When you actually think about it, the Nole Slam is much more impressive than Laver's Grand Slam

[hipolymer]

NA/Mattos or whatever your name is, weren't you saying a few months ago that Djokovic would get to 18-19 slams easily?

And no, if Djokovic gets 2 more slams he will not be GOAT. There are no short cuts for him. He needs to get to 17 or 18 and have a better weeks @ #1 than Federer.

I'm not who you think I am; I'm formerly from MTF.

Also, that's your opinion.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

That argument is the godhead of arbitrariness. Statistically speaking, it's the same likeliness for a player to win a Nole Slam, or a Serena Slam, or a Steffi Slam, as it is to win a CYGS. You can't group all the different Slams into the same grouping, as they all have different start and end dates. What makes the Nole Slam the most difficult Slam of all is the fact that it spans a whole 342 days.

Your argument is the antithesis of logic and reason.

An anecdote: scenario 1: your company competes for a big account. Winning the account relies on you completing 4 tasks in a particular order. Each task is only accessible for execution at a specific time of the year. if any of the 4 tasks is compromised, you must start over from task 1 the following year, potentially pushing the process back a full year.

Scenario 2: your company competes for a big account. Winning the account relies on you completing 4 tasks in a particular order. The tasks are still only accessible at specific times during the year. Compromising the task however allows you to try again at the subsequent task, possibly pushing the process back 3 months.

For this story, in both scenarios, you fail. Which scenario do you see yourself most likely getting fired because of your failure?

 

[fundrazer]

When pretty much all of the big 4 minus Roger have shown us they can't compete at the highest level over an entire season, I'd say the 4 slams in one year is more impressive.

 

[darrinbaker00]

I'm not who you think I am; I'm formerly from MTF.

Also, that's your opinion.

Not unlike your position when you started this thread.

 

[hipolymer]

Your argument is the antithesis of logic and reason.

An anecdote: scenario 1: your company competes for a big account. Winning the account relies on you completing 4 tasks in a particular order. Each task is only accessible for execution at a specific time of the year. if any of the 4 tasks is compromised, you must start over from task 1 the following year, potentially pushing the process back a full year.

Scenario 2: your company competes for a big account. Winning the account relies on you completing 4 tasks in a particular order. The tasks are still only accessible at specific times during the year. Compromising the task however allows you to try again at the subsequent task, possibly pushing the process back 3 months.

For this story, in both scenarios, you fail. Which scenario do you see yourself most likely getting fired because of your failure?

Your analogy fails by virtue of you assigning undue importance to a CYGS. You say that winning the account relies on completing 4 tasks in a particular order, but that's an arbitrary quality designated by YOU

"I" am arguing that there ARE objective differences between the different Slam orders that DO account for a quality of difficulty, that is, the other Slams all take place over a LONGER period of time, while a CYGS occurs within the SHORTEST amount of time.

I am providing facts. You are providing arbitrary subjectivity.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

You can win 6 slams in a row without a CYGS, and I bet that some people would still consider the latter to be superior.

5, 6 , or 56 slams in a row still means you've won at least one CYGS.

It is arguable that 6 slams in a row is more impressive than winning a single CYGS because 6 in a a row automatically means youve won the CYGS.

so the feats have merged.

 

[hipolymer]

5, 6 , or 56 slams in a row still means you've won at least one CYGS.

It is arguable that 6 slams in a row is more impressive than winning a single CYGS because 6 in a a row automatically means youve won the CYGS.

You're not getting it, let's say someone wins the last three slams of one calendar year, and the next three slams of the subsequent calendar year. That's 6 slams in a row, but there is no CYGS there.

 

[darrinbaker00]

5, 6 , or 56 slams in a row still means you've won at least one CYGS.

It is arguable that 6 slams in a row is more impressive than winning a single CYGS because 6 in a a row automatically means youve won the CYGS.

so the feats have merged.

Not necessarily. This year, you win Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open. Next year, you win Australia, Roland Garros and Wimbledon. That's six in a row, but not four in the same year.

 

[darrinbaker00]

Your analogy fails by virtue of you assigning undue importance to a CYGS. You say that winning the account relies on completing 4 tasks in a particular order, but that's an arbitrary quality designated by YOU

"I" am arguing that there ARE objective differences between the different Slam orders that DO account for a quality of difficulty, that is, the other Slams all take place over a LONGER period of time, while a CYGS occurs within the SHORTEST amount of time.

I am providing facts. You are providing arbitrary subjectivity.

In other words, he's wrong because he disagrees with you.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Your analogy fails by virtue of you assigning undue importance to a CYGS. You say that winning the account relies on completing 4 tasks in a particular order, but that's an arbitrary quality designated by YOU

"I" am arguing that there ARE objective differences between the different Slam orders that DO account for a quality of difficulty, that is, the other Slams all take place over a LONGER period of time, while a CYGS occurs within the SHORTEST amount of time.

