Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by heycal, Oct 6, 2008.
^^The girl's mother.
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:
or 3. It's just as dumb of a thread now as it was on 10/06/08 when it was started.
^this too .
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.
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.
'...ball boys, ball girls, lineswoman and linesman, tourament officials...and PNB PARIBUS..."
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?
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?
.....there are different ways to win a match
1.) beat them in score
2.) injury retirements
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.
but what if they ALL won? nobody loses...
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.
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.
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.
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.
i dont think there will ever be one player who can ALWAYS win 7 matches in a row.
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?
You mean matches are real? Pro tennis? What the duece are you on heycal?
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.
what if there are two winners?
the first one happened in 1925 by Jean Borotra & René Lacoste
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
You guys should take this act on the road in comedy clubs.
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.
heycal, you are sounding like a guy called sobad, and believe me, that's no compliment !
Ok chief. I agree with Sentinel
It's a compliment in my book. Sobad's work here is always grounded in solid science.
ROTFL !!! And that solid science would be szhizophrenology, right ? :twisted:
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.
Why are we speaking of him in the past tense? Is he dead, ala chess9?
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....
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....
you are unbelievable! hard to stay away from this thread. this has to be the longest running joke on TT.
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.
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...
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...)
i assure you, this is no laughing matter.
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!
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.
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.
What if both finalists got injured on the way to the final?
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.
heycal, lots of retirements today...what are your thoughts?
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.
I agree...way too important for either of these players not to win or to win and allow the other to win as well
'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!"
Separate names with a comma.