time will tell...
     
    #89
  40. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,158
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Chess ain't dead. He's in London probably either liquored-up or Cialis-up'd and bangin' the ever-lovin' daylights outta some Susan Sarandon-look-a-like.

    (.. 'least I hope he is...)
    :cool:
     
    #90
  41. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    i assure you, this is no laughing matter.
     
    #91
  42. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,221
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Sir
    I have been pondering over you thread title for a month and have experienced what i understand to be a satori.

    I realize that the title is a new-age, tailored-for-tennis Koan! Thanks a lot for showing us the light, Master HeyCal!
     
    #92
  43. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,546
    Location:
    Arizona
    If players keep improving, the pressure for tournaments to still have champions will mean that the fields will drop to very low numbers, like only 8. They players will keep improving and then the field will drop to only 4. When that happens, tennis will be a very difficult sport to break into with so few openings. If you're considering pro-tennis for your children, this is a good reason to give this matter some serious thought.
     
    #93
  44. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Well, I don't know about that. Maybe. I just know I'm both worried and excited to see where things may be headed in the future of the pro game. No winners? Multiple winners? 5 person draws? I hope the game can survive the changes that may lay in store.
     
    #94
  45. radical pro joe

    radical pro joe New User

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    72
    What if both finalists got injured on the way to the final?
     
    #95
  46. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    I'd imagine there would be no winner. But this was one of the "freak" occurrences that we were talking about earlier...it is more likely that there aren't any players good enough to win 6 matches and make it to the final than this.
     
    #96
  47. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    heycal, lots of retirements today...what are your thoughts?
     
    #97
  48. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Missed this post, sorry. In any event, I don't think this Wimbledon will be the one where there are no winners. I could see either Federer or Roddick winning on Sunday.
     
    #98
  49. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    I agree...way too important for either of these players not to win or to win and allow the other to win as well
     
    #99
  50. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    'heycal' has brought this thread - which he began - back from the dead 3 or 4 times now. He does this often.
    So often that the caption on his threads and posts should read: "HEY - PLEASE LOOK AT ME! PLEASE! I'M DESPERATE FOR ATTENTION!"
     

Share This Page