Bud Collins and "the Grand Slam"

[FiveO]

Hopefully the last post for tonight, since I've done a lot of posting today (too much).

But one example of how terms change: the term "volley", in the early days of tennis, meant both a shot taken in the air and a rally.

Newcomers to tennis today seem still to use the term "volley" when referring to a rally. I got used to correcting them on it, as if the term "volley" only had one meaning, and could never have had any other meaning.

So it's been a surprise recently to find the terms "volley" and "rally" used interchangeably, for example, by A. Wallis Myers in his report on Lenglen-Chambers (1919). I've also seen the same thing across the pond in the New York Times of the 1920s.

Around that time, tennis writers also used "aces" to mean winning shots that were not serves.

These are not fixed things, because language is not fixed.

Nor are meanings universal. Open the dictionary to any random page, how often do you see a word that has only one meaning? Most entries have a list of meanings for a single word.

I suspect the "mis-use" of terms, was more than likely an error of an editor or typesetter lacking Myers' experience or apparent expertise.

This digitized copy of Myers' "Lawn Tennis at Home and Abroad" apparently published in 1903 betrays no such mis-use of terminology and is actually a very interesting read in its own right.

http://www.archive.org/details/lawntennisathom00myergoog

5

 

[krosero]

I suspect the "mis-use" of terms, was more than likely an error of an editor or typesetter lacking Myers' experience or apparent expertise.

This digitized copy of Myers' "Lawn Tennis at Home and Abroad" apparently published in 1903 betrays no such mis-use of terminology and is actually a very interesting read in its own right.

http://www.archive.org/details/lawntennisathom00myergoog

5

Thanks for that, and I have to run, but quickly, here's the passage I was referring to as published recently in The Telegraph Book of Wimbledon (Myers reporting on the 1919 Wimbledon Challenge Round):

"Mlle Lenglen had come to the net on a deep drive; the champion’s return from a cross volley appeared to be going out of reach. The French racket went out desperately, the ball hit the wood and went over – a lucky and misshapen stop volley. Another gruelling volley, won by the French girl, brought her to deuce; once more they were level."

 

[krosero]

PS. Krosero...as to the historical debate, while I appreciate your info, my concern is not with the origins, but with the "value" today. It is of course, all arbitrary. It could have been decided at the begining, that the "grand slam" would be something else entirely..lets say...starting at wimbledon and winning all 4 from there. That is fine, but the fact remains that winning 4 in a row, is entirely different, and statistically (and psychologically) much more probable and easier. So one can't equate the two rationally.

I hear you. The origins of the term are of interest to me as an interesting question, in itself; and because in the debate today, you often hear about how the term has been used historically.

so I'll see what else I can find historically: but I wouldn't simply say that whatever was done in the 30s is what we should do now. The origins are relevant, and tradition matters, but ultimately we have to decide for ourselves the value, as you say, of these two things: non-calendar Slams and calendar Slams.

I wouldn't say they have equal value. Winning all four titles within a calendar year is more rare than simply winning four in a row at any time (because of the calendar year requirement). And there's more pressure around a calendar Slam.

I used to wonder why the calendar year was made into such an all-important factor -- and I still understand those who feel it is arbitrary; or those who feel that too much is being made of the traditional structure of a Grand Slam. However, I find one point by Urban very persuasive: the concept of the Grand Slam is the perfect season. And the reason I think this matters is that in tennis we always talk about seasons. We're always talking about calendar years -- who was #1 for 1997, for 2003, for 1980, etc. Who had a great year, who didn't. And so on.

Anyway, that particular concept of a Grand Slam has a long history behind it in tennis. So I think that's important.

However, in sports we also talk across years. We talk about winning 5 Wimbledons in a row, for example. Not everything is about the calendar year. One season ends, and you go into the next one still the "defending champion" of certain titles; you're still thought of as the "holder." From that concept (holding a title), you can speak of holding all the titles at once, and it's a special achievement even without reference to the calendar.

You can win the USO in September, then the AO in January, and everyone can acknowledge that a streak is taking place. Even the hardcore traditionalists about the Grand Slam acknowledge that -- although I guess they do it reluctantly because they don't want to see the term "Grand Slam" suddenly being applied to a lesser achievement.

And I understand that, but the term has historically been applied across calendar years, right from the start, before Budge. What Budge did was to achieve something even beyond capturing all four titles at once: he created a perfect single season. THAT became, apparently, the exclusive definition of a Grand Slam thereafter, or at least for many decades after Budge. Which essentially left the 4-in-a-row achievement without a name.

That's where I see a problem, and I don't think it's going away. I'm happy with the modifying terms, "calendar Slam," and "non-calendar Slam." Well, they're not ideal terms. But I think it's far preferable to some other approaches. The approach that says, essentially, "there is only one way to think of the term Grand Slam", does not strike me as persuasive or productive.

 

[krosero]

September 1938

We might as well quote what was said about Budge after he won the US Nationals in 1938. This is more well known, but why not quote it so we can read it.

This was Allison Danzig in the New York Times:

The book was closed yesterday on the greatest record of success ever compiled by a lawn tennis player in one season of national and international championship competition.

J. Donald Budge of Oakland, Calif., stood as the first player in history to win all four of the world’s major tennis titles in the same year when he defeated Gene Mako of Los Angeles in the Forest Hills Stadium in the final round of the national championship....

The triumph of the 23-year-old red-headed giant ... completed a campaign of unparalleled achievement on three continents.

No one before him has held at one and the same time the American, British, French and Australian crowns, all of which have fallen in 1938 to the rapacity of Budge’s fifteen-ounce racquet for a grand slam that invites comparision with the accomplishment of Bobby Jones in golf.

