What if no one won??

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

  1. Arrows

    Arrows Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    193
    Location:
    Australia
    What if, in the Slams, every match goes to the advantage set (excluding USO, of course), and no-one takes a match point? What happens when it's 99-all? Does it keep going into the hundreds? Where do the officials draw the line?

    If there is no line to be drawn, then yes it is possible that no-one will win any matches. It would be a case of who passes out first from fatigue.
     
  2. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The other girl's father :twisted:
     
  3. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    well...looking at this post we can assume that it worked, no?
     
  4. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    im watching the men's doubles final right now...it looks like somebody will end up winning this one
     
  5. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Unless the world suddenly ends :)
     
  6. David_Is_Right

    David_Is_Right Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Leicester, UK
    We've all rocked your sister, William. All of us.
     
  7. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Someone sounds jealous... In any event, this thread was never "dead". It's an ongoing discussion that may take months or even years to reach its natural death. We've barely scratched the surface here.
     
  8. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    some people will never learn, heycal
     
  9. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Wimbledon 09 - 16 to 14 in the 5th set!

    This thread almost came to pass with that final, today... 16-14 in the 5th :-D
     
  10. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    and to think...some have questioned the legitimacy of the topic we discuss in this thread. I'm hoping that today's final has helped shed a little light on the serious nature of the the topic at hand.
     
  11. benne

    benne Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Location:
    St. Petersburg
    haha almost happened with rod and rog today. 75+ games
     
  12. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    It is impossible. As long as you have exactly two undefeated players facing each other in a final, there will always be a winner. The one who passes out from fatigue loses the match. Even before that, I doubt any human could last even 8 hours of intense tennis before one would crack and lose the match. The only way someone would "not win 7 matches in a row", would be if they 1) decreased the number of players in the draw, or 2) they changed the tournament to a round robin format.

    Any other discussions about possibly having no winner in the current tournament format is just stupid, unless you are talking about someone bombing centre court or the players decide to go on strike or something idiotic like that.
     
  13. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    you obviously havent read any of thread if youre coming up with all this drivel...your argument has been shown to be false already
     
  14. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Yes, yesterday's match certainly proved us prescient. While there was eventually a winner, there could have easily not have been judging how that last set dragged on endlessly and even set a new record. Even Roger Federer himself acknowledged there might not be a winner someday in the post-match interview on centre court. Did you guys see that? He said, and I quote verbatim, "The thing about tennis is that there has to be winner sometimes". (Youtube if you guys missed it/don't believe it.) "Sometimes", he said. Not always, but sometimes. Even Federer realizes it, and he certainly knows more about the realities of today's game than any of us do.

    But what if neither player is good enough to win even the 6 matches need to reach the final? There would not even be a final for someone to win or lose.

    And again, we are not talking about freak circumstances of dual injuries or bombings of centre court or any other oddball event -- we are strictly talking about the very real possibility that some day, none of the 128 players in a GS draw will be able to win 7 matches in a row due to the tough competition.

    I think some people react with fear to new things and new possibilities. We want what's safe and familiar, I guess.
     
  15. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Uhh I did read the thread. I have yet to see anyone explain why there can be no winner. How is my argument false? Until you can counter my argument, you are full of it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  16. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    So you're basically saying that a 5th set could go on infinitely until some 3rd party comes in and stops the match? Could never happen. That is like saying a person can live forever as long as they never get a disease.
     
  17. ronalditop

    ronalditop Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    in my room
    what a stupid thread.
     
  18. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    I don't think you realize how competitive the game is this these days, what with improved fitness and conditioning and racket/string technology. The explanation is very simple: some day, not a single one of 128 guys will be able to win 7 matches in a row because the competition has just gotten too tough.

    Think about your own game, Raiden. You're only competing against recreational players, yet how often in your life have you won 7 matches in a row? I'm not sure I ever have. Now imagine how hard that is at the pro level!
     
