Well the data we can only use is looking at players than done it which shows it is as hard to do but CYGS will always be considered betterThat’s the theory. But the actual data over several decades shows they are equally difficult.
Well the data we can only use is looking at players than done it which shows it is as hard to do but CYGS will always be considered betterThat’s the theory. But the actual data over several decades shows they are equally difficult.
I’m just pointing out that the actual data shows they are equally difficult.Well the data we can only use is looking at players than done it which shows it is as hard to do but CYGS will always be considered better
That’s the theory. But the actual data over several decades shows they are equally difficult.
It’s like the difference between a straight flush and a royal flush. Both are consecutive but royal is much harder.
I’m not disagreeing but CYGS will be considered better due to it’s the same season. When people think Fed’s or Djokovic’s best seasons they say 04 or 11 etc not from half way through one too somewhere in the next.I’m just pointing out that the actual data shows they are equally difficult.
I’m just pointing out that the actual data shows they are equally difficult.
Agree as wellI’m not disagreeing but CYGS will be considered better due to it’s the same season. When people think Fed’s or Djokovic’s best seasons they say 04 or 11 etc not from half way through one too somewhere in the next.
But what about a Tsitsipas flush?
Yeah I get your point I presume because if you get #1 in November and lose it in January every season you will end us with not so much but I do get the pointAgree as well
But it does raise the question why some think weeks at #1 is better than YE1 then. Same logic applies
But it does raise the question why some think weeks at #1 is better than YE1 then. Same logic applies
I think both are important measures even if YE1 should be the more relevant (applying to a single season). Similarly winning 4 slams in a row is an incredible achievement but doing so within a single season more so.Yeah I get your point I presume because if you get #1 in November and lose it in January every season you will end us with not so much but I do get the point
No I get the point you make because if you end YE1 regardless if you were number 2 till November it shows that you were the best for the season in the end.I think both are important measures even if YE1 should be the more relevant (applying to a single season). Similarly winning 4 slams in a row is an incredible achievement but doing so within a single season more so.
The notion of "seasons" was a lot less relevant for the 1970's-80's . . . and even into the 90's when there wasn't really a proper "off-season" for tennis. Players played into December, there were the year-end championships, which sometimes happened in January. And the Australian floated around the end-of-year/start-of-year.It’s not arbitrary at all. Holding all 4 slams at the same time doesn’t mean you won them all in 1 tennis season. You won them over 2 seasons.
Again, the AO was the first leg of the Grand Slam for most of it's history. It was the first leg when Borg played there in 1974. The only time he ever played there. He won Roland Garros that year and in '75. But he didn't play the Australian. By the time he ruled tennis, yes it was the last leg of the GS. The fact that he didn't bother to go there, gives you an idea of where the Australian ranked in the minds of the players. And how even the very top players weren't trying to rack up Slam titles at every opportunity (like today) as if automatic Slam titles equaled automatic greatness.AO was the last slam of the year most of that time. Borg always said he would travel to Australia to go for the calendar slam if he had a chance - he kept losing at USO so never had the opportunity.
This is why I will never understand the idea that we can use slams to measure goatness across timeThe notion of "seasons" was a lot less relevant for the 1970's-80's . . . and even into the 90's when there wasn't really a proper "off-season" for tennis. Players played into December, there were the year-end championships, which sometimes happened in January. And the Australian floated around the end-of-year/start-of-year.
Again, the AO was the first leg of the Grand Slam for most of it's history. It was the first leg when Borg played there in 1974. The only time he ever played there. He won Roland Garros that year and in '75. But he didn't play the Australian. By the time he ruled tennis, yes it was the last leg of the GS. The fact that he didn't bother to go there, gives you an idea of where the Australian ranked in the minds of the players. And how even the very top players weren't trying to rack up Slam titles at every opportunity (like today) as if automatic Slam titles equaled automatic greatness.
There were boycotts and lawsuits and all sorts of chaos in the 20 years of Open tennis before the ATP formed the ATP tour. Things were in constant flux, and there wasn't just ONE tour, but competing tours filled with players under contracts and with different goals than the players of today.