In this respect, at least, Budge takes precedence over William Tilden, the Frenchmen, Henri Cochet and Rene Lacoste; Ellsworth Vines, Wilmer Allison, Fred Perry, the Briton, and all the other great modern champions. Jack Crawford of Australia came closest to winning four major crowns when, in 1933, he won three of the titles and led Perry, two sets to one, in the American final.

So of all the sources quoted so far, this is the first one that clearly links the term "grand slam" to the calendar year. Like some earlier journalists who referred to Slams across two seasons, he talks about holding all four crowns "at one and the same time". But as far as I know he had not credited anyone with a Grand Slam until Budge did it, as he says, "in the same year."

So he was essentially focused on Budge's great year; or as Urban mentioned earlier, the idea of a perfect season.

This seems to be the idea that took predominance for decades afterwards.

 

[krosero]

I suspect the "mis-use" of terms, was more than likely an error of an editor or typesetter lacking Myers' experience or apparent expertise.

This digitized copy of Myers' "Lawn Tennis at Home and Abroad" apparently published in 1903 betrays no such mis-use of terminology and is actually a very interesting read in its own right.

http://www.archive.org/details/lawntennisathom00myergoog

5

I ran searches for a few terms in "Lawn Tennis" and yes, "volley" is used there only to mean shots that are taken in the air (plus half-volleys).

And I think your suggestion about editors/typesetters is possible, although in the 1919 article I'm not sure why they would change the term "rally" to "volley" (if that's what happened) and yet also leave the word "rally" intact in other places in the article.

If the original word there was "rally", it should have been perfectly clear, in context, to an editor/typesetter. Changing it to "volley" (by mistake or intentionally) only increases the potential confusion, because it leaves Myers, in the space of a few words, using the term "volley" in two different ways.

In any case, there are other instances in the New York Times where "volley" means rally.

In the Telegraph book, the 1881 report seems to have yet another use of the term "volley":

... although Renshaw had the worst court to play in and the sun full in his eyes, the champion was wholly unable to do anything with [Renshaw's] service or to meet his volleying. The rallies never exceeded at the opening of the game more than three or four volleys, Renshaw winning every one, till at last a love set stood to his credit ....

Of course in that same passage, "volley" is definitely used once to mean shots taken in the air. But it seems that it's also used interchangeably to mean a shot that's volleyed, so to speak, back over the net -- with context providing the meaning. I'm not 100%, but that's how it looks to me.

The whole topic of terminology deserves a full thread. I got the Daily Telegraph book weeks ago, and whenever I get time to read I've been underlining all the "strange" uses of terminology.

In the 1909 report, "aces" was used to mean points won. Not earned points or winners, just points won.

At other times in that period you see "aces" used to mean what we would call winners, but not just on serves. One writer in the NY Times is careful enough to distinguish between "placement aces" and "service aces"; but most of the time context is the only thing providing the exact meaning. Writers used the term "aces" with its double meaning, in the same article.

Myers himself, in the 1914 report, used the term "strokes" to mean points won (for anyone who owns the book, the 1878 report does the same thing). And yet Myers elsewhere knows that a stroke means what we would call a stroke or a swing; he uses it that way in 1903 in "Lawn Tennis."

So in sum, I just see a lot of instances of words with more than one meaning, being used interchangeably with sometimes only context supplying the exact meaning.

 

[urban]

The whole terminology of tennis is sort of an enigma. Nobody can define precisely, what tennis itself means. Some say it origins from the French word tenez. Or 'love'. Some say, it derivates from the French word for egg. Up until the 60s, writers used the word placements for winners. In German, we say stop for the British word drop shot. And so on.

 

[Datacipher]

I hear you. The origins of the term are of interest to me as an interesting question, in itself; and because in the debate today, you often hear about how the term has been used historically.

so I'll see what else I can find historically: but I wouldn't simply say that whatever was done in the 30s is what we should do now. The origins are relevant, and tradition matters, but ultimately we have to decide for ourselves the value, as you say, of these two things: non-calendar Slams and calendar Slams..

No. Nor would I.

I
I wouldn't say they have equal value. Winning all four titles within a calendar year is more rare than simply winning four in a row at any time (because of the calendar year requirement). And there's more pressure around a calendar Slam..

Yes. Those are the two most basic differences (and they are huge) that I would point to.

I
I used to wonder why the calendar year was made into such an all-important factor -- and I still understand those who feel it is arbitrary; or those who feel that too much is being made of the traditional structure of a Grand Slam. However, I find one point by Urban very persuasive: the concept of the Grand Slam is the perfect season.

Yes, Urban's point is a good to bring meaning/rational to it. Of course, the calender is itself arbitrary! But that is what we use! At some point nearly everything aside from immutable laws of the universe and logic,(although they can be argued to) can be called arbitrary. Certainly though, history does play a part in many decisions...why the FO? Why Wimbledon? Let's make Queens and North Nantucket..or...the grand slam cup... the most prestious!!! But that's one of the nice things about this comparison though...even mathematically, the non-equivalence is clear. The pressure...well that's based on arbitrary decisions like the calender, but nevertheless the pressure now exists and is very real.

And the reason I think this matters is that in tennis we always talk about seasons. We're always talking about calendar years -- who was #1 for 1997, for 2003, for 1980, etc. Who had a great year, who didn't. And so on.

Anyway, that particular concept of a Grand Slam has a long history behind it in tennis. So I think that's important..

Oh absolutely, we've been using this calender for a long time. It's normal to divide up your time periods by this.....I don't think we want to change the tour name to: "the endless malaise that just keeps going and going...."

"what year did he win the USO and was the dominating player for the year? Doesn't matter! It's all one long narrative....this begat that..." ;-)

And it's fair enough to even want to honor the non-calender 4 in a row with a different name, I have no problem with that! But it is DIFFERENT from the accomplishment that has been occupying the name in modern times.

