Tennisanity
Legend
Surely holding all 4 slams twice in your career shows more dominance than doing it only once. One would have to be kinda dumb to think otherwise, no? Or am I wrong?
Are 2 Serena slams > 1 CYGS?
- Thread starter Tennisanity
- Start date
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
CYGS and NCYGS are both nothing more than any other set of 4 Slams. What matters is the sum of your achievements, not the sequence of it.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
2 Serena slams are better than 1 CYGS.
mattosgrant
Banned
Graf had 2 Graf Slams too and 1 was a Calendar Slam. Serena will try and match that in Flushing.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
True. I was just answering the OP question.
2 Serena Slams = 2 Graf Slams > 1 CYGS
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
No. The Grand Slam is the zenith of tennis achievement - mastering the sport in the complete frame of the calendar year, and its four majors within that year. Right now, the commentators from various sources have quickly stopped talking about a "Serena slam" and are back to analyzing 1988--the last time the Grand Slam--peak of the sport--was won by Graf.
Her victory today is wonderful and is of immeasurable value to the sport, but the talk since winning the 2014 USO was about the year to come...and if she can go for the Grand Slam, not a "personal" slam.
Tennisanity
Legend
Oh didn't realize Graf also had 2 Graf slams as well. Amazing.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Graf does not have 2 Grand Slams....
Steffi Graf won the Grand Slam in 1988 and held all 4 Majors again spanning 1993-94. Serena now has all 4 GS singles again for the second time and is now shooting for the Grand Slam 2015. I hope she does it. Incidentally. Serena now has Wimbledon, the US Open, French Open, Australian Open, the Olympic title AND year ending WTA Tour Championship all in her possesion, great achievement at this stage of her career.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
She does.
1988 Aus, French, Wimby, USO and 1989 Aus
1993 French, Wimby, USO and 1994 Aus
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Yes it's better. Also, she's on the verge of winning 5 Slams in a row (which would include a Grand Slam). That would be quite amazing.
Tennisanity
Legend
I never said Graf has 2 Grand slams, I said she also has 2 GraF slams.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Chinese New Year starts in February. China has the largest population in the world.
So, for all purposes, Serena needs to win USO and AO 2016 for the true calendar slam.
The USO is more important for the 22nd major and not the ITF hype CYGS.
So, for all purposes, Serena needs to win USO and AO 2016 for the true calendar slam.
The USO is more important for the 22nd major and not the ITF hype CYGS.
bigserving
Hall of Fame
I you hold all four major trophies at one time, then you do. I agree that the sequence does not matter.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Two different things. ..Even though it's pretty cool to own the four Grand Slam titles simutaneously, in terms of historical significance the calendar year Grand Slam seems to be the measuring stick used.
Serena needs to close that deal in New York City.
Serena needs to close that deal in New York City.
ScottleeSV
Hall of Fame
Congrats to Serena and fans for today.
I think we've seen a future champion too.
I think we've seen a future champion too.
No, not really. You made it up.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
True. That is the Grand Slam--the celebrated pinnacle of tennis achievement, but leave it to the usual suspects who want to disregard history because...
1: Their favorite player did not have the ability to win it.
2: They believe in the manufactured "personal slam" which is a poor consolation prize trying to clone the significance of the Grand Slam.
3: Post "jokes" to continue trolling any discussion where the Grand Slam is the subject. Please refer to 1 for the reason why.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
One would be a fool to rationalize winning 1 CYGS is better than holding all 4 together on 2 different occasions. Plain and Simple.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
IF tennis were the logic puzzle that many posters on here make it out to be, then it would be true that a Serena Slam = a calendar slam. But it's not. It's a game played by humans with all the messy problems of emotion that comes with that.
The thing is that players behave as though the beginning and end of a year matter. They plan their efforts around it.
For that reason, a calendar Slam is a more noteworthy achievement than a streak of four in a row. It needn't be that way, logically, but it IS that way in practice.
The thing is that players behave as though the beginning and end of a year matter. They plan their efforts around it.
For that reason, a calendar Slam is a more noteworthy achievement than a streak of four in a row. It needn't be that way, logically, but it IS that way in practice.
Tennisanity
Legend
I certainly see your point about CYGS being distinct from 4 in a row, but I don't exactly understand why it would be better. Even from an emotional standpoint, just because some yahoos back in the day defined it as such? It's kinda ridiculous.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Players play all the 4 majors with the same importance. The pressure at each one is the same. It is no less pressure winning it from USO-Wimb.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Funny how no sensible commentary ever talks about the (nonexistent) pressure of winning majors across years, yet nothing except the true pressure of winning the Grand Slam is the subject dominating all conversation. It is a historic achievement within the accepted frame of the calendar year. Some should not be so bitter that their favorite players could not reach the zenith of the sport by trying to damn the Grand Slam.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Because that's how players, coaches, pundits, etc alike view it to this day.