  19. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    But the format of the tournament will not allow that possibility. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out.
     
  20. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    It's not about "formats". It's about the difficulty of winning 7 matches in a row. Don't you think that's very hard to do?
     
  21. maverick66

    maverick66 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,137
    Location:
    Valhalla
    I have a question. What if no one signed up to play a major? What happens? Do they just say screw it we dont have it or do they let the first 128 people to show up play?
     
  22. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    They'd probably still play the tournament, but reduce the draw size to 105 or 115.
     
  23. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Yeah its hard for ME to do it, but somebody has to do it. So below is the breakdown of each round. Basically there has to be exactly 127 losses (1 per person who does not win the title) to fit the tournament format.

    What you are trying to tell me, is that there are 128 losses (ie. nobody wins). This would imply that exactly one of these rounds will result in more than 50% of the remaining players being eliminated from competition. IMPOSSIBLE.

    Round 1: 64 losses (64 players now 1-0)
    Round 2: 32 losses (32 players now 2-0)
    Round 3: 16 losses (16 players now 3-0)
    Round 4: 8 losses (8 players now 4-0)
    QuarterFinal: 4 losses (4 players now 5-0)
    SemiFinal: 2 losses (2 players now 6-0)
    Final: 1 loss (1 player now 7-0)
     
  24. maverick66

    maverick66 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,137
    Location:
    Valhalla
    Im talking a boycot. All players say im not playing. Imagine at wimbledon if everyone says screw you im not playing. What happens. Do we get to see a bunch of random brits hop on the court or is the tourny just over.
     
  25. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Whoa! I'm seeing a lot of numbers and math being thrown around here, Raiden. But remember, tennis matches are played on the court, not on the blackboard. And I'm just saying that someday, there may be a tournament where no one will be able to put together a streak of 7 wins a row.
     
  26. TonLars

    TonLars Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Exactly, the two players who do indeed make the final, in whatever manner they get there (long 20 hour matches, retires, defaults, etc) will just decide not to play at all because theyre too tired, or theyll both simultaneously during the final lose their condition and share the title
     
  27. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    This scenario has already been excluded from what Heycal is saying.

    Heycal is under the false belief that every single player will actually lose a match prior to winning their 7th in a row (ie. the final). He was not referring to the possibility that the players quit. He's ignoring the format of the tournament as being irrelevant even though its not.

    The only way to exit the tournament is to lose, right? If every player loses, that means that the very last match played in the tournament must result in BOTH players losing, otherwise there will always be one player remaining to claim the title.

    His argument is like saying that if you sold a lottery ticket for every possible set of numbers, because each individual ticket buyer has such a small percentage of winning (like 1 in 80 million), that its possible nobody will win the lottery.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  28. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Right. I'm excluding freak occurances like the on mentioned by tonlars. But Raiden, I'm not saying that "every single player will actually lose a match prior to winning their 7th in a row", I'm saying "every single player may actually lose a match prior to winning their 7th in a row." So I'm not saying it WILL definitely happen someday, just that it MIGHT. I really can't say for sure.
     
  29. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Why are you so convinced this can happen?

    In order to lose a match, your opponent MUST be undefeated. Can you agree with that? If so, then how can the last undefeated person ever lose if there are no undefeated people left in the draw to beat them?
     
  30. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Not so much convinced as I am open to the possibility of it happening. I can't predict the future, so who knows if it will happen or not?

    No, I can't agree with this premise. Personally speaking, I have lost many matches to players who were not undefeated, so I imagine it's even more likely at the higher levels of the game where the competition is tougher.
     
  31. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Is there anything in this world that you don't believe can happen?

    So that is a flaw in your reasoning right now. You are saying that a player who has lost a match in a tournament could continue to play in that tournament.
     
  32. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Quite the opposite. That player would be eliminated from the tournament, as might all the other players if they could not win 7 matches in a row.
     