I
However, in sports we also talk across years. We talk about winning 5 Wimbledons in a row, for example. Not everything is about the calendar year. One season ends, and you go into the next one still the "defending champion" of certain titles; you're still thought of as the "holder." From that concept (holding a title), you can speak of holding all the titles at once, and it's a special achievement even without reference to the calendar. .

Oh absolutely. I don't think anybody argues that it's quite an accomplishment. Or that other accomplishments like winning 5 W's is something worth noting!

I

That's where I see a problem, and I don't think it's going away. I'm happy with the modifying terms, "calendar Slam," and "non-calendar Slam." Well, they're not ideal terms. But I think it's far preferable to some other approaches. The approach that says, essentially, "there is only one way to think of the term Grand Slam", does not strike me as persuasive or productive.

I am willing to go along with just about anything, though I'm favour of stopping the drift here. "grand slam" should stay as is, and we can call it "non-calendar slam" or whatever. It's an amazing thing to do....all I would say is, no matter what we call it, we don't call it "exactly" the "same" as certain posters argue. They aren't, and non-calender is lesser. A rare and amazing feat, but nonetheless: lesser.

 

[pc1]

I hear you. The origins of the term are of interest to me as an interesting question, in itself; and because in the debate today, you often hear about how the term has been used historically.

so I'll see what else I can find historically: but I wouldn't simply say that whatever was done in the 30s is what we should do now. The origins are relevant, and tradition matters, but ultimately we have to decide for ourselves the value, as you say, of these two things: non-calendar Slams and calendar Slams.

I wouldn't say they have equal value. Winning all four titles within a calendar year is more rare than simply winning four in a row at any time (because of the calendar year requirement). And there's more pressure around a calendar Slam.

I used to wonder why the calendar year was made into such an all-important factor -- and I still understand those who feel it is arbitrary; or those who feel that too much is being made of the traditional structure of a Grand Slam. However, I find one point by Urban very persuasive: the concept of the Grand Slam is the perfect season. And the reason I think this matters is that in tennis we always talk about seasons. We're always talking about calendar years -- who was #1 for 1997, for 2003, for 1980, etc. Who had a great year, who didn't. And so on.

Anyway, that particular concept of a Grand Slam has a long history behind it in tennis. So I think that's important.

However, in sports we also talk across years. We talk about winning 5 Wimbledons in a row, for example. Not everything is about the calendar year. One season ends, and you go into the next one still the "defending champion" of certain titles; you're still thought of as the "holder." From that concept (holding a title), you can speak of holding all the titles at once, and it's a special achievement even without reference to the calendar.

You can win the USO in September, then the AO in January, and everyone can acknowledge that a streak is taking place. Even the hardcore traditionalists about the Grand Slam acknowledge that -- although I guess they do it reluctantly because they don't want to see the term "Grand Slam" suddenly being applied to a lesser achievement.

And I understand that, but the term has historically been applied across calendar years, right from the start, before Budge. What Budge did was to achieve something even beyond capturing all four titles at once: he created a perfect single season. THAT became, apparently, the exclusive definition of a Grand Slam thereafter, or at least for many decades after Budge. Which essentially left the 4-in-a-row achievement without a name.

That's where I see a problem, and I don't think it's going away. I'm happy with the modifying terms, "calendar Slam," and "non-calendar Slam." Well, they're not ideal terms. But I think it's far preferable to some other approaches. The approach that says, essentially, "there is only one way to think of the term Grand Slam", does not strike me as persuasive or productive.

I think people like to focus on Great Years in any field and since tennis people over the years concentrated on the major tournaments, we believe winning all four majors is an accomplishment of almost superhuman nature.

In the United States we have books on Great Baseball Teams in some years. The same with the Greatest Players in baseball, football, hockey and basketball. So in tennis we often focus on players with the greatest individual years and how great they were at that point in time.

The difference is that in the past and even now, winning majors in tennis is often the same as having a great year. With some experts in the past the number one player was often simply the Wimbledon winner.

So if one manages to accomplish the amazing feat of winning a Grand Slam it is considered an historical performance. The calendar year I would guess is chosen because it is the tennis season, with exceptions in cases recently with the YEC played in January in some years.

 

[Chopin]

Unfortunately I only play chess.

I challenge you to chess.

 

[Chopin]

though I ASSURE you, NO PRO Player ever would even THINK of trading a true grand slam for a wimbledon/USO/AO/FO run...they would laugh in the face of any deity who offered that trade).

I'm on "vacation" from this part of the Boards, but I thought I'd pop in to correct Data's rather narrow minded vision of this issue.

In fact, a player would (Data, please just boldface for emphasis, instead of capitalizing) choose the latter in a number of scenarios. See, Data is unfortunately look at the issue in a vacuum (a problem with the Historians at large) and fails to consider a player's career in proper context. For example, say a player won the mighty "Grand Slam" one year, and then didn't win a single slam the next year, plummeted in the rankings and was eclipsed by his greatest rival. In such a scenario, I think many players would gladly take two slams over two years if it meant keeping a grip on the game and extending his or her dominance on the game.

There are many scenarios and many variations, but things are rarely as simple as Data makes them out to be.

Best,
Chopin

 

[krosero]

No. Nor would I.


Yes. Those are the two most basic differences (and they are huge) that I would point to.


Yes, Urban's point is a good to bring meaning/rational to it. Of course, the calender is itself arbitrary! But that is what we use! At some point nearly everything aside from immutable laws of the universe and logic,(although they can be argued to) can be called arbitrary. Certainly though, history does play a part in many decisions...why the FO? Why Wimbledon? Let's make Queens and North Nantucket..or...the grand slam cup... the most prestious!!! But that's one of the nice things about this comparison though...even mathematically, the non-equivalence is clear. The pressure...well that's based on arbitrary decisions like the calender, but nevertheless the pressure now exists and is very real.



