Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by aphex, Jan 13, 2011.
Pictures are best to explain things to aphex. Good choice guys.
Is that the breakfast you make Jolly after you've spent the night together?
What a good little wife you are..
Yes, yes it is!
I make him a grand slam and then I pinch myself and ask, am I dreaming? Am I really j011y's girl?
Yes, yes I am!
I'm luckiest girl in the world! And I'm hot too!
to do it in a single calendar year adds a lot of pressure, imo.
let's say one starts off winning the aussie and builds up steam all the way through wimby, but he/she loses at the uso. no biggie. wait four months and your tally will start back up again in order to get the grand slam.
with that in mind: one is playing the aussie and they lose, they have to wait a whole year to attempt to achieve the grand slam. he/she can attempt to win four in a row when ever he feels like it and can restart the 4 in a row journey after any given loss at the majors, but the grand slam has a set timeline every year where a loss at the majors means you start your journey back up at OZ the following season.
postscript: this has probably been said before, but i figured, why not beat it to death some more.
The calendar year Grand Slam is 4 majors in a row, just like the non-calendar versions of the Grand Slam.
Being ranked number one for one week in February is just like getting the Year End Number One.
4 majors in a row are 4 different majors, just like the non-in-a-row versions.
Scoring 3 goals in one match is just scoring 3 goals, just like scoring them in different matches.
It's not so impressive because Federer has not won it.
I understand you want to mock those who think 4 in a row is the same as THE grand slam, but you could chose an appropriate analogy , not this !
Uh? If you're the year end number 1, it's going to be for more than 1 week.
If Nadal won it.. it would be fake and ghey.
LOL, make it 5-6 weeks in Feb-March then ..
Is it the same as ending the year as #1 ?
It's the same number of weeks, so yes. The year-end stuff is again about looking good on a bureaucrat's piece of paper. The rankings always take into account tennis players' results from the past 52 weeks, so how the heck are the year-end rankings superior in any way?
Are you seriously going to suggest that Agassi's 30 weeks at number 1 in 1995 (10th April - 5th November) are inferior to Roddick's 13 weeks at number 1 from 8th November 2003 - 1st February 2004, just because Agassi's wasn't a year-end?
It is a very good analogy.
We can discuss several stages:
Winning 4 slams is impressive.
Some people say winning 4 DIFFERENT slams is even more impressive, they call this the Career Grand Slam.
Then there some people who say winning those 4 different slams IN A ROW is still more impressive than the Career Grand Slam and they call it the Non-Calendar Grand Slam.
And for most people winning those 4 different slams in a row it is most impressive if they are won WITHIN ONE CALENDAR year. And they call it "the Grand Slam".
But to say there is no difference between, say, Stage 2 and Stage 3 ("because 4 different slams are 4 different slams") is idiotic.
As it is to say there is not difference between Stage 3 and Stage 4 ("because 4 slams in a row are 4 slams in a row").
The other threads about this subject weren't sufficient?
Trollboy is at it again.
How about winning 4 slams in a leap year, even more difficult since if you miss, you have to wait FOUR YEARS for another chance.
That's the real deal, guys.
And guess who is the only one who ever achieved that ...
Excellent description of Ralph!
Separate names with a comma.