There are many things about the world that could be otherwise but are not. This is one of them.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
2 "Serena" slams are absolutely on par with 2 "Laver" slams. No questions.
The oldies "cling" on to some artificial, made up hype about the "calendar" term.
The oldies "cling" on to some artificial, made up hype about the "calendar" term.
pirateofthecarribean
Hall of Fame
What's ITF's definition of Grand Slam? I don't think calendar year is taken into consideration.
C
Cenarius
Guest
Maybe Williams is going to win the next 3 FO and make it 6 in each slam 24 overall. 
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Again, some should not be so bitter that their favorite players could not reach the zenith of the sport by trying to damn the Grand Slam.
Why is it so much better to master the sport between January - December instead of say February - January?
You do realize that making January the first month of the year is a completely arbitrary choice, right? It could very well have been July without affecting anything at all.
pirateofthecarribean
Hall of Fame
Maybe Williams is going to win the next 3 FO and make it 6 in each slam 24 overall.
Doubt it. Serena needs 3 more to beat Court and become overall GOAT. Serena may elect to win 2 more USOs and 1 more AO. RG is hard on the body.
C
Cenarius
Guest
It was a joke.The emoticon I used means that? Sorry I'm new in the internet.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Who decides that winning four in a row is absent pressure? The very suggestion is nonsensical. The CYGS is more difficult to achieve but in the grand scheme of things, isn't much different. Do you need the ITF to tell you how to think?
skip1969
G.O.A.T.
i don't think they recognize the non-calendar slam officially.
whether people like it or not, the calendar year component is part of the definition of the "grand slam" as it was devised in the 1930's. the term was taken from the golfing world and the word "slam" was 'borrowed from the game of bridge. now, i'm not saying that holding all four titles isn't amazing, but technically it's not a "grand slam". a grand slam is a grand slam. you can't just change the definition of it when it suits you.
i can't stand hearing "serena slam" this whole year. are we gonna just stick someone's name in front of the word "slam" whenever someone holds all four majors simultaneosly? martina slam . . . steffi slam . . . serena slam? it's ********. call it the "whoop-de-doo" if you want, i don't care. but call it something else.
Last edited:
G A S
Hall of Fame
In mathematical terms, yes, it does not matter if a grand slam was completed at the same year, all that matter is the amount of slams completed.
My bias would favor a CYGS though, since it show complete dominance in that year.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Your definition of calendar is different from what is in China. The CYGS is a meaningless term.
pirateofthecarribean
Hall of Fame
Not meaningless. Every tournament has a year after its name. USO 2014 is not the same as USO 2015. ITF, however, defines a Grand Slam as winning all 4 slams consecutively, regardless of being in the same calendar year or not.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Exactly. It's just bias. I don't see any logical reason for why a CYGS is worth more than the 4 Slams won over a longer period of time.
G A S
Hall of Fame
oh, yes, because a slam already means that, winning the four championships at the same year. I should just say majors and slams.
pirateofthecarribean
Hall of Fame
The key point is, to win a Grand Slam, a player has to be the reigning champion of all 4 slams. So there cannot be a gap between any two slams.
skip1969
G.O.A.T.
that is incorrect, actually.
on the front page of the itf's website is the headline "williams completes serena slam". so even they are using this ridiculous moniker (instead of, as was mentioned by a poster earlier) the already existing "non calendar year slam".
they go on to say:
"Serena Williams defeated Garbine Muguruza 64 64 in the 2015 Wimbledon final to claim her 21st Grand Slam title and complete the “Serena Slam”.
The world No. 1 now holds all 4 Grand Slam trophies, having won the first three of 2015 as well as last year’s US Open and her thoughts will surely now go to the Grand Slam – winning all four titles in a calendar year.
Only 5 players, men and women, have ever won all four majors in one calendar year, most recently Steffi Graf who won all four Grand Slams and Olympic gold in 1988."
Read more at http://www.itftennis.com/news/208001.aspx#Elh80bczweihs2AL.99
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If I am in China, my CYGS is FO-Wimb-USO-AO. So, you see how the sequence can be arbitrary ?
If you hold all 4 majors, it is a slam.
pirateofthecarribean
Hall of Fame
ITF uses Gregorian calendar. And so does China. So USO 2015 is 2015 all over the world.
G A S
Hall of Fame
Grand Slam originally meant winning all the four majors in the same year, so the definition of today drops the 'in the same year part ' because it is too arbitrary?
That can only be it, so it becomes simply winning all the four majors.
C
Chadillac
Guest
The point is that it happens in a single season. The tour sets the begining and ending dates, not the chinese calander or people who have 5 day weeks
I see no reason why she wont win the us open.
I see no reason why she wont win the us open.
pirateofthecarribean
Hall of Fame
CYGS is more strict than NCYGS, both are considered GS by ITF.
Similar threads
- Poll