Oh absolutely, we've been using this calender for a long time. It's normal to divide up your time periods by this.....I don't think we want to change the tour name to: "the endless malaise that just keeps going and going...."

"what year did he win the USO and was the dominating player for the year? Doesn't matter! It's all one long narrative....this begat that..." ;-)

And it's fair enough to even want to honor the non-calender 4 in a row with a different name, I have no problem with that! But it is DIFFERENT from the accomplishment that has been occupying the name in modern times.



Oh absolutely. I don't think anybody argues that it's quite an accomplishment. Or that other accomplishments like winning 5 W's is something worth noting!


I am willing to go along with just about anything, though I'm favour of stopping the drift here. "grand slam" should stay as is, and we can call it "non-calendar slam" or whatever. It's an amazing thing to do....all I would say is, no matter what we call it, we don't call it "exactly" the "same" as certain posters argue. They aren't, and non-calender is lesser. A rare and amazing feat, but nonetheless: lesser.

Can't say that I really disagree with anything here. So ... I may see what else I can find historically (and I hope others post their own findings), but as I said above, it won't be to try to prove what we should be doing today.

 

[Datacipher]

I'm on "vacation" from this part of the Boards, but I thought I'd pop in to correct Data's rather narrow minded vision of this issue.

In fact, a player would (Data, please just boldface for emphasis, instead of capitalizing) choose the latter in a number of scenarios. See, Data is unfortunately look at the issue in a vacuum (a problem with the Historians at large) and fails to consider a player's career in proper context. For example, say a player won the mighty "Grand Slam" one year, and then didn't win a single slam the next year, plummeted in the rankings and was eclipsed by his greatest rival. In such a scenario, I think many players would gladly take two slams over two years if it meant keeping a grip on the game and extending his or her dominance on the game.

There are many scenarios and many variations, but things are rarely as simple as Data makes them out to be.

Best,
Chopin

Obviously still smarting over the latest humilation where he tried to condescendingly correct a poster by saying that the missed alternative to moving back on a ball is to take take the ball on the rise...as opposed to taking it shortly after the bounce as the other poster had written! LOL

ANYWAYS, THE ABOVE IS AS USUAL stupid.

Gee, here's another scenario, the deity offers a player in July 2011 the option to get the next 4 in a row and live till next July OR he gets history rewritten to say he won the last two, and then wins the next two and dies in Sept. OMG!!!!! The player would take the 4 in a row to July....WHAT WAS I THINKING??!!

At least the above scenario is plausible. NO PLAYER, even having WON a grand slam, would take the above offer...."oooh...I gotta get that Number 2 guy.....can't let him have a few more months at the top..." LOL. Only a complete imbecile would think any pro player would take the above scenario.

Top pros who win slams know very well what makes history....wait a bit, at number 2 or for that matter #20, and get ANOTHER GRAND SLAM.....duh...OK!!!!! It's A NO BRAINER.

Hi Roger....would you desperately want to take back #1 now, and get the next 4 in a row... but lose the 2011 USO...or would you like to wait lower in the rankings but be guaranteed to sweep ALL 4 next year? Um....gee....wonder what Fed would do....WONDER......

CHOP, YOU"RE JUST A LITTLE DENSE BOY!

 

[Datacipher]

Can't say that I really disagree with anything here. So ... I may see what else I can find historically (and I hope others post their own findings), but as I said above, it won't be to try to prove what we should be doing today.

Excellent, i appreciate the historical info, as I'm sure many other do!

 

[Chopin]

Obviously still smarting over the latest humilation where he tried to condescendingly correct a poster by saying that the missed alternative to moving back on a ball is to take take the ball on the rise...as opposed to taking it shortly after the bounce as the other poster had written! LOL

ANYWAYS, THE ABOVE IS AS USUAL stupid.

Gee, here's another scenario, the deity offers a player in July 2011 the option to get the next 4 in a row and live till next July OR he gets history rewritten to say he won the last two, and then wins the next two and dies in Sept. OMG!!!!! The player would take the 4 in a row to July....WHAT WAS I THINKING??!!

At least the above scenario is plausible. NO PLAYER, even having WON a grand slam, would take the above offer...."oooh...I gotta get that Number 2 guy.....can't let him have a few more months at the top..." LOL. Only a complete imbecile would think any pro player would take the above scenario.

Top pros who win slams know very well what makes history....wait a bit, at number 2 or for that matter #20, and get ANOTHER GRAND SLAM.....duh...OK!!!!! It's A NO BRAINER.

Hi Roger....would you desperately want to take back #1 now, and get the next 4 in a row... but lose the 2011 USO...or would you like to wait lower in the rankings but be guaranteed to sweep ALL 4 next year? Um....gee....wonder what Fed would do....WONDER......

CHOP, YOU"RE JUST A LITTLE DENSE BOY!

You're such a moron data. It's great though as we all get to enjoy your childish capital letter tantrums on a daily basis. You're kind of like the Michael Savage of Talk Tennis, knowledgeable about some things, but also a complete "my way or the highway" lunatic. That being said, I do enjoy how you have scenarios with deities in which the very lives of the players are at stake (clearly you have been reading too many of my posts). By the way, wouldn't some players feel bad that the deity was helping them win these slams? Just saying...Also, who do you have in mind as this deity: some bronzed Greek Goddess or one of those aliens from the original Star Trek?

Really though, you failed to substantively respond to my post. Tennis is not played in a bubble Data and I doubt most pros have given this idiotic topic half the thought that you have.