By the time he ruled tennis, yes it was the last leg of the GS. The fact that he didn't bother to go there, gives you an idea of where the Australian ranked in the minds of the players. It's And how even the very top players weren't trying to rack up Slam titles at every opportunity (like today) as if automatic Slam titles equaled automatic greatness.
The Grand Slam is The One.
All others -Non-Calendar, Career -are pale imitations invented to make players and their fans feel better about not being able to achieve the Big One.
Eventually you'll grow old and wise enough to agree with everything I've written.I never thought I could ever agree 100% with you
Imho, Borg revered Wimbledon and Roland Garros and focused most of his energies winning both of those event. Five out of Six at Wimbledon and Six Roland Garros Titles places him at the pinnacle of the traditional sport. A feat unequalled by any other male player in the history of Tennis.
That’s not true. The Aussie used to be the last slam of the year. No one made it through the first three, so no attempts to win it down under. Had Borg won one of those US Opens, he’d have been in Australia.It matters because the fans and the powers that be have determined that it matters. Of course it's arbitrary. What isn't?
Caring about the CYGS is arbitrary, to begin with. During most of the Open Era, most players didn't care enough about it to travel to Australia for it. They didn't care enough to not skip Slams every year. It's rarity has made it more important in modern times, that's about it.
This is why I will never understand the idea that we can use slams to measure goatness across time
Losing at the USO might have been his excuse for skipping the Australian in 1978-81 . . . because he couldn't win the Grand Slam. But again, he skipped it in his early years when it was the first leg. And though he could have won it in his peak years (since he was #1, the best on grass, and it had an inferior 64-man field) he didn't even take the trip. It shows the different mindset that even the top players had towards the Slams, and racking up titles. Can you imagine a player today, holding two of the first three Slams and just not bothering to attend the last Slam of the year because the Grand Slam was not attainable?Borg idolised Laver and wanted to emulate his GRAND SLAM feat.
The reason Borg never returned to the AO is because he never won the USO. If Borg had won RG, Wimb and the USO in the same year, it was virutally guaranteed that he would have played the AO. And if that had happened he would have dragged quite a few other players down here to stop him. Connors said he would follow Borg to the ends of the Earth to stop Borg winning the GRAND SLAM.
Imho, Borg revered Wimbledon and Roland Garros and focused most of his energies winning both of those event. Five out of Six at Wimbledon and Six Roland Garros Titles places him at the pinnacle of the traditional sport. A feat unequalled by any other male player in the history of Tennis.
Nope. Read the whole thread, cos its already been mentioned. The Aussie was the FIRST Slam of the year for all but 8 years of the Open Era. That's not saying it's timing was great for a lot of that time. It's saying that there were plenty more reasons why players skipped it besides when it fell on the calendar.That’s not true. The Aussie used to be the last slam of the year. No one made it through the first three, so no attempts to win it down under. Had Borg won one of those US Opens, he’d have been in Australia.
Eventually you'll grow old and wise enough to agree with everything I've written.
I didn't say you weren't!What makes you think I am not old ...
Nope. Read the whole thread, cos its already been mentioned. The Aussie was the FIRST Slam of the year for all but 8 years of the Open Era. That's not saying it's timing was great for a lot of that time. It's saying that there were plenty more reasons why players skipped it besides when it fell on the calendar.
Heck, technically it wasn't even a part of the same TOUR as the other three Slams. It was part of the World Championship Tennis Tour and not the Grand Prix Tour (which had Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the USO).
Losing at the USO might have been his excuse for skipping the Australian in 1978-81 . . . because he couldn't win the Grand Slam. But again, he skipped it in his early years when it was the first leg. And though he could have won it in his peak years (since he was #1, the best on grass, and it had an inferior 64-man field) he didn't even take the trip. It shows the different mindset that even the top players had towards the Slams, and racking up titles. Can you imagine a player today, holding two of the first three Slams and just not bothering to attend the last Slam of the year because the Grand Slam was not attainable?