I am providing facts. You are providing arbitrary subjectivity.

Show us facts that show completing 4 in a row is more difficult when time is extended over a longer time period versus completing 4 in a row in a shorter time period.

Your whole premise is not only both arbitrary and subjective, but fatally flawed as well.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

You're not getting it, let's say someone wins the last three slams of one calendar year, and the next three slams of the subsequent calendar year. That's 6 slams in a row, but there is no CYGS there.

I concede, i see your point now about 5 in a row now.

I agree that some people will place the CYGS higher, but this is getting into grey area as far as what is objectively better. Is 4 in a row from W to FO better than the CYGS, no. 6 in a row, probably but it's definitely more arguable. But it's conjecture at this point.

 

[hipolymer]

Show us facts that show completing 4 in a row is more difficult when time is extended over a longer time period versus completing 4 in a row in a shorter time period.

Your whole premise is not only both arbitrary and subjective, but fatally flawed as well.

The fact is that it's harder to maintain form over a longer period of time. Compare Federer's slam winning form from 2004-2007 to his slam-winning form from 2004-2016. You'll find that he found it harder to maintain his slam winning form during the latter period.

Look at any tennis streak in existence: you'll find that players end up having more trouble towards the end of the streak than when they started it; this is because they are getting more fatigued, or they are experiencing breaks that break up their form, or other players have learned to adapt to streaky player's soon outdated tactics.

The fact is that January-September features less tournaments than June of one year to June of the next. That's 4 whole months of tournaments.

Also, you have yet to address the fact that Laver won his CYGS on 2 surfaces, while Djokovic won his on 4.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

The fact is that it's harder to maintain form over a longer period of time. Compare Federer's slam winning form from 2004-2007 to his slam-winning form from 2004-2016. You'll find that he found it harder to maintain his slam winning form during the latter period.

Look at any tennis streak in existence: you'll find that players end up having more trouble towards the end of the streak than when they started it; this is because they are getting more fatigued, or they are experiencing breaks that break up their form, or other players have learned to adapt to streaky player's soon outdated tactics.

Also, you have yet to address the fact that Laver won his CYGS on 2 surfaces, while Djokovic won his on 4.

First, I've yet to address the surfaces as it has never been part of my premise. For what it's worth, in our conversation, you haven't addressed it either until now, so i honestly neither felt the need nor was i ever inclined to. But if you insist: the disparity between the two surfaces laver played on is greater than the disparity between the 4 surfaces novak played on when winning 4 in a row.

That's a lot of qualitative facts you're providing about players having more trouble in the end (which is preferable in debate as quantitative facts are so black-and-white and anti-philosophical)

I'll argue its more difficult for a player to accomplish 4 in a row in a shorter amount of time as the fatigue sets in sooner compared to 4 in a row in a longer amount of time. Mind you, this argument pertains to comparing 2 instances of non CYGS/4 slams in a row. The CYGS is a level above because it's more requirements and doesn't provide a one month break in the off season right in the middle of accomplishing it.

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm honored to be called that by someone who managed to rack up over 7000 posts in the span of two years

Managed? I had to work hard to do it.

By the way, that works out to around 10 posts a day or perhaps a bit less. You're up to 78 in way less than a week, so you should catch up and pass me in no time!

 

[HuusHould]

I'm sure someone has mentioned that Laver did it twice. Also, if that's how you feel when you think about it, then don't think about it. Laver's was more impressive because he didn't sit down at the change of ends.

 

[HuusHould]

NA/Mattos or whatever your name is, weren't you saying a few months ago that Djokovic would get to 18-19 slams easily?

And no, if Djokovic gets 2 more slams he will not be GOAT. There are no short cuts for him. He needs to get to 17 or 18 and have a better weeks @ #1 than Federer.

I think if he gets 17, the overall weeks at number 1 could be a tie breaker, but I think he can lay claim to being the GOAT if he gets 18. Stanimals prey on GOATs though!?

 

[tennisaddict]

What makes ITF's choice of slam any more or less arbitrary than any other choice of slam? And what does arbitrariness have to do with actual difficulty? The point is that one achievement is more difficult, hence more impressive than the other

You should read my post again as I clearly mentioned why ITF recognizes only calendar slams. It is because of its uniqueness, difficulty , provides a basis for comparison , etc

We don't need to research which sequence is better as the people holding the job have done it for us

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Laver achieved his slams naturally, Cvac didn't, so that is where the comparison ends.