Still, like I said, it was a creative post with the Doctor Faustus stuff and I'm soft at heart so I'll give you a C-.

P.S. You mean to say a "a dense little boy" not "a little dense boy."

 

[Datacipher]

You're such a moron data. It's great though as we all get to enjoy your childish capital letter tantrums on a daily basis. You're kind of like the Michael Savage of Talk Tennis, knowledgeable about some things, but also a complete "my way or the highway" lunatic. That being said, I do enjoy how you have scenarios with deities in which the very lives of the players are at stake (clearly you have been reading too many of my posts). By the way, wouldn't some players feel bad that the deity was helping them win these slams? Just saying...Also, who do you have in mind as this deity: some bronzed Greek Goddess or one of those aliens from the original Star Trek?

Really though, you failed to substantively respond to my post. Tennis is not played in a bubble Data and I doubt most pros have given this idiotic topic half the thought that you have.

Still, like I said, it was a creative post with the Doctor Faustus stuff and I'm soft at heart so I'll give you a C-.

P.S. You mean to say a "a dense little boy" not "a little dense boy."

The above speaks for itself perfectly. I posted a corrected analogy, and an example, you posted....THIS. LOL! The best part of this troll was doing so and then trying to accuse me of not posting "substantively" LOL! I suppose that would bother anyone who had even a tiny ounce of respect for you. OH THE PAIN!! LOL!

ERRONEOUS REASONING, ERRONEOUS ANALOGY, AND NOW....A FEEBLE REPLY WHICH AMOUNTS TO A CONCESSION. WELL YOUR POST HAD NO CONTENT SO THE TENNIS DISCUSSION IS NOW OVER. I WIN DENSE BOY! LOL

 

[Chopin]

The above speaks for itself perfectly. I posted a corrected analogy, and an example, you posted....THIS. LOL! The best part of this troll was doing so and then trying to accuse me of not posting "substantively" LOL! I suppose that would bother anyone who had even a tiny ounce of respect for you. OH THE PAIN!! LOL!

ERRONEOUS REASONING, ERRONEOUS ANALOGY, AND NOW....A FEEBLE REPLY WHICH AMOUNTS TO A CONCESSION. WELL YOUR POST HAD NO CONTENT SO THE TENNIS DISCUSSION IS NOW OVER. I WIN DENSE BOY! LOL

You don't disappoint. Each day posters can read gems like the above, at which point they burst out laughing at your absurdity. Get back to me when you have something of substance to say instead of something trivial to capitalize.

Once a gain, winning four in a row over two seasons might be preferable based on the context and your failure to acknowledge this is a failure of imagination.

Data, there's a better way though: be nicer and you might find that posting around here will be a more enjoyable experience.

Grade: D

 

[Limpinhitter]

You're such a moron data. It's great though as we all get to enjoy your childish capital letter tantrums on a daily basis. You're kind of like the Michael Savage of Talk Tennis, knowledgeable about some things, but also a complete "my way or the highway" lunatic. That being said, I do enjoy how you have scenarios with deities in which the very lives of the players are at stake (clearly you have been reading too many of my posts). By the way, wouldn't some players feel bad that the deity was helping them win these slams? Just saying...Also, who do you have in mind as this deity: some bronzed Greek Goddess or one of those aliens from the original Star Trek?

Really though, you failed to substantively respond to my post. Tennis is not played in a bubble Data and I doubt most pros have given this idiotic topic half the thought that you have.

Still, like I said, it was a creative post with the Doctor Faustus stuff and I'm soft at heart so I'll give you a C-.

P.S. You mean to say a "a dense little boy" not "a little dense boy."

How did you escape from the booby hatch, again? And how do you manage to type in that straight jacket? Did they forget the leg cuffs? Shortens the step, as you well know.

No surprise that you're a Micheal "Savage" Weiner listening fool, though. So, why did he change his name from Weiner to Savage? Don't you think "Weiner Nation" has a nice ring to it, you Thorzine addled knucklhead?

Grade: J (for juvenile)

 

[CyBorg]

You're such a moron data. It's great though as we all get to enjoy your childish capital letter tantrums on a daily basis. You're kind of like the Michael Savage of Talk Tennis, knowledgeable about some things, but also a complete "my way or the highway" lunatic. That being said, I do enjoy how you have scenarios with deities in which the very lives of the players are at stake (clearly you have been reading too many of my posts). By the way, wouldn't some players feel bad that the deity was helping them win these slams? Just saying...Also, who do you have in mind as this deity: some bronzed Greek Goddess or one of those aliens from the original Star Trek?

Really though, you failed to substantively respond to my post. Tennis is not played in a bubble Data and I doubt most pros have given this idiotic topic half the thought that you have.

Still, like I said, it was a creative post with the Doctor Faustus stuff and I'm soft at heart so I'll give you a C-.

P.S. You mean to say a "a dense little boy" not "a little dense boy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VTW1iUn3Bg

 

[britbox]

You don't disappoint. Each day posters can read gems like the above, at which point they burst out laughing at your absurdity. Get back to me when you have something of substance to say instead of something trivial to capitalize.

Once a gain, winning four in a row over two seasons might be preferable based on the context and your failure to acknowledge this is a failure of imagination.

Data, there's a better way though: be nicer and you might find that posting around here will be a more enjoyable experience.

Grade: D

Chopin, How would winning 4 in a row over two seasons be preferable to a calendar grand slam? I can't see any context where it would be preferable?

 

[Chopin]

Chopin, How would winning 4 in a row over two seasons be preferable to a calendar grand slam? I can't see any context where it would be preferable?

Excellent question.

It would preferable in that it would propel a player's results over two years. Some players might prefer to have two very good years, as opposed to one great year and one very poor year (if it came to that). There are ranking implications, too, but such an explanation is beyond the scope of this response.