The discussion isn't about Borg. The discussion is about the CYGS, and how it wasn't relevant to most players in the first 20 years of the Open Era. The discussion is about how important the CYGS is viewed now as opposed to then. And about how the Australian was not (apart from the Australian players) the sought after prize that it is today....years when the only person to win the channel slam, Borg - three times, would have completed the slam in Australia had he won the US Open. That's why it's relevant. Given that no one in the Open Era from 1969 to 2008 won the channel slam other than Borg, I hardly see how your point is relevant. Guys capable of winning the first three slams of the year would have played in all four to equal Laver's feat. Only Borg was even close... and he never made it over the third hurdle.
No but you make 100,000 in a rowIf you make $50,000 in August and $50,000 next May, do you make $100k a year?
So earning 100k from January-December is better than earning 100k from July-June? It's a higher salary?If you make $50,000 in August and $50,000 next May, do you make $100k a year?
Even with having just NCYGS he stands alone. Fedal don't have it.
No but you make 100,000 in a row
That’s the theory. But the actual data over several decades shows they are equally difficult.
But again, he skipped it in his early years when it was the first leg. And though he could have won it in his peak years (since he was #1, the best on grass, and it had an inferior 64-man field) he didn't even take the trip.
I'm not doubting the statement, but that's strange. Why should a title that had no value for a player suddenly get that value only because it stops a certain other player from winning it? I cannot understand that kind of thinking. As if it's not about winning for oneself, but about losing for another one. Where is the special gain, the special joy about it?Connors said he would follow Borg to the ends of the Earth to stop Borg winning the GRAND SLAM.
I'm not doubting the statement, but that's strange. Why should a title that had no value for a player suddenly get that value only because it stops a certain other player from winning it? I cannot understand that kind of thinking. As if it's not about winning for oneself, but about losing for another one. Where is the special gain, the special joy about it?
It's not a "theory" - it's mathematical probability. Your response is the equivalent of saying, "Well, in theory we should get 50% heads and 50% tails from a coin toss. But I've tossed the coin 100 times and data shows that heads happens 70% of the time and tails 30%."
It’s a little like the debate about the Channel Slam. A lot of posters here have convinced themselves that the Channel Slam is the most difficult dual slam to win and also are convinced that this is self evident. But the data doesn’t support that view.
It’s not enough to know how many times the Channel Slam was won. You need to compare with all the other two slam win options. Others did the calculations in the past here, at least for the Open Era, and the Channel Slam was not the most difficult.In the Men's Singles ...
From 1930 onwards ...
Crawford 1933
Perry 1935
Budge 1938 (GRAND SLAM)
Patty 1950
Trabert 1955
Laver 1962 (GRAND SLAM)
In the 53 years of the Open Era ...
Laver 1969 (GRAND SLAM)
Borg 1978, 1979,1980
Nadal 2008, 2010
Federer 2009
Djokovic 2021
So in 88 seasons, the Channel Slam has only been achieved 14 times.
The Channel Slam was difficult to win prior to 2000 because the playing conditions at RG and Wimbledon were so different and the tournaments were spaced only 2 to 4 weeks apart. Imho, this makes Borg's achievement incredibly significant.
Post 2000 it became very difficult because Federer basically dominated on Grass and Nadal dominated on Clay. Those two would cancel each other out and it was extrremely unlikely that nay other player would beat both of them on their favoured surface. It should be noted that Federer achieved his Channel Slam without beating Nadal at RG wheres Nadal did beat Federer at Wimbledon to achieve his rist one in 2008.
Of course four Major Titles in a row is always going to be more difficult but that achievement encompasses a Channel Slam anyway.
And I still maintain that the easiest way to achieve 4 in a row has always been by winning Wimbledon first, then USO, then AO, then RG.
Others did the calculations in the past here, at least for the Open Era, and the Channel Slam was not the most difficult.
same applies to “the easiest way to win 4 in a row”. The data doesn’t support your view