 

[hipolymer]

You should read my post again as I clearly mentioned why ITF recognizes only calendar slams. It is because of its uniqueness, difficulty , provides a basis for comparison , etc

We don't need to research which sequence is better as the people holding the job have done it for us

Your claims are arbitrary at best. Uniqueness? All the ways of winning 4 slams in a row are unique, as they all have different start and end dates. Difficulty? How does it taking place in a span of 100 less days than the Nole Slam make it more difficult? Also, when Navratilova won 4 in a row the ITF called it equal to a CYGS, so either they don't know what they're talking about (likely), or they're liars,

 

[swizzy]

NO IT ISN'T

 

[darrinbaker00]

Your claims are arbitrary at best. Uniqueness? All the ways of winning 4 slams in a row are unique, as they all have different start and end dates. Difficulty? How does it taking place in a span of 100 less days than the Nole Slam make it more difficult? Also, when Navratilova won 4 in a row the ITF called it equal to a CYGS, so either they don't know what they're talking about (likely), or they're liars,

You don't have any friends in real life, do you?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Laver won the 4 slams from the beginning of the AO, at January 20th, to the end of the USO, at September 9th, which is a period of 232 days spanning the 4 slam wins.


Djokovic won Wimbledon starting from June 29th, and won RG on June 5th, spanning a period of 342 days.

January 20 to September 9: (232 days)


June 29 to June 5: (342 days)

That's over a 100 day difference when you compare the two achievements, and as we all know it's much tougher to maintain slam winning form across a longer period of time, as you're more prone to losing your form.


---

Secondly, 3 of the surfaces during Laver's time were on grass, while Djokovic won his Nole Slam on 4 distinct surfaces

---

With these two things in mind, it becomes clear to any sane and rational individual that Nole's Nole Slam is the greatest achievement in tennis, and likely in all of sport.

Thank you for your time.

Not when it came in the weakest era of all time.

#ThanksForPlaying

 

[Tenez!]

Of course it is, but not for the (slightly contrived) reason you mention.

More simply, the 60s were an easier time to compete than today, where the competition is infinitely stiffer and no error is forgiven.
In the 70s many top tennis players were smokers and drinkers. Today people mock Ferrer as unprofessional for lighting one in the off-season.

Sport rules nowadays have also become so settled and unquestionable that they have morphed into a form of religious dogma. Challenge not the rules set out by middle-aged rich white investors at the ATP/ITF!

This is true in many disciplines, at the cost of common sense. Anyone remember Bob Beamon's record of 68? A gross technological mistake - a statistical anomaly that he never replicated - but because sportsviewers with little scientific background got so engrossed in the arbitrary figure given, it remained semi-legendary for decades instead of leading to a more scientific approach of measurement.
Likewise, Rod Laver's achievement was worth very little in the 60s, but today, now that it has become an nigh-impossible bar to cross, people focus far more on the context that on the performance!

It's crazy. There's just no reasoning certain sport fans.
The cliché of blind & dumb fervour is sometimes well deserved.

 

[tennisaddict]

Your claims are arbitrary at best. Uniqueness? All the ways of winning 4 slams in a row are unique, as they all have different start and end dates. Difficulty? How does it taking place in a span of 100 less days than the Nole Slam make it more difficult? Also, when Navratilova won 4 in a row the ITF called it equal to a CYGS, so either they don't know what they're talking about (likely), or they're liars,

It is difficult because

- no off season luxury to recuperate

- you miss the first major and you have to wait 1 more year to achieve the feat. In a player's career say he has 5 peak years, he gets merely 5 attempts to achieve CYGS while they get 20 attempts to do player slam

No matter how you spin it , till such time it is officially recognized player slams are always regarded lower than CYGS

 

[Sentinel]

Of course. Novak has achieved the Novak slam in a much more competitive era. This is one of the strongest eras ever and Djokovic is the king of the castle

.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I don't think comparing a 2 and a half year period with a 1 year period is a good thing to do.

Holding all 4 is always better than holding 3.

And winning 17 Slams is always better than winning 12.

 

[Talker]

Both won four straight.
Even though Djokovic had an additional surface it could be that surfaces were much different in Laver's day.

Nole had to keep his level high after having time off at the end of the year, Laver was riding a hot streak with no interruption.
Other players had time off also to recuperate and get ready for the new year in Djokovic's case.

It's harder to keep your level high for longer periods, a plus for Djokovic.

Djokovic lost much more infrequently than Laver did in that time, it's hard to keep your level redlined.
Laver was up and down during his CYGS with 16 losses.

To me, Djokovic was more impressive when including the whole year.
Everyone has their criteria, no way to tell which one is right.

 

[Username_]

sure, its def more impressive winning it all on different coloured clay

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

And winning 17 Slams is always better than winning 12.

Of course, not denying that.

 

[Zebrev]

Firstly, it's actually harder to win 4 Slams in 200+ days than spread out over 300+ days. Secondly, Nole Slam is nothing compared to Zverev's "Zebra Slam", coming in 2020.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I have actually thought about it.

Laver's feat is still supreme.

 

[Apun94]

Well of course Djokovic Slam is more impressive than the Laver Slam.
Tennis was a joke in Laver's day compared to now. Not even going to explain how. It's obvious.
Todays game is at a COMPLETELY different level compared to during Laver's era.
Plus, 3 slams on grass. Come on, seriously, how is this even a competition