Say a player wins all four and then, under intense pressure, fatigue and general "burn-out" has an abysmal next year. Now, say a player wins Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, has a little time to rest, and then makes his assault on the Australian and the French, and goes on to achieve good results the rest of the year. I'd gladly choose this latter scenario over winning all four and burning out.

I agree though that in and of itself, it's "greater" to win all four in a year (though not by as much Data and others would have you believe), but tennis is not played in a vacuum. My response was just a correction of Data's mentality and his destructive influence on these Boards.

Best,
Chopin

 

[Chopin]

How did you escape from the booby hatch, again? And how do you manage to type in that straight jacket? Did they forget the leg cuffs? Shortens the step, as you well know.

No surprise that you're a Micheal "Savage" Weiner listening fool, though. So, why did he change his name from Weiner to Savage? Don't you think "Weiner Nation" has a nice ring to it, you Thorzine addled knucklhead?

Grade: J (for juvenile)

I know you have problems with logic (as illustrated by your other posts), but you'll note that I'm paying no compliment to Data by comparing him to a crazed demagogue like Savage. I read people like Eric Foner, Gordon Wood, Edmund S Morgan, among others, but I doubt you've heard of any of them.

 

[britbox]

Excellent question.

It would preferable in that it would propel a player's results over two years. Some players might prefer to have two very good years, as opposed to one great year and one very poor year (if it came to that). There are ranking implications, too, but such an explanation is beyond the scope of this response.

Say a player wins all four and then, under intense pressure, fatigue and general "burn-out" has an abysmal next year. Now, say a player wins Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, has a little time to rest, and then makes his assault on the Australian and the French, and goes on to achieve good results the rest of the year. I'd gladly choose this latter scenario over winning all four and burning out.

I agree though that in and of itself, it's "greater" to win all four in a year (though not by as much Data and others would have you believe), but tennis is not played in a vacuum. My response was just a correction of Data's mentality and his destructive influence on these Boards.

Best,
Chopin

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, seeing as the rankings are based on a rolling year. Coupled with the fact, that winning a calendar slam puts you in an even more select group. Sorry, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Mustard]

What's impressive about a Grand Slam? Surely it's holding all 4 majors at once, so who cares what order it's in?

If Rod Laver had won 4 in a row from 1968 US Open - 1969 Wimbledon, instead of 4 in a row from 1969 Australian Open - 1969 US Open, how is it a worse achievement? I don't see it at all. Any inferiority is in people's heads.

 

[Chopin]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, seeing as the rankings are based on a rolling year. Coupled with the fact, that winning a calendar slam puts you in an even more select group. Sorry, it doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does. Did you not read the scenario in the second full paragraph?

 

[Chopin]

What's impressive about a Grand Slam? Surely it's holding all 4 majors at once, so who cares what order it's in?

If Rod Laver had won 4 in a row from 1968 US Open - 1969 Wimbledon, instead of 4 in a row from 1969 Australian Open - 1969 US Open, how is it a worse achievement? I don't see it at all. Any inferiority is in people's heads.

It's a value-based judgement certainly, and as I've already pointed out, there might be times when a player would prefer to win four in a row for issues relating to pacing, for example, but these subtleties are lost on most posters here. Wining all four in a year means that you had a better slam results for that year, and has some "prestige" to it (again, this is value-based), while wining four in a row extends results over two years and in some cases may be preferable to a player, contingent on the changing tides of the game.

I read the nonsense going on here as yet another attempt to keep Rod Laver as the Shepherd of the idiot "GOAT" herd. We must accept that Laver is GOAT and that wining all four slams in a single year is by far the greatest accomplishment in the History of the Game!

 

[britbox]

It's a value-based judgement certainly, and as I've already pointed out, there might be times when a player would prefer to win four in a row for issues relating to pacing, for example, but these subtleties are lost on most posters here. Wining all four in a year means that you had a better slam results for that year, and has some "prestige" to it (again, this is value-based), while wining four in a row extends results over two years and in some cases may be preferable to a player, contingent on the changing tides of the game.

I read the nonsense going on here as yet another attempt to keep Rod Laver as the Shepherd of the idiot "GOAT" herd. We must accept that Laver is GOAT and that wining all four slams in a single year is by far the greatest accomplishment in the History of the Game!

I seriousy doubt any player would trade a straight four spanning different years with a calendar slam. Why? The prestige factor.

Like it or not (and you've already mentioned Laver) it holds a higher prestige value. You can assess the accomplishment based on your own preferences but you can't debate the prestige value. It' will never be the same and that is why the constant references to Laver that you find so annoying are still running 30+ years after the event. Ditto steffi graf.

 

[Chopin]

I seriousy doubt any player would trade a straight four spanning different years with a calendar slam. Why? The prestige factor.

Like it or not (and you've already mentioned Laver) it holds a higher prestige value. You can assess the accomplishment based on your own preferences but you can't debate the prestige value. It' will never be the same and that is why the constant references to Laver that you find so annoying are still running 30+ years after the event. Ditto steffi graf.

As I said before, all thing being equal, yes that's true. However, all things are not equal. In fact, the modern Grand Slam has never been accomplished (Laver did it while three slams were on grass) so I'm not sure how much prestige it would have if it actually happened today.

With respect to Laver, I would personally consider winning four in a row over two seasons today to be a greater accomplishment than what Laver did as he did it on only two surfaces (and when the draw size at the Australian was much smaller I believe). In fact, winning 3 slams in a year today is roughly equal to what Laver did in terms of draw size if we add in a big Masters tournament to the mix.

Best,
Chopin

 

[Datacipher]

I seriousy doubt any player would trade a straight four spanning different years with a calendar slam. Why? The prestige factor.