  33. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    So now you are agreeing with the premise that in order to lose a match within the tournament, your opponent must be undefeated within that tournament.

    So how can you end up with zero undefeated players remaining if in order to defeat a player in the tournament, one must be undefeated? Who defeats the last player to lose a match in the entire tournament?
     
  34. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    There is a lot of complicated double-speak here, Raiden. The matter is really much simpler: Every tournament so far, 127 players have failed to win 7 in a row. Is it really such a stretch to think that someday, given the increasing level of competition, that all 128 players might fail to win 7 in a row? That's a less than a mere 1 percent increase in the number of losers, so it seems very plausible to me.
     
  35. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    If you break numerous mathematical laws then it might be possible for all 128 players to fail to win 7 in a row. Its more likely that I will win the lottery 1000 times than it is for that to happen.
     
  36. TonLars

    TonLars Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    No. There is always a winner and a loser in every match. It would indeed require a freak occurrence such as both players deciding not to play altogether, or both getting injured at the same time during the match.

    However manner the two finalists get there, there will then with two players left be a champion and a runner-up, somehow, through either playing it out or one player retiring.
     
  37. TBobLP

    TBobLP Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Location:
    South Florida
    there HAS always been a winner and a loser up to this point...what guarantee is there that it will continue to happen? Do we really need to get back into the problems of induction in reasoning and logic?
     
  38. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Sounds like you and heycal are arguing two different points. You are saying a match can last forever, and heycal is saying that every match ends, but in the tournament its possible that no players will win all 7 matches to claim the title. Both arguments are severely flawed, and I am embarrsed to even be here trying to debate this. :)
     
  39. maddogz32

    maddogz32 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    481
    Location:
    texas
    i think the only way that would happen is if they all got injured and pulled out of the tournament around the same time
     
  40. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451

    Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. You at least acknowledge the possibility of it happening someday, even if you think it's more likely you'd win the lottery 1000 times. I think the chances are somewhat better than that. So perhaps our positions are not that different after all.
     
  41. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    No actually I don't think its a possibility. Winning the lottery 1000 times is possible, yet extremely improbable. What you are describing is mathematically impossible. There is not even a negligible probability that what you are describing would ever happen.
     
  42. TonLars

    TonLars Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    k, March Hare and Mad Hatter, either someone wins the match by completing the score or someone retires. Unless both players retire simultaneously, there will always be a winner and loser to every match. Merry unbirthday to you both
     
  43. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    You seem to be changing your position a bit, Raiden, so it's hard to follow. Now you don't "think" it's a possibity, whereas before it was, just an unlikely one? I'm confused.

    This assumes two players play well enough to even reach the final, Tonlars. What if they don't?
     
  44. certifiedjatt

    certifiedjatt Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    661
    Location:
    Ontario
    this thread has provided heycal with so much laughter and amusement.
    as well me.
     
  45. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    It may be funny to some now, but it won't be so funny when we wake up some Sunday in the near future and have no final to watch because all 128 players failed to win enough matches to qualify for it.

    Maybe they need a rule change to head off this potential disaster. Maybe a third serve or something? Just a thought...
     
  46. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    I didn't change my position. I said if you break mathematical laws it would be possible.
     
  47. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    How might a third serve help prevent this situation?
     
  48. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,962
    David, perhaps it is just my recent dogmatic slumbers, but I. Kant understand what you are getting at. Can you state Categorically what you mean.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  49. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Whoa. Hold on! No one is looking to break any laws here. This should be kept on the up and up to preserve the integrity of the game.

    Maybe by giving the players more opportunity to score points and thus insure someone wins the match? Think about it -- instead of double faulting, you would have one more chance to get a serve in and thus win the point, ya know? Kind of like how they juiced the ball a bit in baseball in order to create more home runs.

    In any case, I'm just brainstorming here. Not sure this is the ultimate solution, but just thought I'd put it on the table.
     
  50. heycal

    heycal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,451
    Is it imperative he do so?
     

Share This Page