Like it or not (and you've already mentioned Laver) it holds a higher prestige value. You can assess the accomplishment based on your own preferences but you can't debate the prestige value. It' will never be the same and that is why the constant references to Laver that you find so annoying are still running 30+ years after the event. Ditto steffi graf.

It is ridiculous of course. The fact that Chopin argues this shows how little he knows tennis, and again, that he is a ******.

Any pro player would GLADLY take all 4 in a year and then have the next year completely off due to injury, vs 2 a year spread over 2 years.

Anyone, who knows tennis...in the slightest, would know that. It shouldn't even be a question.

 

[Datacipher]

As I said before, all thing being equal, yes that's true. However, all things are not equal. In fact, the modern Grand Slam has never been accomplished (Laver did it while three slams were on grass) so I'm not sure how much prestige it would have if it actually happened today.
n

Holy ******. It would have MORE prestige today, because it hasn't been accomplished in so long. You know NOTHING about tennis...but of course, most posters already knew that.

 

[CyBorg]

The fact that Chopin argues this shows how little he knows tennis, and again, that he is a ******.

Hilarious sentence.

 

[LDVTennis]

It's a value-based judgement certainly, and as I've already pointed out, there might be times when a player would prefer to win four in a row for issues relating to pacing, for example, but these subtleties are lost on most posters here. Wining all four in a year means that you had a better slam results for that year, and has some "prestige" to it (again, this is value-based), while wining four in a row extends results over two years and in some cases may be preferable to a player, contingent on the changing tides of the game.

I read the nonsense going on here as yet another attempt to keep Rod Laver as the Shepherd of the idiot "GOAT" herd. We must accept that Laver is GOAT and that wining all four slams in a single year is by far the greatest accomplishment in the History of the Game!

What player in the history of the game has had the ability (divinity) to plan his or her career so carefully that he or she could actually "prefer to win four in a row for issues relating to pacing"?

This is a ridiculous and unthinkable scenario. As if that weren't ridiculous enough, you follow that statement with this phrase, "but these subtleties are lost on most posters here." What subtlety? LOL.

 

[Datacipher]

I challenge you to chess.

Will Chopin run the chess program, or will it be one of his sockpuppets?

I happen to know, that unassisted, PC1, who is an accomplished player, would destroy Chopin...we all know that Chopin's knowledge of chess..is equivalent to his knowledge of tennis, music, or anything else.... absolute BS. At least next time he'll probably wiki Kasparov before he spells the name wrong AGAIN.

 

[Chopin]

Hilarious sentence.

It is hilarious, CyBorg. How could someone who presents himself as being so smart have such a poor grasp of grammar and sentence construction?

 

[Chopin]

What player in the history of the game has had the ability (divinity) to plan his or her career so carefully that he or she could actually "prefer to win four in a row for issues relating to pacing"?

This is a ridiculous and unthinkable scenario. As if that weren't ridiculous enough, you follow that statement with this phrase, "but these subtleties are lost on most posters here." What subtlety? LOL.

Hey, Data, not me, is the one who brought in the scenarios with a "deity." Your complaint should be towards him. I'm simply posting on his lower level, which I admit was a mistake.

 

[Chopin]

It is ridiculous of course. The fact that Chopin argues this shows how little he knows tennis, and again, that he is a ******.

Any pro player would GLADLY take all 4 in a year and then have the next year completely off due to injury, vs 2 a year spread over 2 years.

Anyone, who knows tennis...in the slightest, would know that. It shouldn't even be a question.

Amazing how you know what any pro would choose in any scenario! Your clairvoyance is incredible, Data. That being said, why are you still such a lousy poster?

 

[Chopin]

Holy ******. It would have MORE prestige today, because it hasn't been accomplished in so long. You know NOTHING about tennis...but of course, most posters already knew that.

It's never been accomplished. Why? Laver never did it--at least not in the way it would happen today. Laver won his majors on only two surfaces, including a major with a smaller draw size than a Masters Series event. What Federer did in winning three in a year is equally, if not more impressive. Many posters don't understand this though which is why Laver's accomplishment is given undue prestige here (though not in the modern tennis world). In short, I'm grounded in reality, Data, not fantasy like you.

 

[Chopin]

Will Chopin run the chess program, or will it be one of his sockpuppets?

I happen to know, that unassisted, PC1, who is an accomplished player, would destroy Chopin...we all know that Chopin's knowledge of chess..is equivalent to his knowledge of tennis, music, or anything else.... absolute BS. At least next time he'll probably wiki Kasparov before he spells the name wrong AGAIN.

Again Data amazes us with his abilities. Let's put it this way Data: the fact that you feel need to attack me personally in every thread, and not only me, but anyone who disagrees with you, says a lot about the issues you have interacting with people. No self-assured person would waste this much time with someone they considered a "troll" unless they were deeply insecure and suffering from anger-management issues. You need to get help, Data. Repeat: you need to get help.

With sympathy,
Chopin

 

[Joe Pike]

I seriousy doubt any player would trade a straight four spanning different years with a calendar slam. Why? The prestige factor.

Like it or not (and you've already mentioned Laver) it holds a higher prestige value. You can assess the accomplishment based on your own preferences but you can't debate the prestige value. It' will never be the same and that is why the constant references to Laver that you find so annoying are still running 30+ years after the event. Ditto steffi graf.

Exactly.
People will refer to Steffi's Golden Grand Slam even in 50 years.

Winning 6 slams in a row (Navratilova) or 8 of 9 in a row (Graf) is almost forgotten even today, though.

 

[Joe Pike]

What's impressive about a Grand Slam? Surely it's holding all 4 majors at once, so who cares what order it's in?

If Rod Laver had won 4 in a row from 1968 US Open - 1969 Wimbledon, instead of 4 in a row from 1969 Australian Open - 1969 US Open, how is it a worse achievement? I don't see it at all. Any inferiority is in people's heads.

Why is beating the whole field in Indian Wells a worse achievement than beating them in Wimbledon?

 

[TMF]

^
Eight years of study to earned your Dr. degree at Harvard will look BETTER than at UCLA on paper. But that doesn't necessary means it was harder to complete at Harvard.

 

[Chopin]

Look, guys, everything is relative. "Prestige" in the context many of you mean is little more than a popularity contest.

 

[Mustard]

Why is beating the whole field in Indian Wells a worse achievement than beating them in Wimbledon?

Because Indian Wells is not one of the four majors.

What a dumb question to ask.

 

[piece]

One chance a year of the calendar year Grand Slam.
One chance a year of the French Open - Australian Open Grand Slam
One chance a year of the Wimbledon - French Open Grand Slam
One chance a year of the US Open - Wimbledon Grand Slam.

Now, tell me why the calendar year way of winning the Grand Slam is a better achievement than each of the other three ways to win the Grand Slam. The truth of the matter is that each of the 4 ways to win the Grand Slam is as brilliant as each other. Instead of recognising this, you just put the latter 3 into a "Mustard Slam" and paint the calendar year Grand Slam as even more unique. The reality is that it's no more unique than each of the other 3 ways to hold all 4 majors at the same time, except for the fact that it looks neater on paper.

You're quite right.

Some just find it hard to rid their minds of the calendar slam/non-calendar slam demarcation. It just as arbitrary as a USO,AO,FO,W slam/non-(USO,AO,FO,W) slam demarcation and as such cannot be used to prove that the CYGS is harder to achieve in a probabilistic sense. You could simply retort that because a CYGS falls into the category of a non-(USO,AO,FO,W) slam it is easier to achieve than a USO,AO,FO,W slam because you only get one chance at a USO,AO,FO,W slam a year whereas you have 3 chances to start a non-(USO,AO,FO,W) slam -- a category of which the CYGS is a part.

Note: I would prefer a CYGS just because I've been conditioned in many ways to find it more special. But I can certainly understand people who feel differently insofar as they place more emphasis on the objective difficulty of achieving something than they do on its cultural prestige.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I know you have problems with logic (as illustrated by your other posts), but you'll note that I'm paying no compliment to Data by comparing him to a crazed demagogue like Savage. I read people like Eric Foner, Gordon Wood, Edmund S Morgan, among others, but I doubt you've heard of any of them.

Yes Chopin, I do have a problem with logic. Unlike you, I'm constrained by it. Your use of the term "crazed demagogue," as a pejorative stands as a glaring example of your hypocrisy and your departure from logic. You, on the other hand, have a problem with humility. You are unconstrained by it.

 

[Chopin]

Yes Chopin, I do have a problem with logic. Unlike you, I'm constrained by it. Your use of the term "crazed demagogue" as a pejorative is a typical example of your hypocrisy and your departure from logic. You, on the other hand, have a problem with humility. You are unconstrained by it.

Professor, Limpin, how nice to see hear from you! Please enlighten us as to what precisely is so objectionable about my "use of the term 'crazed demagogue' " in its context. The Boards will forever be in your debt, good sir.

Regards,
Chopin

 

[Limpinhitter]

Professor, Limpin, how nice to see hear from you! Why don't you enlighten us as to what precisely is so objectionable about my "use of the term 'crazed demagogue' " in its context. The Boards will forever be in your debt, good sir.

Regards,
Chopin

The boards don't give a damn about it, Chopin. This is between you and me. Certainly, a man of your intellect doesn't require any guidance or assistance in these matters. It's right there for anyone capable of rudimentary thinking to see. So, let's just get on with it, shall we.

 

[Chopin]

The boards don't give a damn about it, Chopin. This is between you and me. Certainly, a man of your intellect doesn't require any guidance or assistance in these matters. It's right there for anyone capable of rudimentary thinking to see. So, let's just get on with it, shall we.

No, you brought it up, old friend--why not illustrate your point for the Boards? Do it for the sake of honour.

 

[Limpinhitter]

No, you brought it up, old friend--why not illustrate your point for the Boards? Do it for the sake of honour.

If you're not up to it, just say so. But, don't waste my time with your sandbox tactic of trying to recruit "the board" to your cause. If nothing else is clear, it's clear you have very few, if any friends on "the board." So, let's stop pretending and get on with it . . . old friend. Just you and me.

 

[Chopin]

If you're not up to it, just say so. But, don't waste my time with your sandbox tactic of trying to recruit "the board" to your cause. If nothing else is clear, it's clear you have very few, if any friends on "the board." So, let's stop pretending and get on with it . . . old friend. Just you and me.

What are we pretending and what are we getting on with? Once again, I ask you to backup a statement and you simply back away. Can't you do better, old boy?

 

[Limpinhitter]

What are we pretending and what are we getting on with? Once again, I ask you to backup a statement and you simply back away. Can't you do better, old boy?

I haven't backed away from anything, Chopin. You're either playing dumb or you really are just that dumb. Frankly, I think you're damn phony in every respect. You're a pompous, arrogant, pseudo intellectual, hypocrital troll who substitutes references to putative authors in place of argument because you are not capable of critical, analytical thinking. You certainly don't have much command of the language, and you don’t write very well, although you try to hide that fact with disingenuous embellishments of pseudo politeness. I don't even think you actually play tennis. You know virtually nothing about the game, although you somehow feel free to persist in proffering usupported opinions about it.

So, why don't you just dry up and blow away, Chopin. Seriously! Maybe they'll be more amused with you at a golf forum. OK, maybe not!